1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Environment and Resources
  4. Volume 47, 2022
  5. Article

Annual Review of Environment and Resources

Volume 47, 2022

Transnational Social Movements: Environmentalist, Indigenous, and Agrarian Visions for Planetary Futures

Abstract

Environmentalist, Indigenous, and agrarian and food justice movements that mobilize across and beyond national borders are demanding recognition and participation in debates and policies that shape planetary futures. We review recent social movements that challenge agendas set by corporations, elites, states, conservative movements, and some international governance institutions. We pay particular attention to novel concepts that emerged from or were popularized by these movements, such as environmental justice, climate debt, Indigenous-led conservation, food sovereignty, agroecology, extractivism, and (“Living Well”). Such concepts and agendas increasingly enter international governance spaces, influence global policy debates, build innovative institutions, and converge across class, geographic, and sectoral lines. Although they face daunting obstacles—particularly the free-market zealotry that dominates international policymaking and the agribusiness, mining, energy, and other corporate-philanthropic lobbies—the visions proffered by these movements offer new possibilities for creating a world that prioritizes the intrinsic value of nature and all its beings.

Keyword(s): climate justice, ecological debt, extractivism, food sovereignty, international governance, social movements
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-112320-084822
2022-10-17
2024-04-25
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/energy/47/1/annurev-environ-112320-084822.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-112320-084822&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. 1.
    Tormos-Aponte F, García-López GA. 2018. Polycentric struggles: the experience of the global climate justice movement. Environ. Policy Gov. 28:4284–94
     [Google Scholar]
  2. 2.
    Raworth K. 2017. A Doughnut for the Anthropocene: humanity's compass in the 21st century. Lancet Planet. Health 1:248–49
     [Google Scholar]
  3. 3.
    Gore C. 2015. The post-2015 moment: towards Sustainable Development Goals and a new global development paradigm. J. Int. Dev. 27:6717–32
     [Google Scholar]
  4. 4.
    Bhattacharya D, Ordóñez Llanos A, eds. 2016. Southern Perspectives on the Post-2015 International Development Agenda London: Routledge
  5. 5.
    Casas-Cortés MI, Osterweil M, Powell DE. 2008. Blurring boundaries: recognizing knowledge-practices in the study of social movements. Anthropol. Q. 81:117–58
     [Google Scholar]
  6. 6.
    Stoddard I, Anderson K, Capstick S, Carton W, Depledge J et al. 2021. Three decades of climate mitigation: Why haven't we bent the global emissions curve?. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 46:653–89
     [Google Scholar]
  7. 7.
    Estes N. 2019. Our History Is The Future: Standing Rock Versus the Dakota Access Pipeline, and the Long Tradition of Indigenous Resistance New York: Verso
  8. 8.
    Martínez-Torres ME, Rosset PM 2010. La Vía Campesina: the birth and evolution of a transnational social movement. J. Peasant Stud. 37:1149–75
     [Google Scholar]
  9. 9.
    Kothari A, Salleh A, Escobar A, Demaria F, Acosta A, eds. 2019. Pluriverse: A Post-Development Dictionary New Delhi: Tulika Books/AuthorsUpFront
  10. 10.
    Martinez-Alier J, Temper L, Del Bene D, Scheidel A. 2016. Is there a global environmental justice movement?. J. Peasant Stud. 43:3731–55
     [Google Scholar]
  11. 11.
    Artelle KA, Zurba M, Bhattacharyya J, Chan DE, Brown K et al. 2019. Supporting resurgent Indigenous-led governance: a nascent mechanism for just and effective conservation. Biol. Conserv. 240:108284
     [Google Scholar]
  12. 12.
    Acosta A. 2017. Post-extractivism: from discourse to practice. — reflections for action. Int. Dev. Policy—Rev. Int. Polit. Dév. 9:977–101
     [Google Scholar]
  13. 13.
    Gudynas E. 2015. Extractivismos: ecología, economía y política de un modo de entender el desarrollo y la naturaleza Cochabamba, Bol.: CEDIB
  14. 14.
    Rosset PM, Altieri MA. 2017. Agroecology: Science and Politics Rugby, UK: Practical Action Publ.
  15. 15.
    Herren HR, Haerlin B, IAASTD+10 Advisory Group, eds. 2020. Transformation of Our Food Systems: The Making of a Paradigm Shift. Reflections Since IAASTD - 10 Years On Bochum, Zürich: Zukunftsstiftung Landwirtschaft & Biovision
  16. 16.
    Rimmer M 2015. Indigenous Intellectual Property: A Handbook of Contemporary Research Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publ.
  17. 17.
    MacInnes A, Colchester M, Whitmore A. 2017. Free, prior and informed consent: how to rectify the devastating consequences of harmful mining for indigenous peoples. Perspect. Ecol. Conserv. 15:3152–60
     [Google Scholar]
  18. 18.
    Berros MV. 2021. Challenges for the implementation of the rights of nature: Ecuador and Bolivia as the first instances of an expanding movement. Latin Am. Perspect. 48:3192–205
     [Google Scholar]
  19. 19.
    Ciplet D. 2017. Subverting the status quo? Climate debt, vulnerability and counter-hegemonic frame integration in United Nations climate politics—a framework for analysis. Rev. Int. Polit. Econ. 24:61052–75
     [Google Scholar]
  20. 20.
    Bullard RD. 2021. Environmental justice: once a footnote, now a headline. Harvard Environ. Law Rev. 45:243–48
     [Google Scholar]
  21. 21.
    Agyeman J, Schlosberg D, Craven L, Matthews C. 2016. Trends and directions in environmental justice: from inequity to everyday life, community, and just sustainabilities. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 41:321–40
     [Google Scholar]
  22. 22.
    Pellow DN. 2017. What is Critical Environmental Justice? New York: Wiley
     [Google Scholar]
  23. 23.
    Sze J. 2019. Environmental Justice in a Moment of Danger Berkeley, CA: University of Calif. Press
  24. 24.
    Anguelovski I, Connolly J, Brand AL 2018. From landscapes of utopia to the margins of the green urban life. City 22:3417–36
     [Google Scholar]
  25. 25.
    Checker M. 2020. The Sustainability Myth: Environmental Gentrification and the Politics of Justice New York: New York Univ. Press
  26. 26.
    Gould K, Lewis T. 2016. Green Gentrification: Urban Sustainability and the Struggle for Environmental Justice London: Routledge
  27. 27.
    Porter L, Rickards L, Verlie B, Bosomworth K, Moloney S et al. 2020. Climate justice in a climate changed world. Plann. Theory Pract. 21:2293–321
     [Google Scholar]
  28. 28.
    Bruno K, Karliner J, Brotsky C. 1999. Greenhouse gangsters versus climate justice Rep. Transnatl. Resour. Action Cent. San Francisco:
  29. 29.
    International Climate Justice Network 2002. Bali Principles of Climate Justice. CorpWatch Aug. 28. https://www.corpwatch.org/article/bali-principles-climate-justice
    [Google Scholar]
  30. 30.
    Schlosberg D, Collins LB. 2014. From environmental to climate justice: climate change and the discourse of environmental justice. WIREs Clim. Change 5:3359–74
     [Google Scholar]
  31. 31.
    della Porta D, Parks L 2014. Framing processes in the climate movement: from climate change to climate justice. Routledge Handbook of the Climate Change Movement H Garrelts, M Dietz 19–30 London: Routledge
     [Google Scholar]
  32. 32.
    Goeminne G, Paredis E. 2010. The concept of ecological debt: some steps towards an enriched sustainability paradigm. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 12:5691–712
     [Google Scholar]
  33. 33.
    Acción Ecológica 1999. ¡No más saqueo, nos deben la deuda ecológica!. Ecol. Política125–33
     [Google Scholar]
  34. 34.
    McMichael P. 2009. Contemporary contradictions of the Global Development Project: geopolitics, global ecology and the ‘development climate. .’ Third World Q. 30:1247–62
     [Google Scholar]
  35. 35.
    Robleto ML, Marcelo W 1992. La deuda ecológica, una perspectiva sociopolítica Santiago, Chile: Inst. Ecol. Política
  36. 36.
    Jernelöv A. 1992. Swedish Environmental Debt: A Report from the Swedish Advisory Council Stockholm: Allmänna Förl
  37. 37.
    Warlenius R, Pierce G, Ramasar V, Quistorp E, Martínez Alier J et al. 2015. Ecological debt: history, meaning and relevance for environmental justice Rep. 18 Environ. Justice Organ. Liabil. Trade Barcelona, Spain:
     [Google Scholar]
  38. 38.
    Barco V. 1989. Los países industrializados tienen una deuda ecológica con la humanidad. Colomb. Int. 6:29–31
     [Google Scholar]
  39. 39.
    Castro F 2010. Tomorrow will be too late. The Global Fight for Climate Justice: Anticapitalist Responses to Global Warming and Environmental Destruction I Angus 17–18 Black Point, NS, Can.: Fernwood Publ.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. 40.
    Burke I. 2018. The impact of Laudato si’ on the Paris Climate Agreement White Pap. 3 Liecht. Inst. Self-Determ., Sch. Int. Aff., Princeton Univ. Princeton, NJ:
  41. 41.
    World People's Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth 2010. Final conclusions working group 8: climate debt. World People's Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth https://pwccc.wordpress.com/2010/04/30/final-conclusions-working-group-n%c2%ba-8-climate-debt/
    [Google Scholar]
  42. 42.
    Kashwan P, Ribot J. 2021. Violent silence: the erasure of history and justice in global climate policy. Curr. Hist. 120:829326–31
     [Google Scholar]
  43. 43.
    US Clim. Act. Netw 2020. The US Climate Fair Share. The US Climate Fair Share https://usfairshare.org/
    [Google Scholar]
  44. 44.
    Jaria i Manzano J, Cardesa-Salzmann A, Pigrau A, Borràs S. 2016. Measuring environmental injustice: how ecological debt defines a radical change in the international legal system. J. Political Ecol. 23:26381–93
     [Google Scholar]
  45. 45.
    Healy H, Martínez-Alier J, Temper L, Walter M, Gerber J-F. 2013. Ecological Economics from the Ground Up New York: Routledge
  46. 46.
    Paredis E. 2009. The Concept of Ecological Debt: Its Meaning and Applicability in International Policy Ghent, Belg.: Academia Press
  47. 47.
    Martínez-Alier J. 2003. The Environmentalism of the Poor: A Study of Ecological Conflicts and Valuation Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publ.
  48. 48.
    Griffin P. 2017. The Carbon Majors Database: CDP Carbon Majors Report 2017 Rep. Clim. Account. Inst. Snowmass, CO:
  49. 49.
    Hassoun N. 2012. The problem of debt-for-nature swaps from a human rights perspective. J. Appl. Philos. 29:4359–77
     [Google Scholar]
  50. 50.
    Fairhead J, Leach M, Scoones I. 2012. Green Grabbing: a new appropriation of nature?. J. Peasant Stud. 39:2237–61
     [Google Scholar]
  51. 51.
    Isla A. 2017. Whose debt for whose nature? Gender and nature in neoliberalism's war against subsistence. Routledge Handbook of Gender and Environment S MacGregor New York: Routledge. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781315886572-26/whose-debt-whose-nature-ana-isla?context=ubx&refId=93dd1774-d430-4d74-91fd-aa3e8ba6e722
    [Google Scholar]
  52. 52.
    Conklin BA, Graham LR. 1995. The shifting middle ground: Amazonian Indians and eco-politics. Am. Anthropol. 97:4695–710
     [Google Scholar]
  53. 53.
    Brysk A. 2000. From Tribal Village to Global Village: Indian Rights and International Relations in Latin America Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press
  54. 54.
    Dove MR. 2006. Indigenous people and environmental politics. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 35:191–208
     [Google Scholar]
  55. 55.
    Servindi (Serv. Inf. Indíg.) 2004.. Primer Encuentro Cumbre entre Pueblos Indígenas y Ambientalistas, 1990 Rep. 50 18–22 Servindi San Juan de Miraflores, Peru: https://www.servindi.org/pdf/Serv_55_conservacionistas.pdf
  56. 56.
    Oilwatch 1997. Oilwatch/NGO Declaration on Climate Change, Fossil Fuels and Public Funding. Oilwatch/NGO Declaration for Kyoto . http://lists.essential.org/shell-nigeria-action/msg00251.html
    [Google Scholar]
  57. 57.
    Lahn B. 2020. A history of the global carbon budget. WIREs Clim. Change 11:3e636
     [Google Scholar]
  58. 58.
    Rogelj J, Forster PM, Kriegler E, Smith CJ, Séférian R. 2019. Estimating and tracking the remaining carbon budget for stringent climate targets. Nature 571:7765335–42
     [Google Scholar]
  59. 59.
    Watson JEM, Shanahan DF, Di Marco M, Allan J, Laurance WF et al. 2016. Catastrophic declines in wilderness areas undermine global environment targets. Curr. Biol. 26:212929–34
     [Google Scholar]
  60. 60.
    RAISG (Amazon. Georef. Socio-environ. Inf. Netw.) 2021. Amazonia Under Pressure São Paulo, Braz.: Inst. Socioambiental
  61. 61.
    Kruid S, Macedo MN, Gorelik SR, Walker W, Moutinho P et al. 2021. Beyond deforestation: carbon emissions from land grabbing and forest degradation in the Brazilian Amazon. Front. For. Glob. Change 4: https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2021.645282
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  62. 62.
    Le Quang M 2016. La trajectoire politique de l'initiative Yasuní-ITT en Équateur: entre capitalisme vert et écosocialisme. ChRhc 130:105–21
     [Google Scholar]
  63. 63.
    López Rivera A. 2017. Chronicle of a schism foretold: the state and transnational activism in Ecuador's Yasuní-ITT initiative. Environ. Sociol. 3:3226–36
     [Google Scholar]
  64. 64.
    Anaya J. 2011. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, James Anaya: extractive industries and indigenous peoples Rep. A/HRC/24/41 Hum. Rights Council, U. N. Gen. Assem New York: . https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session24/Documents/A-HRC-24-41_en.pdf
  65. 65.
    Riofrancos T. 2020. Resource Radicals: From Petro-Nationalism to Post-Extractivism in Ecuador Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press
  66. 66.
    Broad R, Fischer-Mackey J. 2017. From extractivism towards buen vivir: mining policy as an indicator of a new development paradigm prioritising the environment. Third World Q. 38:61327–49
     [Google Scholar]
  67. 67.
    Maas R. 2014. Extractivismo: una aproximación histórica y conceptual. Compilación de investigaciones y análisis de coyuntura sobre la conflictividad socioambiental de Guatemala J Gálvez, R Maas, C Cleaves 68–74 Guatemala City, Guatemala: Univ. Rafael Landívar
     [Google Scholar]
  68. 68.
    Gómez-Barris M. 2017. The Extractive Zone: Social Ecologies and Decolonial Perspectives Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press
  69. 69.
    Temper L, Avila S, Bene DD, Gobby J, Kosoy N et al. 2020. Movements shaping climate futures: a systematic mapping of protests against fossil fuel and low-carbon energy projects. Environ. Res. Lett. 15:12123004
     [Google Scholar]
  70. 70.
    Farthing L, Fabricant N. 2018. Open Veins revisited: charting the social, economic, and political contours of the new extractivism in Latin America. Latin Am. Perspect. 45:54–17
     [Google Scholar]
  71. 71.
    Medina J. 2006. Suma Qamaña: Por una convivialidad postindustrial La Paz, Bol.: Garza Azul Ed.
  72. 72.
    Minist. Relac. Exter 2010. Vivir Bien: Mensajes y documentos sobre el Vivir Bien, 1995–2010 Rep. Minist. Relac. Exter. La Paz, Bol: https://www.bivica.org/files/diplomacia-vida_tres.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  73. 73.
    McGregor D. 2018. Mino-mnaamodzawin: achieving Indigenous environmental justice in Canada. Environ. Soc. 9:17–24
     [Google Scholar]
  74. 74.
    CSUTCB, CSCIB, CNMCIOB-“BS,” CONAMAQ, CIDOB 2010. Anteproyecto de ley de la Madre Tierra Rep. Pacto Unidad La Paz, Bol: https://web.archive.org/web/20150513153904/https://cambioclimatico.org.bo/derechosmt/052011/AnteproyectoMT%20220211.pdf
  75. 75.
    Secr. Nac. Planif. Desarro. Ecuad., ed 2013. Buen vivir: plan nacional 2013–2017: todo el mundo mejor Quito, Ecuad.: Secr. Nac. Planif. Desarro.
     [Google Scholar]
  76. 76.
    Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues 2010. Indigenous peoples: development with culture and identity: articles 3 and 32 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Rep. E/C.19/2010/14 Int. Expert Group Comm., U. N. Econ. Soc. Council New York: https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N10/230/43/PDF/N1023043.pdf?OpenElement
  77. 77.
    Clark P. 2017. Neo-developmentalism and a “vía campesina” for rural development: unreconciled projects in Ecuador's Citizen's Revolution. J. Agrar. Change 17:2348–64
     [Google Scholar]
  78. 78.
    Bjork-James C 2020. Left populism in the heart of South America: from plurinational promise to a renewed extractive nationalism. Beyond Populism: Angry Politics and the Twilight of Neoliberalism J Maskovsky, S Bjork-James 209–36 Morgantown, WV: West Virginia Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  79. 79.
    Rodríguez-Labajos B, Yánez I, Bond P, Greyl L, Munguti S et al. 2019. Not so natural an alliance? Degrowth and environmental justice movements in the Global South. Ecol. Econ. 157:175–84
     [Google Scholar]
  80. 80.
    Schiavoni CM. 2017. The contested terrain of food sovereignty construction: toward a historical, relational and interactive approach. J. Peasant Stud. 44:11–32
     [Google Scholar]
  81. 81.
    Edelman M, Borras SM Jr. 2016. Political Dynamics of Transnational Agrarian Movements Halifax, NS, Can.: Fernwood Publ.
  82. 82.
    Claeys P, Peschard K 2020. Transnational agrarian movements, food sovereignty, and legal mobilization. The Oxford Handbook of Law and Anthropology M-C Foblets, M Goodale, M Sapignoli, O Zenker Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press. https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198840534.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780198840534-e-40
    [Google Scholar]
  83. 83.
    Koensler A. 2020. Prefigurative politics in practice: concrete utopias in Italy's food sovereignty activism. Mobil.: Int. Q. 25:1133–50
     [Google Scholar]
  84. 84.
    Edelman M, Weis T, Baviskar A, Borras SM, Holt-Giménez E et al. 2014. Introduction: critical perspectives on food sovereignty. J. Peasant Stud. 41:6911–31
     [Google Scholar]
  85. 85.
    Nyéléni Forum 2007. Nyéléni 2007: forum for food sovereignty Rep. Nyéléni Forum Sélingué, Mali: https://nyeleni.org/DOWNLOADS/Nyelni_EN.pdf
  86. 86.
    Dekeyser K, Korsten L, Fioramonti L. 2018. Food sovereignty: shifting debates on democratic food governance. Food Sec. 10:1223–33
     [Google Scholar]
  87. 87.
    Vivero-Pol JL. 2017. The idea of food as commons or commodity in academia. A systematic review of English scholarly texts. J. Rural Stud. 53:182–201
     [Google Scholar]
  88. 88.
    Soper R. 2020. From protecting peasant livelihoods to essentializing peasant agriculture: problematic trends in food sovereignty discourse. J. Peasant Stud. 47:2265–85
     [Google Scholar]
  89. 89.
    Lightfoot S. 2016. Global Indigenous Politics: A Subtle Revolution London: Routledge
  90. 90.
    Dahl J. 2012. The Indigenous Space and Marginalized Peoples in the United Nations New York: Palgrave Macmillan., 1st ed..
  91. 91.
    Coulter RT. 1994. Commentary on the UN Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Cultural Survival Quarterly Magazine April 30. https://www.culturalsurvival.org/publications/cultural-survival-quarterly/commentary-un-draft-declaration-rights-indigenous-peoples
    [Google Scholar]
  92. 92.
    Barelli M. 2009. The role of soft law in the international legal system: the case of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Int. Comp. Law Q. 58:4957–83
     [Google Scholar]
  93. 93.
    Steinhilper E. 2015. From “the rest” to “the West”? Rights of Indigenous peoples and the Western bias in norm diffusion research. Int. Stud. Rev. 17:4536–55
     [Google Scholar]
  94. 94.
    Morgan R. 2016. Transforming Law and Institution: Indigenous Peoples, the United Nations and Human Rights London: Routledge
  95. 95.
    Montes AR, Torres Cisneros G. 2009. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: the foundation of a new relationship between Indigenous peoples, states and societies. Making the Declaration Work: The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples C Charters, R Stavenhagen 138–68 Copenhagen, Den.: Int. Work Group Indig. Aff.
     [Google Scholar]
  96. 96.
    Olmos Giupponi B. 2018. Free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) of Indigenous peoples before human rights courts and international investment tribunals: two sides of the same coin?. Int. J. Minority Group Rights 25:4485–529
     [Google Scholar]
  97. 97.
    IBIS Denmark 2013. Guidelines for implementing the right of Indigenous Peoples to free, prior and informed consent. Rep. IBIS La Paz, Bol.: https://issuu.com/ibisinbolivia/docs/ibis_2013_-_guidelines_free__prior_
  98. 98.
    IACHR (Int.-Am. Comm. Hum. Rights) 2015. Indigenous peoples, Afro-descendent communities, and natural resources: human rights protection in the context of extraction, exploitation, and development activities Rep. 47/15 IACHR Washington, DC:
  99. 99.
    Fontana LB, Grugel J. 2016. The politics of Indigenous participation through “Free Prior Informed Consent”: reflections from the Bolivian case. World Dev. 77:249–61
     [Google Scholar]
  100. 100.
    DPLF (Due Process Law Found.) 2018. Implementación de la Consulta y Consentimiento Previo, Libre e Informado: experiencias comparadas en América Latina y discusiones sobre una ley de consulta en México Rep. Oxfam-México Mexico City:
  101. 101.
    Flemmer R, Schilling-Vacaflor A. 2016. Unfulfilled promises of the consultation approach: the limits to effective indigenous participation in Bolivia's and Peru's extractive industries. Third World Q. 37:1172–88
     [Google Scholar]
  102. 102.
    Navarro GCB. 2021. The struggle after the victory: non-compliance in the Inter-American Court of Human Rights’ jurisprudence on indigenous territorial rights. J. Int. Disput. Settl. 12:2223–49
     [Google Scholar]
  103. 103.
    Zuloaga PP. 2020. Judging Inter-American human rights: the riddle of compliance with the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Hum. Rights Q. 42:2392–433
     [Google Scholar]
  104. 104.
    Correia JE. 2018. Indigenous rights at a crossroads: territorial struggles, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, and legal geographies of liminality. Geoforum 97:73–83
     [Google Scholar]
  105. 105.
    McKeon N. 2013. The United Nations and Civil Society: Legitimating Global Governance—Whose Voice? London: Zed Books
  106. 106.
    Sändig J, Von Bernstorff J, Hasenclever A 2018. Affectedness in international institutions: promises and pitfalls of involving the most affected. Third World Themat.: TWQ J. 3:5–6587–604
     [Google Scholar]
  107. 107.
    Gaarde I. 2017. Peasants Negotiating a Global Policy Space: La Vía Campesina in the Committee on World Food Security London: Routledge Earthscan
  108. 108.
    Brem-Wilson J. 2017. La Vía Campesina and the UN Committee on World Food Security: affected publics and institutional dynamics in the nascent transnational public sphere. Rev. Int. Stud. 43:2302–29
     [Google Scholar]
  109. 109.
    Duncan J. 2015. Global Food Security Governance: Civil Society Engagement in the Reformed Committee on World Food Security Abingdon, UK: Routledge
  110. 110.
    McNeill D. 2019. The contested discourse of sustainable agriculture. Global Policy 10:S116–27
     [Google Scholar]
  111. 111.
    Alabrese M, Bessa A, Brunori M, Giuggioli PF, eds. 2022. The United Nations’ Declaration on Peasants’ Rights Abingdon, UK: Routledge
  112. 112.
    Claeys P, Edelman M. 2020. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas. J. Peasant Stud. 47:11–68
     [Google Scholar]
  113. 113.
    Hubert C. 2019. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Peasants: A Tool in the Struggle for our Common Future Geneva: Cent. Eur.-Tiers Monde
  114. 114.
    Gliessman S. 2021. Coming together for food system transformation. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. 45:6791–93
     [Google Scholar]
  115. 115.
    Canfield M, Anderson MD, McMichael P. 2021. UN Food Systems Summit 2021: dismantling democracy and resetting corporate control of food systems. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 5:661552
     [Google Scholar]
  116. 116.
    La Via Campesina 2020. A summit under siege! Position Paper on UN Food Systems Summit 2021 Position Pap., La Via Campesina Mons, Belg:.
  117. 117.
    Nisbett N, Friel S, Aryeetey R, da Silva Gomes F, Harris J et al. 2021. Equity and expertise in the UN Food Systems Summit. BMJ Glob. Health 6:7e006569
     [Google Scholar]
  118. 118.
    Chandrasekaran K, Guttal S, Kumar M, Langner L, Manahan MA. 2021. Exposing corporate capture of the UNFSS through multistakeholderism Rep. Food Systems 4 People Rome:
  119. 119.
    Witter R, Marion Suiseeya KR, Gruby RL, Hitchner S, Maclin EM et al. 2015. Moments of influence in global environmental governance. Environ. Politics 24:6894–912
     [Google Scholar]
  120. 120.
    Hadden J. 2015. Networks in Contention: The Divisive Politics of Climate Change Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  121. 121.
    Maloney M. 2016. Building an alternative jurisprudence for the earth: the international rights of nature tribunal. Vt. Law Rev. 41:129–42
     [Google Scholar]
  122. 122.
    Dancer H. 2021. Harmony with Nature: towards a new deep legal pluralism. J. Legal Plur. Unoff. Law 53:121–41
     [Google Scholar]
  123. 123.
    White H. 2018. Indigenous peoples, the international trend toward legal personhood for nature, and the United States. Am. Indian Law Rev. 43:1129–65
     [Google Scholar]
  124. 124.
    Corrigan DP, Oksanen M, eds. 2021. Rights of Nature: A Re-Examination London: Routledge
  125. 125.
    England K. 2017. Home, domestic work and the state: the spatial politics of domestic workers’ activism. Crit. Soc. Policy 37:3367–85
     [Google Scholar]
  126. 126.
    Pape K. 2016. ILO Convention C189—a good start for the protection of domestic workers: an insider's view. Progress Dev. Stud 162189–202
  127. 127.
    Wang D, Piazza A, Soule SA. 2018. Boundary-spanning in social movements: antecedents and outcomes. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 44:167–87
     [Google Scholar]
  128. 128.
    Tramel S. 2018. Convergence as political strategy: social justice movements, natural resources and climate change. Third World Q. 39:71290–307
     [Google Scholar]
  129. 129.
    Liao C, Nolte K, Sullivan JA, Brown DG, Lay J et al. 2021. Carbon emissions from the global land rush and potential mitigation. Nat Food. 2:115–18
     [Google Scholar]
  130. 130.
    Mills EN. 2018. Implicating ‘fisheries justice’ movements in food and climate politics. Third World Q. 39:71270–89
     [Google Scholar]
  131. 131.
    Masson D, Paulos A, Beaulieu Bastien E. 2017. Struggling for food sovereignty in the World March of Women. J. Peasant Stud. 44:156–77
     [Google Scholar]
  132. 132.
    Fraser N. 2021. Climates of capital: for a trans-environmental eco-socialism. New Left Rev. 127:94–127
     [Google Scholar]
  133. 133.
    Hess D, Breyman S, Campbell N, Martin B 2008. Science, technology, and social movements. The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies EJ Hackett, O Amsterdamska, M Lynch, J Wajcman 473–98 Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
     [Google Scholar]
  134. 134.
    Glennie C, Alkon AH. 2018. Food justice: cultivating the field. Environ. Res. Lett. 13:7073003
     [Google Scholar]
  135. 135.
    Rosset PM, Val V, Barbosa LP, McCune N. 2019. Agroecology and La Via Campesina II. Peasant agroecology schools and the formation of a sociohistorical and political subject. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. 43:7–8895–914
     [Google Scholar]
  136. 136.
    Lagier C. 2021. La Via Campesina's agroecological militancy at a crossroads: new research avenues for Amazonian studies. Environment and Development: Challenges, Policies and Practices AAR Ioris 469–502 Cham, Switz.: Springer Int. Publ.
     [Google Scholar]
  137. 137.
    IAASTD (Int. Assess. Agric. Knowl. Sci. Technol. Dev.) 2009. Agriculture at a Crossroads: Global Report Washington, DC: IAASTD/Island Press
  138. 138.
    Val V, Rosset PM, Zamora Lomelí C, Giraldo OF, Rocheleau D 2019. Agroecology and La Via Campesina I. The symbolic and material construction of agroecology through the dispositive of “peasant-to-peasant” processes. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. 43:7–8872–94
     [Google Scholar]
  139. 139.
    Int. Forum Agroecol 2015. Declaration of the International Forum for Agroecology: Nyéléni, Mali. International Forum for Agroecology https://www.foodsovereignty.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Download-declaration-Agroecology-Nyeleni-2015.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  140. 140.
    Anderson CR, Pimbert M, Kiss C. 2015. Building, defending and strengthening agroecology: a global struggle for food sovereignty Rep. Cent. Agroecol. Water Resil./Cent. Learn. Sustain. Agric. Coventry, UK:
  141. 141.
    HLPE (High Level Panel Expert. Food Secur. Nutr.) 2019. Agroecological and other innovative approaches for sustainable agriculture and food systems that enhance food security and nutrition Rep. 14 U. N. Food Agric. Organ. Rome:
  142. 142.
    Anderson CR, Maughan C. 2021.. “ The Innovation Imperative”: the struggle over agroecology in the international food policy arena. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 5: https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2021.619185
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  143. 143.
    Tilzey M. 2019. Food democracy as ‘radical’ food sovereignty: agrarian democracy and counter-hegemonic resistance to the neo-imperial food regime. Polit. Gov. 7:4202–13
     [Google Scholar]
  144. 144.
    Gerber J-F. 2020. Degrowth and critical agrarian studies. J. Peasant Stud. 47:2235–64
     [Google Scholar]
  145. 145.
    Roman-Alcalá A. 2020. Agrarian anarchism and authoritarian populism: towards a more (state-)critical ‘critical agrarian studies. .’ J. Peasant Stud. 48:2298–328
     [Google Scholar]
  146. 146.
    Khan M, Robinson S, Weikmans R, Ciplet D, Roberts JT. 2020. Twenty-five years of adaptation finance through a climate justice lens. Clim. Change 161:2251–69
     [Google Scholar]
  147. 147.
    Tokar B 2018. On the evolution and continuing development of the climate justice movement. Routledge Handbook of Climate Justice T Jafry, M Mikulewicz, K Helwig 13–25 New York: Routledge
     [Google Scholar]
  148. 148.
    Xiuhtecutli N, Shattuck A. 2021. Crisis politics and US farm labor: health justice and Florida farmworkers amid a pandemic. J. Peasant Stud. 48:173–98
     [Google Scholar]
  149. 149.
    Borras SM, Franco JC, Ra D, Kramer T, Kamoon M et al. 2022. Rurally rooted cross-border migrant workers from Myanmar, Covid-19, and agrarian movements. Agric. Hum. Values 39:315–38
     [Google Scholar]
  150. 150.
    Kalt T. 2021. Jobs versus climate justice? Contentious narratives of labor and climate movements in the coal transition in Germany. Environ. Politics 30:71135–54
     [Google Scholar]
  151. 151.
    Beckford C. 2016. The experiences of Caribbean migrant farmworkers in Ontario, Canada. Soc. Econ. Stud. 65:1153–88
     [Google Scholar]
  152. 152.
    Fraser N. 2016. Contradictions of capital and care. New Left Rev. 100:99–117
     [Google Scholar]
  153. 153.
    Borras SM, Franco JC. 2018. The challenge of locating land-based climate change mitigation and adaptation politics within a social justice perspective: towards an idea of agrarian climate justice. Third World Q. 39:71308–25
     [Google Scholar]
  154. 154.
    Wright EO. 2019. How to Be an Anticapitalist In The Twenty-First Century London: Verso
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-112320-084822
Loading
Transnational Social Movements: Environmentalist, Indigenous, and Agrarian Visions for Planetary Futures
Annual Review of Environment and Resources 47, 583 (2022); https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-112320-084822
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-112320-084822
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-112320-084822
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error