Land governance for agroecology

Abstract

Agroecological transitions aim to redesign the structure of contemporary global food systems to improve food security, ecosystem health, community development, worker livelihoods, and social and ecological justice. A fundamental principle of agroecology is the responsible governance of land. Yet land—as a concept, resource, and territory—is heavily contested through processes of colonization, enclosure, commodification, and financialization. The governance of land and natural resources is also intimately tied to questions of power and privilege—Who governs land? Who benefits, and who is excluded? These questions presuppose an ontological understanding of land that can also be contested: What is land, what purpose(s) does it serve, and for whom? In this article, we review key concepts at the intersection of land governance and agroecology. We take a case study approach to highlight how tensions around ontologies of land mediate agroecological futures in 2 settler-colonial contexts: Brazil and Canada. We then explore how land governance for agroecology might be experienced and understood across different land governance institutions—including relational and community commons, private property regimes, and new forms of hybrid land relations that challenge land privatization. We discuss how these land regimes influence people, landscapes, and agroecological outcomes and conclude with a consideration of the access, equity, and justice implications of different land governance approaches for sustainable food systems.

Agroecology: Can it inform disaster risk management in fragile settings?

“…In short, most of the evidence is indirect or anecdotal. While agroecology principles have been studied and strengthened worldwide, most case studies have traditionally focused on temperate regions and the humid tropics (Bezner Kerr et al, 2019; Runhaar, 2021; Wittman and James, 2022). Also, cases covered in the literature are more agriculture-specific and less bound to agroecology.…”

When, where, and how can land governance overcome path dependency? A trajectory of land governance change

“…Due to competing interests, land governance can change when multiple institutions, sometimes with diverging interests, interact with one another and influence governance practices (Tchatchoua-Djomo, 2018). (Geels and Schot, 2010;Thiel et al, 2015) Triggers a perturbation or crisis that serves as an opportunity for change (Moore et al, 2014) Windows of opportunity specific situations in which favorable conditions emerge for the introduction, adoption, or diffusion of new practices, or innovations (Wu et al, 2017;Moore et al, 2014;Geels, 2004) Leverage When viewed as a system, land governance contains dynamics of competing interests among users, the availability of resources, how users use the resources, and how governance structures regulate the resource use, produce outcomes that influence the resource, users, and the governance structure itself (Goldstein et al, 2023;Wittman and James, 2022). Sometimes, path dependency happens, leading to unsustainable control of land, shaping livelihoods and people's well-being (Doyon et al, 2021;Goldstein et al, 2023;Wittman and James, 2022), as historical decisions and events institutionalize particular interest groups or actors in land governance (Lee et al, 2019;Biitir and Nara, 2016;Javid, 2011).…”

“…These dynamics can also be viewed as a shared mechanism between multiple actors, affecting the users, landowners, and the available land resources (Ostrom, 2009. Viewed as a system, the dynamics of competing interests among users, the availability of resources, how users use the resources, and how governance structures regulate the resource use, produce outcomes that influence the resource, users, and the governance structure itself (Goldstein et al, 2023;Wittman and James, 2022).…”

“…However, in the land governance literature, the dominance of particular interest groups or actors has led to institutionalized path dependency, with historical decisions and events continuing to shape the direction of land governance (Lee et al, 2019;Biitir and Nara, 2016;Javid, 2011). Path dependence in land governance can be equal to unsustainable control of land, shaping livelihoods and people's well-being (Doyon et al, 2021;Goldstein et al, 2023;Wittman and James, 2022). As a result, path dependence in land governance limited the potential for change towards sustainable practices, compromising the functions of land governance Djelic and Quack, 2007).…”