Corporate“responsibility”andhumanrights perspectivesonthe“globallandrush” Executivesummary The “land rush” phenomenon is an obvious aspect of a much wider network of control over Southern land and labour. As such, it should be analyzed using a broad inter-disciplinary approach, rather than only a “land tenure” lens. This brief seeks to put the “land rush” debate into the context of global systems of trade and investment, which are skewed in favour of industrialized countries. Because of the historical and contemporary pattern of states supporting corporate enterprise and maintaining exploitative international relations, it is argued that a voluntary approach to regulation of commercial pressure on land (CPL) is unlikely to have more than a very limited, superficial impact on the strategies of a few companies in a few countries. A human rights analysis suggests that legal action against commercial land acquisition is possible, though it will involve a difficult and uncertain process by organizations with the capacity and political will to take on the challenge. Context Recently, particularly since the rise in agricultural commodity prices in 2008, there has been a marked increase in the acquisition of agricultural land in the global South by multinational firms and foreign state agencies for commercial agricultural production. This commercial pressure on land (CPL) has raised fears regarding potential negative impacts on food security, local community relations, socio-political stability, environmental conditions, and other issues. However, the arguments have often been over-simplified in popular media. We can only understand these dynamics within their historical context. The structural foundations of agricultural production in the global South were laid in large part by colonial powers, which prioritized export agriculture, rather than domestic food security, socio-economic development, or other populist goals. Colonial governments worked closely with private companies, ensuring that they enjoyed preferential access to resources and markets. In the post-independence period, most countries maintained a broadly similar primary export-oriented economic model, but implemented protectionist policies in order to improve domestic food security (particularly amongst urban populations). Many governments, particularly in Africa, lost the ability to chart their own policy course during the late 1980s and early 1990s, when crippling levels of foreign debt made them beholden to the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and other international financial institutions (IFIs). Forbidden to regulate the agricultural sector, many developing countries came to be dominated by foreign agribusiness. The influence of IFIs over agricultural policy-making remains significant. They promote a neoliberal approach to agricultural production, which generally emphasizes the importance of private property rights. This in turn allows Chris Huggins, Independent Consultant POLICY BRIEF March 2011