Legitimating global governance: publicisation, affectedness, and the Committee on World Food Security

ABSTRACT

Though global governance theorists disagree on the standard by which the legitimacy of global governance arrangements might be assessed, they do exhibit a degree of consensus on the need for more civil society participation to bridge legitimacy deficits therein. One important sub-stream of this discussion has involved assessing, therefore, the relative strengths and weaknesses of two key principles through which legitimate participants within global governance might be recognised: the ‘all-affected principle’ and the ‘all-subjected principle’. In this paper, I shift the focus of this debate to a case study with two elements. The first involves the invocation of affectedness by civil society actors as part of their attempt to reconfigure or ‘publicise’ the relationship between food system actors and global governance. The second element of the case study focusses on the principles, practices, and mechanisms that have been adopted by civil society to facilitate the participation of the affected in a global governance body that is an important site for the publicisation struggle: the Committee on World Food Security. This case study reveals both what is at issue in the choice of principles of inclusion and a methodology through which the all-affected principle can be applied.

KEYWORDS:

• Civil society
• democratisation
• governance
• participation and power
• United Nations
• resistance and activism

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my continued gratitude to the affected publics and facilitators whose ongoing labours are a source of inspiration for my work. I would also like to thank Coventry University for a Pump Prime research grant (13613-13) that enabled the research for this paper. And finally, I would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their very useful thoughts and suggestions.

Notes

1. The New York Times, “Farming is Korean’s Life.”

2. Brasset and Tsingou, “Legitimate Global Governance”; Scholte, “Towards Greater Legitimacy”; Keohane, “Global Governance and Legitimacy.”; Higgot and Erman, “Deliberative Global Governance.”; Held, “Law of States.”; Held, “Reframing Global Governance”; and Fraser, “Transnationalising the Public Sphere.”

3. Scholte, “Towards Greater Legitimacy.”

4. Higgot and Erman, “Deliberative Global Governance.”

5. Held, “Law of States.”; Held, “Reframing Global Governance.”; Fraser, “Transnationalising the Public Sphere.”; and Fraser, “Publicity, Subjection, Critique.”

6. Näsström, “All-affected Principle,” 124.

7. See Fraser, “Transnationalising the Public Sphere.”

8. Fraser, “Publicity, Subjection, Critique,” 168.

9. Owen, ‘Dilemmas of Inclusion.”

10. Fraser, “Publicity, Subjection, Critique,” 153.

11. The idea of the publicisation struggle builds on and develops earlier analysis of the engagement of food sovereignty social movements in the CFS from the perspective of public sphere theory. See: Brem-Wilson, La Vía and UN; Brem-Wilson “Affected Publics Institutional Dynamics”; and McKeon, Food Security Governance, 262–263.

12. La Vía Campesina, “International Peasant’s Voice.”

13. Nyéléni 2007 – Forum for Food Sovereignty, “Declaration of Nyéléni.”

14. Nyéléni Newsletter, “About Us.”

15. Nyéléni Newsletter, “Commons for Food Sovereignty” (emphasis added).

16. IPC, “Peasants Life to Biodiversity” (emphasis added).

17. IPES-Food, “New Expert Panel.”

18. IPES-Food, “Too Big to Feed,” 5 (emphasis added).

19. The author was present at both attempts.

20. IPES-Food, “Too Big to Feed,” 11.

21. Rojas/La Vía Campesina, “Affected Unite!”

22. ‘Nilce “Nicinha” de Souza Magalhães was one of the leaders of the Movement of People Affected by Dams (Movimento dos Atingidos por Barragens – MAB), a social movement founded in the 1970s that sought to advocate for the rights of people affected by the construction of dams. Nilce de Souza Magalhães was active in denouncing human rights violations perpetrated by the consortium Sustainable Energy of Brazil (Energia Sustentável do Brasil – ESBR) in the construction of the Usina Hidrelétrica (UHE) in Jirau, Porto Velho.’ Front Line Defenders, “Nilce De Souza Magalhães.”

23. See Note 21.

24. Treaty Alliance, “History.”

25. TNI, “Global Campaign Launched.”

26. Global Campaign, “Why the Global Campaign?”

27. ‘Human Rights Council, “Instrument On Transnational Corporations.”

28. Global Campaign, “Call to International Action.”

29. Ibid., 2.

30. Ibid., 3.

31. See also in this Special Edition: Heri, “Rise of Peasant Rights.”

32. ECVC, “Wealth States Responsibility.”

33. Borras Jr. and Franco, “Transnational Agrarian Movements,” 38; and Brem-Wilson, “Affected Publics, Institutional Dynamics.”

34. La Vía Campesina, “La Vía Campesina?” (emphasis added).

35. See Note 13.

36. IPC (International Planning Committee for Food Sovereignty), “Statement from Paarl.”

37. La Vía Campesina, “International Conferences.”

38. CSM, “The CSM Forum.”

39. McKeon, UN and Civil Society, 90.

40. Duncan, Global Food Security Governance; Gaarde, Peasants Negotiating Global Policy; and McKeon, Food Security Governance.

41. Interview, Senior UN Official, 2009.

42. Warner, “Publics and Counterpublics.”

43. Fraser, “Rethinking the Public Sphere.”

44. As also captured by Heri: Heri, “Rise of Peasant Rights.”

45. For example, the appeal made by the Indigenous activist that oil contamination of the Pacific North–West will affect the communities dependent upon its waters can in principle be more or less concretely verified or refuted, with reference to such information as the scale of potential pipeline ruptures; their typical effects upon marine or coastal life; and the range of Indigenous peoples’ potential livelihood activities affected by this.

46. Something that Fraser acknowledges in the case of the all-subjected principle, but not, perhaps inconsistently given her commitment to public rationality, for the all-affected principle. See: Fraser, Scales of justice, 70.

47. CFS, “Reform of the Committee,” 1.

48. Duncan, Global Food Security Governance; Gaarde, Peasants Negotiating Global Policy; McKeon, Food Security Governance; and Brem-Wilson, “Affected Publics Institutional Dynamics.”

49. CFS, “Reform of the Committee,” 4.

50. Brem-Wilson, “Towards Food Sovereignty,” 7.

51. The principle that civil society were autonomously responsible for their own participation meant that CFS wasn’t being asked to ‘authorise’ this proposal.

52. CFS, “Final Report 2010.”

53. CSM, “What is the CSM.”

54. This section is predominantly informed by 11 in-depth interviews conducted between Feb–May 2018 focusing on the activities and experiences of actors performing key facilitation roles in the CSM.

55. Action-Aid, IPC and Oxfam International, “Civil Society Mechanism Proposal,” 2 (emphasis added).

56. Ibid.

57. Ibid., 7.

58. Ibid., 4.

59. Interview, CSM Facilitator, 15 March 2018.

60. Action-Aid, IPC and Oxfam International, “Civil Society Mechanism Proposal,” 3.

61. Ibid., 3.

62. Weiss et al., “Non-State Actors,” 4.

63. As captured in previous studies examining the specific history of La Vía Campesina, and the more general history of the food sovereignty movement’s engagement with the UN. Desmarais, La Vía Campesina; and McKeon, UN and Civil Society.

64. For additional perspective on facilitation dynamics in the CFS see, also: Schramm & Sändig, “Affectedness Alliances”; Gaarde, Peasants Negotiating Global Policy; and Brem-Wilson, “Affected Publics Institutional Dynamics.”

65. The Guardian, “NGOs Media Attention.”

66. Interview, social movement participant, and facilitator in the CSM, 16 April 2018.

67. The author assisted with the design, building, and administration of the survey.

68. This is not to suggest that the challenge of securing the effective participation of social movement actors and affected constituencies has been resolved. As of yet, no one has systematically analysed the extent to which all affected constituencies that wish to, or have attempted to, have been able to participate effectively in the CFS. There is general recognition amongst CSM facilitators, however, that the learning curve is very steep, and long, and that significant barriers still exist.

69. CSM, “Guidelines on Internal Functioning,” 4 (emphasis added).

70. Tujan et al., “Letter on Internal Functioning.”

71. Habermas, Between Facts and Norms, 358.

72. Interview, CSM Facilitator, 13 March 2018.

73. Interview, La Vía Campesina staff person, 9 November 2015.

74. Fraser, “Rethinking the Public Sphere,” 74–77.

75. For example, the CSM’s Guidelines on Internal Functioning state that whilst inclusivity is an important CSM value, when considering which social movements and organisations to give priority to, attention should be paid to the political weighting of participating movements. This is underscored in the same document by the assertion that “all constituencies and sub-regions should ensure that its CC members come from social movements with an irrefutable record in the struggle for their rights’. “Guidelines on Internal Functioning,” 4.

76. Interview, CSM Facilitator, 2 February 2018.

77. Which converge, however, with those of public sphere theory. See: Brem-Wilson, “Affected publics institutional dynamics.” McKeon, Food Security Governance, 262–263.

78. Relatedly, another key issue that I have not had the space to discuss is the impact of the multi-stakeholder character of the CFS for the attainment of the publicisation agenda. For some initial thoughts on this see Brem-Wilson, “Boundary Contestation,” and additional valuable contributions from Zanella et al., “Multi-Stakeholder Participation.”; and McKeon, “Equity and Sustainability.”

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Josh Brem-Wilson

Josh Brem-Wilson is a research fellow at the Centre for Agroecology, Water and Resilience at Coventry University, UK. His research primarily focusses upon finding ways to support social movement activists’ participation in formal policy-making. He is also very interested in the challenge of doing research that concretely assist social movement struggles. Public sphere theory and food sovereignty are important references for his work.