![Sample our Area Studies journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5922/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Area-Studies.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Transnational civil society has risen to decrease the gap between citizens’ concerns and global policy-making. Yet, in many governance areas international NGOs (INGOs) have played preponderant roles. According to a common critique, these INGOs have often been too distant from affected populations. In global food security governance, however, we observe that members of affected populations themselves have been at the centre of transnational advocacy networks. This follows in large part from the struggle of agrarian movements, foremost La Vía Campesina, who have promoted the affectedness principle. This principle holds that advocacy should be conducted by affected persons themselves, usually through affected persons’ organisations (APOs). We argue that APOs and INGOs who have internalised this principle have formed ‘affectedness alliances’. Within these coalitions, APOs represent the concerns of affected populations while INGOs act as supporters. We demonstrate these coalitions at the global level with a particular focus on the UN’s Committee on World Food Security (CFS), and in the transnationalisation of a ‘land grabbing’ case from Sierra Leone. This shows how APOs can overcome participation obstacles, take a central role in advocacy networks and make their voices heard, thereby fostering their agency.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank all interviewees for sharing their views. For critical comments on our draft manuscript, we are grateful to Josh Brem-Wilson, Andreas Hasenclever, Johannes Vüllers, two anonymous referees and the participants of the conference ‘Empowering the Most Affected: A New Paradigm in Global Governance and International Law?’ (Tübingen, November 2017).
Notes
1. Karns, et al., International Organizations.
2. Keck and Sikkink, Activists Beyond Borders.
3. Scholte, Building Global Democracy?; Steffek et al., Civil Society Participation in European and Global Governance; and Bandy and Smith, Coalitions across Borders.
4. Brühl, “Representing the People?”; and Thompson and Tsolekile de Wet, “BRICS Civil Society.”
5. Brem-Wilson, “Towards Food Sovereignty.”
6. Desmarais, La Vía Campesina; Duncan, Global Food Security Governance; Gaarde, Peasants Negotiating; and McKeon, Food Security Governance.
7. Claeys, Human Rights and the Food Sovereignty Movement.
8. Brem-Wilson, “Legitimating Global Governance.”
9. For a notable exception, see Borras et al., “Transnational Agrarian Movements.”
10. To ensure that interviewees felt free to speak their mind, we anonymised all interviewees.
11. See note 2 above.
12. Banks et al., “NGOs, States, and Donors”; and Hasl, “Shifting the Paradigm.”
13. Banks et al., “NGOs, States, and Donors.”
14. Sändig et al., “Affectedness in International Institutions.”
15. Keck and Sikkink, Activists Beyond Borders, 207; and Scholte, Building Global Democracy?
16. See note 2 above.
17. Steffek and Hahn, Evaluating Transnational NGOs; Banks et al., “NGOs, States, and Donors”; and Thompson and Tsolekile de Wet, “BRICS Civil Society.”
18. Fowler, “Authentic NGDO Partnerships.”
19. Pieck, “Transnational Activist Networks.”
20. Prakash and Gugerty, Advocacy Organizations.
21. Barnett, Paternalism beyond Borders; and Granzow, “Between Threat and Infantilisation.”
22. Lake and Wong, “The Politics of Networks”; and Hahn and Holzscheiter, “The Ambivalence of Advocacy.”
23. Stroup and Wong, The Authority Trap; and Chimni, “International Institutions Today.”
24. For instance, on environmental and climate governance, see Toussaint, “Voices Unheard.”
25. Panel of Eminent Persons on United Nations–Civil Society Relations, “We the Peoples,” para. 161.
26. See note 5 above.
27. See note 14 above.
28. Goodin, “Enfranchising All Affected Interests.”
29. Hahn and Holzscheiter, “The Ambivalence of Advocacy”; Fraundorfer, “Experiments in Global Democracy”; and Hasenclever and Narr, “Dark Side.”
30. Hasl, “Shifting the Paradigm.”
31. Reimann, “View from the Top.”; our understanding of norm diffusion draws on Finnemore and Sikkink, “International Norm Dynamics.”
32. Banks et al., “NGOs, States, and Donors,” 713.
33. For a case in point, see Holzscheiter, “Affectedness, Empowerment and Norm Contestation.”
34. Keck and Sikkink, Activists beyond Borders, 12–3.
35. McKeon, Food Security Governance.
36. Ibid.
37. Desmarais, La Vía Campesina.
38. Interview, member of IPC secretariat, Rome, 14 October 2015.
39. Borras et al., “Transnational Agrarian Movements.”
40. Desmarais, La Vía Campesina, 90–102.
41. LVC, “Tlaxcala Declaration.”
42. LVC, “VII International Conference Report,” 1.
43. Borras, “La Vía Campesina,” 268–9.
44. Martínez-Torres and Rosset, “Diálogo de Saberes.”
45. Gaarde, Peasants Negotiating, 143–5.
46. See note 40 above.
47. Interview, Oxfam staff, skype, 18 May 2018; similarly Duncan, Global Food Security Governance, 144.
48. Oxfam, “Oxfam Strategic Plan, 2013–2019.”
49. ActionAid, “Who we are.”
50. Interview, Oxfam staff, skype, 18 May 2018.
51. CFS, “Reform,” para 7.
52. Ibid., para 16.
53. CFS, “CSM Proposal,” para 14.
54. Ibid.
55. Ibid., footnote 3.
56. CSM, “Final Statement CFS 43”.
57. Borras, “Solidarity.”
58. Borras, “La Vía Campesina,”, 265.
59. McKeon and Onorati, IPC Handbook, 6.
60. Duncan, Global Food Security Governance, 136; similarly Gaarde, Peasants Negotiating, 158.
61. Field notes, CFS 43, Rome, 15–18 October 2016.
62. Ibid.
63. Gaarde, Peasants Negotiating, 58.
64. Interview, Oxfam staff, skype, 18 May 2018; Duncan, Global Food Security Governance, 135.
65. See note 61 above.
66. See note 8 above.
67. Field notes, CFS 42, Rome, 10–15 October 2015.
68. See note 35 above.
69. Borras et al., “Challenge of Global Governance,” 170–2.
70. See note 7 above .
71. Interviews, former village chief, village in Socfin area, 2 May 2017; male MALOA activist, village in Socfin area, 2 May 2017; male MALOA activist/secretary, village in Socfin area, 2 May 2017; district councillor, village in Socfin area, 3 May 2017. See also Green Scenery, “Socfin Land Deal.”
72. Yengoh et al., “Factors of Vulnerability,” 337.
73. Interviews, MALOA activist, Bo, 24 April 2017; female MALOA activist, village in Socfin area, 2 May 2017.
74. Interview, MALOA activist, Bo, 24 April 2017.
75. Interview, NGO staff, Freetown, 23 November 2016.
76. Interview, female MALOA activist, village in Socfin area, 2 May 2017.
77. See note 74 above.
78. Interview, NGO staff, skype, 5 July 2017.
79. FIAN Belgium, “Nos Actions” (our translation).
80. Interview, FIAN staff, skype, 18 May 2018.
81. Ibid.
82. Ibid.
83. MALOA, “Gross Abuse of Our Fundamental Human Rights.”
84. Green Scenery, “Imprisonment.”
85. See 75 note above.
86. FIAN Belgium, “Letter to the President.”
87. Ibid.
88. The Spectator Newspaper, “Grateful to Socfin.”
89. Interviews, youths, village in Socfin area, 3 May 2017; FIAN Belgium, “Vote de Protestation.”
90. FIAN, “Accaparement des Terres.”
91. Rainforest Rescue, “Justice for the People.”
92. Interviews, NGO staff, Freetown, 23 November 2016; NGO staff, Freetown, 15 March 2017. See also Green Scenery, “Imprisonment.”
93. FIAN Belgium, “Six Land Rights Activists.”
94. See 80 note above.
95. Regarding LVC see also Gaarde, Peasants Negotiating.
96. CFS, “Evaluation,” 49–50.
97. Fowler, “Authentic NGDO Partnerships,” 151.
Additional information
Funding
Notes on contributors
Annette Schramm
Annette Schramm is a researcher at the Collaborative Research Centre ‘Threatened Order – Societies under Stress’, University of Tübingen. As a political scientist with a background in peace and conflict studies, she is interested in natural resource conflicts, legal mobilisation as well as participation norms in global governance.
Jan Sändig
Jan Sändig is a research fellow in peace and conflict studies at the Collaborative Research Centre ‘Threatened Order – Societies under Stress’, University of Tübingen. His research focuses on armed and non-violent contention in Sub-Saharan Africa and civil society in global governance.