Land as a Global Commons?

Abstract

Land is becoming increasingly scarce relative to the demands of the global economy; a problem significantly exacerbated by climate change. In response, some have suggested that land should be conceptualised as a global commons. This framing might seem like an appealing way to promote sustainable and equitable land use. However, it is a poor fit for the worldʼs land because global commons are generally understood as resources located beyond state borders. I argue that land can be seen to fit the definition of a global commons, if viewed in a particular way; namely, as a biogeochemical resource system that sequesters carbon emissions. The question then arises whether land should be conceptualised as a global commons. I consider this question by reference to three contemporary problems of land justice (land grabbing, forced displacement, and unfairness in land‐based climate mitigation); arguing that the global‐commons framing will not be conducive to understanding or responding to these problems. I leave the question of how the global community should conceptualise land in the context of climate change open, claiming that any answer must include the voices and perspectives of those whose livelihoods and identities are closely connected to the land.

Climate justice and territory

“…Megan Blomfield (2021Blomfield ( , 2013 points more generally to the risks of conceptualizing land as a global commons in its function as a carbon sink. She identifies three potential sources of injustice: land grabbing, forced displacement, and unfairness in land-based climate mitigation.…”

“…She identifies three potential sources of injustice: land grabbing, forced displacement, and unfairness in land‐based climate mitigation. Framing land as global commons “can incentivize, or facilitate, land grabbing” (Blomfield, 2021, p. 9). Land‐grabbing is land acquisition that is procedurally or substantively unjust, potentially leading to the displacement of whole communities—for example, if the aim is reforestation or afforestation.…”

“…Land‐grabbing is land acquisition that is procedurally or substantively unjust, potentially leading to the displacement of whole communities—for example, if the aim is reforestation or afforestation. Regarding massive‐scale deployment of land‐based mitigation practices as a global response to climate change, “a crucial question that arises is on what land such responses might justifiably be sited, and on whose terms” (Blomfield, 2021, p. 10). Blomfield (2021, p. 12) concludes that “the idea of land as a global commons may unsettle the claims of local communities to resist outside interference with the land on which they depend.” At the center of this issue are struggles over the meaning of land, as “if the value of land as carbon sink is permitted to dominate, then it will crowd out other (and more local) understandings of land and its value” (Blomfield, 2021, p. 13).…”

“…Regarding massive‐scale deployment of land‐based mitigation practices as a global response to climate change, “a crucial question that arises is on what land such responses might justifiably be sited, and on whose terms” (Blomfield, 2021, p. 10). Blomfield (2021, p. 12) concludes that “the idea of land as a global commons may unsettle the claims of local communities to resist outside interference with the land on which they depend.” At the center of this issue are struggles over the meaning of land, as “if the value of land as carbon sink is permitted to dominate, then it will crowd out other (and more local) understandings of land and its value” (Blomfield, 2021, p. 13). Although Blomfield does not explicitly discuss this issue as concerning territory as stipulated here, the three sources of injustice that she mentions have clear territorial dimensions: if non‐state territories are grabbed and the people who inhabit them are displaced as a result, their collective right to self‐determination will be lost.…”