Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-r5zm4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-27T14:58:24.219Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Real Dirt on Responsible Agricultural Investments at Rio+20: Multilateralism versus Corporate Self-Regulation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2024

Birgit Müller  and
Gilles Cloiseau
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article uses a fine-grained anthropological and linguistic analysis to expose the routine negotiating practices and power games behind the conclusion of paragraph 115 on responsible agricultural investments during the Rio+20 Conference in June 2012. These negotiations are simultaneously a telling example for the quotidian stuff of international governance—an arena in which much larger forces are played out through small language-based tactics, and they are representative of an exceptional moment when global multilateral policy making in the frame of the United Nations was challenged by the legitimation of private authority and corporate self-regulation. Combining anthropological and linguistic methods, the article focused on language use, analyzing the ways in which people interact in a highly coded language, how they “perform,” by exploring, playing with, and twisting the grammatical structures of the spoken language. At issue is the large-scale appropriation of agricultural land all over the world by multinational corporations, investment funds, and foreign governments.

115. We reaffirm the important work and inclusive nature of the Committee on World Food Security (CFS), including through its role in facilitating country-initiated assessments on sustainable food production and food security, and we encourage countries to give due consideration to implementing the CFS Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food Security. We take note of the on-going discussions on responsible agricultural investment in the framework of the CFS, as well as the Principles for Responsible Agricultural Investment (PRAI).

Type
Articles
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 49 , Issue 1 , March 2015 , pp. 39 - 67
Copyright
© 2015 Law and Society Association.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

We wish to thank the Ecoverio team for the great collective experience of doing fieldwork together and for all the stimulating discussions. A special thanks to Jean Foyer and Sarah Benabou for commenting on the manuscript and to Elise Demeulenaere and Denis Chartier for sharing the adventure of doing fieldwork at the Rio+20 negotiations on “Food” and for passing on their notes to us. We would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their interesting and challenging comments.

References

Bendix, Regina (2013) “The Power of Perseverance: Exploring Negotiation Dynamics at the WIPO,” in B, Müller., ed., The Gloss of Harmony. The Politics of Policy-Making Within Intergovernmental Organizations. London: Pluto Press 23–49.Google Scholar
Biermann, Frank, et al. (2009) “The Fragmentation of Global Governance Architectures: A Framework for Analysis,” 9 Global Environmental Politics 14–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borras, Jr, M, Saturino., et al. (2011) “Towards a Better Understanding of Global Land-Grabbing: An Editorial Introduction,” 38 J. of Peasant Studies 209–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brenneis, Donald (1988) “Language and Disputing,” 17 Annual Rev. of Anthropology 221–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brenneis, Donald (1994) “Discourse and Discipline at the National Research Council: A Bureaucratic Bildungsroman,” 9 Cultural Anthropology 23–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brenneis, Donald, & Myers, Fred (1984) Dangerous Words: Language and Politics in the Pacific. New York: New York Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Cloiseau, Gilles (2007) Une redefinition de la metaphoricité à l'oral: Mise en place d'outils d'analyse par une approche contrastive. PhD thesis, Univ. of Orléans.Google Scholar
Cotula, Lorenzo (2012) “The International Political Economy of the Global Land Rush: A Critical Appraisal of Trends, Scale, Geography and Drivers,” 39 The J. of Peasant Studies 649–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deininger, Klaus, et al. (2012) Global Interest in Farmland. Can It Yield Sustainable and Equitable Benefits? Washington: the World Bank.Google Scholar
De Schutter, Olivier (2011) “How not to Think of Land-Grabbing: Three Critiques of Large-Scale Investments in Farmland, ” 38 J. of Peasant Studies 249–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, Jessica, & Barling, David (2012) “Renewal through Participation in Global Food Security Governance: Implementing the International Food Security and Nutrition Civil Society Mechanism to the Committee on World Food Security,” 19 International J. of Sociology of Agriculture and Food 143–61.Google Scholar
FIAN a.o., (2010) “Land grabbing in Kenya and Mozambique. A report on two research missions – and a human rights analysis of land grabbing.” Heidelberg: FIA International Secretariat.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. (1976) “Frame semantics and the nature of language,” 280 Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences: Conference on the Origin and Development of Language and Speech 20–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, Barbara (2008) “Dynamics of Discourse,” in Antos, G., Ventola, E., & Weber, T., eds., Handbook of Interpersonal Communication. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter 225–284.Google Scholar
Gal, Susan (2008a) “Language and Political Space,” in Antos, G., Ventola, E., & Weber, T., eds., Handbook of Interpersonal Communication. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter 33–50.Google Scholar
Gal, Susan (2008b) “Perspective and the Politics of Representation,” in Reyes, A., & Lo, A. eds., Beyond Yellow English. Toward a Linguistic Anthropology of Asian Pacific America. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press 325–330.Google Scholar
Gamson, William A. (1989) “News as Framing: Comments on Graber,” 33 American Behavioral Scientist 157–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gamson, William A., & Modigliani, Andre (1987) “The changing culture of affirmative action,” in Braungart, R. G., & Braungart, M. M., eds. Research in Political Sociology. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press 325–330.Google Scholar
Goffman, Ewing (1974) Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. London: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Groth, Stefan (2012) Negotiating Tradition: The Pragmatics of International Deliberations on Cultural Property, Vol. 4, Göttingen Studies in Cultural Property, Göttingen: Univ. verlag Göttingen.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Held, David (2002) “Cosmopolitanism: Ideas, Realities and Deficits,” in Held, D., & McGrew, A., eds., Governing Globalization. Power, Authority, and Global Governance. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing 305–324.Google Scholar
Howe, James (1986) The Kuna Gathering. Contemporary Village Politics in Panama. Austin: Univ. of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Hymes, Dell (1986) Foundations of Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach. Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Korpi, Emma (2013) Understanding the Fragmented Global Governance on Land Grabbing — A Discursive Institutionalist Analysis. Master thesis, Department of Political Science, Lund, Sweden: Lund Univ.Google Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert (1996) Intonational Phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, Georges (2013) “Obama Reframes Syria: Metaphor and War Revisited,” Huffington Post. Available at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-lakoff/obama-reframes-syria-meta_b_3879335.html (accessed 4 November 2014).Google Scholar
Li, Tania Murray (2011) “Centering labor in the land grab debate,” 38 J. of Peasant Studies 281–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Margulis, Matias E., McKeon, Nora, & Borras, Saturnino M. Jr (2013) “Land Grabbing and Global Governance: Critical Perspectives,” 10 Globalizations 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKeon, Nora (2009) The United Nations and Civil Society. Legitimating Global Governance—Whose Voice? London: Zed Books.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMichael, Philip (2013) “Land Grabbing as Security Mercantilism in International Relations,” 10 Globalizations 47–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merry, Sally Engle (2006) “Anthropology and International Law,” 35 Annual Rev. of Anthropology 99–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, Birgit (2013) “Lifting the Veil of Harmony: Anthropologists approach International Organisations,” in Müller, B., ed., The Gloss of Harmony. The Politics of Policy-Making in Multilateral Organisations. London: Pluto Press 1–20.Google Scholar
Oxfam (2011) Land and Power: The Growing Scandal Surrounding the New Wave of Investments in Land. Oxford: Oxfam. Available at: http://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/bp151-land-power-rights-acquisitions-220911-en.pdf (accessed 3 September 2014).Google Scholar
Piot, Olivier (2002) Vers une Théorie Unifiée de la Prosodie du Français et de l'anglais : des Emotions à la Phonologie, PhD thesis in phonetics Université Paris 3 - Sorbonne Nouvelle, Paris, France.Google Scholar
Radtchenko-Draillard, Svetlana (2011) “L'approche cognitive de la négociation. ” 19 Les cahiers psychologie politique (August). Available at: http://lodel.irevues.inist.fr/cahierspsychologiepolitique/index.php?id=1850 (accessed 23 November 2014).Google Scholar
Riles, Annelise (1998) “Infinity within the brackets,” 25 American Ethnologist 378–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riles, Annelise (2000) The Network Inside Out. Ann Arbor: The Univ. of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sassen, Saskia (2013) “Land Grabs Today: Feeding the Disassembling of National Territory,” 10 Globalizations 25–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sauter, Disa A., Panattoni, Charlotte, & Happé, Francesca (2013) “Children's Recognition of Emotions from Vocal Cues, ” 31 British J. of Developmental Psychology 97–113.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scherer, Klaus R., Robert Ladd, D., & Silverman, Kim E. A. (1984) “Vocal Cues to Speaker Affect: Testing two models,” 76 J. of the Acoustical Society of America 1346–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yankah, Kwesi (1995) Speaking for the Chief. Okyeame and the Politics of Akan Royal Oratory. Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press.Google Scholar