ArticlePDF Available

Abstract and Figures

Rights and access to land are major pressing issues among mainly first-generation agroecological farmers in the Netherlands. Due to short-term tenure contracts and high land prices, these farmers face an insecure future. Because of this, they are often unable to make long-term ecological investments, such as planting trees and taking measures to improve soil health. A growing group of farmers are devising new, more communal forms of land ownership and tenancy, that counter market forces and existing policies. In this article, we shed light on these farmers’ discourse and how it informs the construction of new forms of land ownership and tenancy. In the related research project written and led by farmers, information has been gathered in the form of meeting minutes, interviews covering problems and perspectives related to the land tenure regulation, and commons. This information has been systematized and validated by farmers. Agroecological farmers find themselves in an uncomfortable situation that is challenging in 2 ways. On the one hand, they are calling for revision of land tenure regulations to ensure long-term land contracts for their existence and on the other hand they are seeking to replace property rights in favor of more collective possession-based arrangements. Our analysis shows how a discourse of decommodification seems to underlie the strategies and practices implemented by farmers. It focuses on place-based developments to secure the autonomy of farmers and communities. We argue that, to safeguard the possession and use of land for agroecological farming in the future, both developments of land decommodification (long-term tenancy and commons) should be supported. This can be done by integrated policies on land sale and lease that align with the ecological carrying capacity and agroecological production capacity of land, and that ensure compensation for monetary downgrading of agricultural land.
This content is subject to copyright.
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Collective land arrangements that decommodify
land for agroecological transformations
Margriet Goris
1,2,3,
*, Eliane Bakker
2
, Leonardo van den Berg
2
,
Marianna Siegmund-Schultze
1
, Sine
´ad OKeeffe
1
, Marc Ravesloot
1
, Conny Bufe
1
,
and Jan Hassink
1
Rights and access to land are major pressing issues among mainly first-generation agroecological farmers in
the Netherlands. Due to short-term tenure contracts and high land prices, these farmers face an insecure
future. Because of this, they are often unable to make long-term ecological investments, such as planting
trees and taking measures to improve soil health. A growing group of farmers are devising new, more
communal forms of land ownership and tenancy, that counter market forces and existing policies. In this
article, we shed light on these farmersdiscourse and how it informs the construction of new forms of
land ownership and tenancy. In the related research project written and led by farmers, information has
been gathered in the form of meeting minutes, interviews covering problems and perspectives related to
the land tenure regulation, and commons. This information has been systematized and validated by farmers.
Agroecological farmers find themselves in an uncomfortable situation that is challenging in 2 ways. On the
one hand, they are calling for revision of land tenure regulations to ensure long-term land contracts for their
existence and on the other hand they are seeking to replace property rights in favor of more collective
possession-based arrangements. Our analysis shows how a discourse of decommodification seems to
underlie the strategies and practices implemented by farmers. It focuses on place-based developments to
secure the autonomy of farmers and communities. We argue that, to safeguard the possession and use of land
for agroecological farming in the future, both developments of land decommodification (long-term tenancy
and commons) should be supported. This can be done by integrated policies on land sale and lease that align
with the ecological carrying capacity and agroecological production capacity of land, and that ensure
compensation for monetary downgrading of agricultural land.
Keywords: Land tenure regulations,Land prices,Commoning,Farmer-led data collection,The Netherlands,
Agroecology
Introduction
-
"Farm viability by collective
land ownership"
“Farm viability by collective land ownership” is a statement
made by an agroecological farmer in the Netherlands and
is used here to highlight a shift in focus from the farmer to
the farm. Collective ownership promises to secure access
to land and the use of sustainable practices for current
and future generations. This discursive shift prioritizes
stewardship, caring for land, soil health, biodiversity,
water, nutritious and culturally appropriate food as a col-
lective responsibility. This collective responsibility and
stewardship need to be brought back into focus, especially
in the Global North, as affluence and high environmental
and social footprints in high-income countries induce
major environmental and social impacts across the globe
(Wiedmann et al., 2020). Increasingly, agroecology is rec-
ognized by farmers, policymakers, and researchers as
a promising food system approach to ensure transforma-
tive change in the way we produce and consume our food
(Petersen et al., 2012; Gliessman, 2018; FAO, 2019). The
distinctive character of agroecology is that it mimics eco-
logical processes for agricultural purposes (Schutter, 2010;
Pimbert, 2015) and that interconnected, agroecological
principles cover environmental, sociocultural, economic,
and political dimensions, as stated in the Nye
´le
´ni
Declaration on Agroecology (Nye
´le
´ni Declaration, 2015;
CIDSE, 2018).
While the Nye
´le
´ni Declaration on Agroecology refers to
land as a pillar of food sovereignty ensuring that the rights
to use and manage our lands, territories, waters, seeds,
livestock and biodiversity are in the hands of those of us
1
Agrosystems Research Group, Wageningen Plant Research,
Wageningen, The Netherlands
2
Toekomstboeren (Association of Agroecological Farmers), The
Netherlands
3
Rural Sociology, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The
Netherlands
* Corresponding author:
Email: margriet.goris@wur.nl
Goris, M, et al. 2024. Collective land arrangements that
decommodify land for agroecological transformations.
Elem Sci
Anth
, 12: 1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/elementa.2023.00061
who produce food this is not a primary focus of many
agroecological groups in wealthy countries according to
Calo et al. (2023). Our relationship to land and how land
can act as the basis for agroecological practices is not
always obvious in projects which aim to strengthen agroe-
cology (Calo et al., 2023). The foundational relationship
between agroecological movements and land becomes
increasingly obvious when rights and access to land are
denied, impeded, or reduced. This is an ever-increasing
issue around the globe (Wittman and James, 2022). Taking
the example of the Netherlands, land tenure insecurity is
a particular obstacle for first-generation agroecological
farmers (Toekomstboeren, 2019b; Bakker et al., 2023).
In 2020 the average price for purchasing agricultural
land in the Netherlands was the highest in Europe (71,225
euro per hectare arable land) (Eurostat, 2022a), only
topped by single regions such as the Canary Islands. For
land lease prices, the Netherlands scored second-highest
just below Italy, with 824 euro per hectare arable land
and/or permanent grassland (Eurostat, 2022b). The price
of land was and still is high mainly due to the high pro-
ductivity of Dutch dairy farming, which has a high depen-
dency on inputs and external land use (Silvis and
Voskuilen, 2018). This intensive dairy farming is exceeding
planetary boundaries (Erisman, 2021) and land politics
plays a key role in this. One example is that no legal
limitation exists on the livestock units permissible per
hectare which align with the ecological carrying capacity
of land.
The financial model of agricultural land, as a commod-
ity, promotes investment and speculation in land and this
has further exacerbated the price increases (Regt, 2003).
One of the factors also contributing to the high land prices
relates to farmers’ pensions or financial security in retire-
ment. For many farmers a high market value when selling
agricultural land and holdings, also within family trans-
fers, benefits them, as this pays for their retirement. For
many farmers, their precarious situation in later life is
mainly due to a lack of adequate public or private pension
arrangements for independent workers and small compa-
nies. The latter is hardly addressed by scholars.
With high land prices and hardly any regulations in
the sales markets (Swinnen et al., 2016), buying land is
very difficult, especially for first-generation farmers. They
are faced with high land lease prices and short-term leas-
ing contracts (Toekomstboeren, 2019b; Bakker et al.,
2023). In 2020, about 29%of the Dutch agricultural
land was leased (CBS, 2021) and with the liberalization
of the lease regulations in 2007, approximately 90%of
new leases are short-term. In practice this usually means
6 years or less (1- or 2-year contracts are not uncommon)
(LNV, 2020). The latter shows the complex situation
these farmers find themselves in. Many first-generation
farmers have joined the peasant association Toekomstboe-
ren, the Dutch chapter of the worldwide peasant move-
ment “La Via Campesina.” They are building sustainable
models of agriculture, for example, community-sup-
ported agriculture (CSA) systems and are experimenting
with regenerative practices to promote biodiversity and
soil health, which requires long-term investment in their
land. However, they are constantly unsure about the
renewal of their contracts (Toekomstboeren, 2019b).
Dutch female farmers in particular face even greater dif-
ficulties than their male counterparts and have many
more hurdles to jump for land ownership. In 1956, the
“Actual Incompetence Act,” that impeded women from
buying land, was abolished. In 2016, approximately 5%
of women manage agricultural land in the Netherlands
(Eurostat, 2019). Furthermore, agricultural land and
holdings in family farms passed down within families
make it difficult for (migrant) farmworkers and new
entrees to possess any agricultural land.
Calo et al. (2023) noted that in the Global North land
reform is hardly on the agenda and that most land initia-
tives operate within the property-based scheme. The land
reform Scotland Act 2016 is an exception in this regard, as
it grants rights to a community to purchase land for sus-
tainable development from unwilling sellers. Recent
developments, such as the “voluntary” buyout by the
Dutch national government of farms that have been clas-
sified as major nitrogen emitters in the vicinity of con-
gested nature reserves, also illustrate the potential for
land reform in the Netherlands. Although this major
reform tackles climate change and eutrophication, it
demonstrates that land reform is not unthinkable. The
Dutch national government has secured the first right to
buy land from those major nitrogen emitter farms for
sustainable development and land use. Purchased land
by the Dutch National Land Bank will be used to achieve
the goals of the National Rural Area Program. These are
nature restoration and improvement of water quality to
combat climate change (RVO, 2023). To date a pro-poor
land reform agenda is missing to ensure that released land
will (also) become available for new entrees and less cap-
italized agroecological farmers. This poses the question:
Can the recent environmental tipping points and EU
enforcement for greater sustainability force an opening
to put land reform on the agenda in the Netherlands?
What bottom-up strategies exist for navigating the exclu-
sionary land markets in the Netherlands?
In response to decreasing access and opportunities to
buy land, coupled with insecure leasing arrangements,
a growing group of agroecological farmers are developing
new forms of communal land ownership and land tenancy
arrangements. In this article, we explore these bottom-up
developments and aim to answer the research question:
What are the commonalities among these new communal
land arrangements? To answer this question, we build on
agrarian studies and critical property studies that chal-
lenge and expand our thinking on current property
regimes and we use empirical data that show the diverse
political reactions from below regarding land develop-
ments (Hall et al., 2017). We also discuss our findings to
explore possibilities for land reform.
Land commodification and decommodification
processes
Commodification and property titles
When discussing alternative land arrangements, it is
important to specify different types of access to land, as
Art. 12(1) page 2 of 17 Goris et al: Collective land arrangements for agroecological transformations
they may adhere to different logics and discourses. Gerber
and Gerber (2017) propose to distinguish between
“property” and “possession” as these concepts adhere to
different logics. Property is a nonmaterial addition to pos-
session—a title awarded by the state to individuals, collec-
tive, or the state—that allows the commodification of land
through sale and lease. In possession-based systems it’s
not possible to extract nonmaterial resources from their
context, and they therefore do not provide opportunities
for speculation. Farmland may be accessed through use
rights. In The Great Transformation, Polanyi (1944)
describes how the current property-based system took
shape throughout the past centuries: as land and labor
became a commodity during the Industrial Revolution,
over time human economy was equated with market
economy. The privatization of state-owned enterprises
based on the neoliberal discourse from the 1980s onward
accelerated this development. This obscured other ways of
arranging production and distribution and narrowly con-
fined the interpretation of highly diverse economic prac-
tices (Peredo and Mclean, 2020).
The trading of land resulted in prices that are not
determined by the ecological carrying capacity and agri-
cultural production capacity of land, but by the exchange
value. High land prices (both sale and lease) and frequent
change of owner/tenant incentivized monoculture and
intensive agricultural practices and fossil-based inputs to
maximize yields for short-term gains. These extractive
quick-fix land use practices can result in short-term ben-
efits such as increase in yields, but in the long run cause
loss of biodiversity, decline of soil health as well as nega-
tively affects the provision of ecosystem services that are
important for agriculture (Foley et al., 2005; Gomiero,
2016; Rotz et al., 2019; Schils et al., 2022). The exchange
value of land is too high for agroecological farming prac-
tices that aim to balance the productive and ecological
capacity of the land (Lamine et al., 2021).
Although developments in the direction of commodi-
fication have been strongly present, there are also counter
movements. Peredo et al. (2020) talk about a “double
movement” and argue that the very conditions of ampli-
fied marketization provoke attempts to counter its effects.
Thus, commodification and decommodification processes
do not merely coexist, they affect one another. Counter
movements can take different shapes. Appadurai (1988)
identified various stages of decommodification: goods and
services can be decommodified, partially decommodified
or the commodity value can be suspended for a defined
time. Borras et al. (2015), Bezner Kerr et al. (2022), and
Calo et al. (2023) also point at the role the state can play
in acquiring and redistributing of land, regulating and
restricting powerful actors in land sales and purchases,
and in adjusting legal frameworks.
Re-emergence of commons
With climate change, an aging farmer population, and
a declining succession rate for farms in the Netherlands
and across Europe, a political taboo on land intervention
politics is lifting and new socio-legal configurations for
communal land arrangements are also being discussed.
Stock et al. (2015) propose to think about these new con-
figurations in terms of food utopias as this enables us to
explore the boundaries of what is thinkable and possible
to put into practice. The commons concept can be used to
envisage a food utopia for agroecological food systems,
helping us to stretch our imagination of future land
relations.
In recent years, commons initiatives based on collective
action and self-organization have been emerging in the
Netherlands (De Moor, 2013), particularly in agriculture
(Toekomstboeren, 2022b). De Moor (2013) describes this
phenomenon as a reaction to processes of privatization
and developments in the market. De Moor also points to
the double movement of commodification and decommo-
dification taking place at the same time. When privatiza-
tion results in disadvantages for citizens, citizens start
organizing themselves. This dynamic has been repeating
itself, and the current wave of collective action is seen as
a reaction to the neoliberal politics being implemented
since the 1980s. Many of these self-organized collectives
are described as new forms of commons, that can be char-
acterized by patterns and principles of commoning as
described by Ostrom (1990) and Bollier and Helfrich
(2014). The latter authors argue that the commons is an
insurgent worldview “based on a deep relationality of
everything” (Bollier and Helfrich, 2020, p. 43). This world-
view holds that objects, processes, phenomena, and iden-
tities emerge through relationships with other things and
are interdependent. This contradicts the current dominant
political economic worldview in which everything is sep-
arated, inert objects are to be acquired and protected, and
people are independent individuals that act rationally in
the interest of themselves (Bollier and Helfrich, 2020).
Because a commons-worldview is deeply relational, it
acknowledges the countless factors that we, as humans,
interdepend upon to live and thrive. Individual well-being
depends upon collective well-being. While this principle is
practiced in many aspects of life, commodification of pub-
lic affairs—as is common policy since the 1980s—tends to
disrupt interdependencies and create or exacerbate pre-
carity (Greer, 2016).
Commons classify as possession-based systems in
which the economy is (re)embedded in social relations
and the aim is to achieve an ecological optimum to avoid
overexploitation and underutilization (De Moor, 2009).
They refer to the use and intrinsic value of land itself
instead of market value (De Moor, 2015). Bollier and Hel-
frich (2014, p. 175) describe the commons as “a self-
organized system by which communities manage
resources (both depletable and replenishable) with mini-
mal or no reliance on the market or state.” He further
explains it as a wealth inherited, or created, that is passed
on undiminished or enhanced to the next generation. As
such, it consists of three elements: a (natural) wealth/
resource, a community with shared values and practices,
and peer governance (Bollier and Helfrich, 2014). How-
ever, the commons have no guarantee for entirely equita-
ble distributions of social benefits, as historical examples
show (Bravo and De Moor, 2008; Curtis, 2016). Curtis
(2016) and Bravo and De Moor (2008) explain that
Goris et al: Collective land arrangements for agroecological transformations Art. 12(1) page 3 of 17
historical commons were often in the hands of powerful
groups and only ensured an equilibrium of the ecological
system. Bravo and De Moor (2008) note that in the 18th
and 19th centuries equality became central in the revised
meaning of communities around commons. In relation to
law, it is important to notify that commons departs
from people as social entities. The current property-
based system departs from a contractual relationship
between persons instead of a relation of a group of peo-
ple “community” with land itself (Wittman and James,
2022).
History shows that two relationships are essential, the
relationship among people to ensure equity among peo-
ple, and the relationship between a group of people and
the land to ensure an ecological equilibrium. Further-
more, the risk of commodification remains and requires
carefully weighing changing needs. De Moor (2015) iden-
tified criteria to help establish a resilient system: utility,
sustainability, and degree of participation.
Commoning and regulating land sale and tenure are
decommodification processes that reduce exposure to
market forces of price, supply, and demand in varying
degrees. In this way enabling sustainable livelihoods by
not (having to) exceed the ecological carrying capacity of
land. Decommodification can be operationalized into
three integrated processes: immunization from market
dependency, the construction of social entitlements, and
the restoration of human nature relationships. Under-
standing pluralistic approaches for dealing with land
uncertainty through the concept of decommodification
opens a way to reflect upon these approaches and to
disclose how decommodification is achieved, to a certain
extent, by these three integrated processes. It may even
create a juridical argument why the property model needs
to be reviewed to align with other government programs
focusing on promoting soil health, biodiversity, and water
quality (Carlisle, 2019; Calo et al., 2023).
Methods
This ongoing farmer-led research (MacMillan, 2018)
started in autumn 2018. The agroecological farmers asso-
ciation Toekomstboeren secured funding for the POP3 Pro-
ject, “New land arrangements for sustainable agriculture.”
They managed and directed the project, including the
parts that had a research focus. This helped to overcome
some of the key challenges of participatory action research
such as risk of co-option, power inequalities, and decen-
tralizing of control (Cornish et al., 2023). In Figure 1,we
give an overview of how the farmer-led research was done.
Figure 1. Steps of farmer-led research. The figure outlines the research steps that the 2 groups (tenancy and
commons), as subgroups of an existing land research group of the farmers’ association Toekomstboeren,didto
perform their research. Source: Authors.
Art. 12(1) page 4 of 17 Goris et al: Collective land arrangements for agroecological transformations
The project started with systematizing the outcomes of
meetings on land issues held by Toekomstboeren (Toe-
komstboeren, 2019a). By systematization (Diez-Hurtado,
2001; Souza et al., 2012) we mean reflecting on the rele-
vance, replicability, validity, innovation, and sustainability
of the land issues discussed in the meetings. Toekomstboe-
ren facilitators, for example, asked if an issue was relevant
to all farmers participating or whether a land arrangement
proposed by a participant was also imaginable if contex-
tualized in another setting. After 3 meetings on land
issues 2 groups of participating farmers indicated their
willingness to work further on either land tenancy or
commons. The existing land group of Toekomstboeren
responsible for arranging research funding to work on
new land arrangements subsequently subdivided into 2
groups namely “land tenancy” and “commons.” After the
joint first step of systematizing, the 2 groups followed
their own paths to achieve useful results for the farmers
involved. In both groups, a smaller group studied the
historical context to enhance the understanding of socie-
tal developments and through this, learned from history
(Step 3 in commons group and Step 4 in tenancy group;
Figure 1). Ultimately, the authors of this article, among
which included researchers, farmers, and farm workers
with an academic background, carried out a literature
study to see how we could understand, analyze, and com-
pare the research results (Step 5 in Figure 1). In this step,
“choosing a theoretical framework” not all farmers active
in the 2 groups were involved, but only the first 3 authors
of this article. To analyze the collected data, we started
deductively with coding using 3 integrated processes
inherent to decommodification, as identified by De Moor
(2015), namely “immunization from market dependency,”
“arrangement of social entitlements,” and “restoring
human-nature relationships.” Inductively, we added the
following additional codes, “reversing power relations,”
“transcending generations,” and “place-based.” To include
emerging codes, all documents were analyzed twice (Step
6inFigure 1). All codes together show the 6 integrated
processes (Table 1) inherent to decommodification
described in Result section.
Tenancy group and commons group
Each group consisted of approximately 5 farmers or rural
workers and 1 researcher who are all active members of
the agroecological farmers’ association Toekomstboeren.Of
350 members, many are first-generation farmers, and
include small-scale horticulture, arable, animal, mixed
farms, and CSA farmers.
Systematization of the input collected at the first 3
farmers’ meetings by the tenancy group led to the devel-
opment of 13 principles for the revision of land tenure
regulations. These were further validated through an
online questionnaire filled in by 20 farmers connected
to the Federation of Agroecological Farmers. This Federa-
tion consists of 5 agroecological farmers’ associations, of
which Toekomstboeren is one. The other members include
the Association of Biodynamic Farmers, the Dutch CSA
Network, Bio-Tuinders, and the Biocyclic-Vegan Agricul-
ture Network. In addition, the tenancy group organized
meetings with actors involved in revision of land tenure
regulations to mutually inform each other. Actors con-
sisted of the public officer in charge of facilitating the
process toward revision of land tenure regulations and
a professor in agrarian law involved in the assessment of
lease regulations.
The farmers engaged in the commons group selected
knowledgeable farmers to be interviewed about commons
for the handbook (Steps 2 and 4 in Figure 1). Farmers
were selected if they were working on “food utopias,”
often by finding creative solutions within existing legisla-
tion, or by involving consumers in their farm. Rather than
the well-known Dutch national initiatives, such as Aard-
peer and Land van Ons as described by Jellema et al.
(2023), the group in this research chose farmer-led initia-
tives that challenge the property model and who work
with territorial possession and use arrangements, includ-
ing initiatives from the United Kingdom. In contrast, Aard-
peer and Land van Ons still work in the financial model
that extracts nonmaterial resources in the form of interest
from the land and maintain the market value of agricul-
tural land. The Dutch commons initiatives are very young
(mostly not more than 30 years). Therefore, the commons
group also interviewed 2 historical commons in the
United Kingdom to learn from their ancient common cul-
ture and lived experiences. It was also to gain greater
insights into how these commons, contrary to ancient
commons in the Netherlands, have survived over time.
The questions asked by the commons group during the
interviews disclose what is relevant to this group of farm-
ers: “How to free land from speculation?” (Yeva, shepherd,
NL). Interviews and literature were used by the group to
reconstruct the history of the commons in the
Netherlands.
Results
Historic waves in tenancy security and commons in
the Netherlands
To understand commons and tenancy situations in the
Netherlands, a short historical overview was created by
the tenancy and commons group. This overview can be
seen in Figure 2 and is crucial to understand the recurring
Table 1. Six integrated processes inherent to
decommodification
Source of Integrated
Process Processes Identified
De Moor 1. Immunization from market
dependency.
2. Arrangement of social
entitlements.
3. Restoring human–nature
relationships.
This project 4. Reversing power relations.
5. Transcending generations.
6. Place-based.
Source: Authors.
Goris et al: Collective land arrangements for agroecological transformations Art. 12(1) page 5 of 17
developments throughout history and to reflect upon the
double movements of tenancy security and insecurity,
decline, and emergence of commons. It also allows us to
identify where the tenancy security and commons cur-
rently is in these dialectic processes and provides us with
a greater opportunity for breaking these cycles.
Until the end of the 18th century, farmers in the Neth-
erlands mostly worked on the land of the nobility, land-
lords or churches, or they were part of the community that
worked on common land (Figure 2). The different types of
common land on the sandy soils, waste land in the south-
east of the Netherlands, such as de marke,” de meent,”
maanlandschappen,” varied in characteristics of the land,
the governance, use arrangements, and interface with the
state and market indicating processes of commodification
and decommodification. Livestock farming in these com-
mons mainly served arable farming purposes (e.g.,
through the provision of animal manure as fertilizer)
ensuring an ecological equilibrium (Demoed, 1987; Pau-
lissen, 2021).
The north of the Netherlands (province Groningen) had
its own territorial tenancy arrangement, with so-called
entrapped meiers (Figure 2). Meiers were farmers who
owned the farm buildings but not the agricultural land
they rented. To protect the meier with his investments in
the farm building, he could not be removed from the land.
Meiers possessed the land, but they were not the owners.
The rent, called “entrapment,” was perpetual and the price
was fixed. Although land rights were secure, the system of
entrapped meiers didn’t allow division of land and thus,
there was no option for rural workers or first-generation
farmers to buy their own land and to start their own farm.
With the purchase of the right of entitlement, the
entrapped meiers became large-scale farmers (Formsma,
1981; Paping, 2021) excluding again first-generation farm-
ers. This highlights the need to make land relations that
are inclusive.
During the French Occupation (1795–1806), land of the
nobility was partly redistributed among tenants. This cannot
be considered a pro-poor land reform, mainly because the
land of the nobility and of the churches was partly nation-
alized and sold in large plots to large farmers (Swinnen,
2002). The largest wave of land commodification and privat-
ization in the Netherlands happened in the late 19th century
with the abolishment of the commons and the claiming of
land previously not used. In the early 20th century, land
leasing was widespread: 50%of the agricultural land was
leased in 1930 (van den Noort, 1982).
With privatization and the increasing use of land prop-
erty rights, the market value of land became more impor-
tant than the use-value of land and its ecological carrying
capacity. In the beginning of the 20th century, tenant
farmers began to raise their voices. Lease prices were too
high, contracts too short, continuation of contracts too
insecure, and management for soil improvement and
perennial plants not rewarded (van den Noort, 1982).
Swinnen (2002) describes how the emancipation of tenant
farmers and rural workers was a precondition to influence
policymaking and to improve their land tenure rights. To
ensure the existence and income position of tenant farm-
ers, a land tenure law was implemented in 1937 and a land
tenure agreement in 1941. The regulation of land tenure
prices, long-term contracts, continuation rights, and the
preemptive rights to buy limited property rights. This
Figure 2. Historic waves in tenancy security and commons in the Netherlands. The figure shows a timeline from
the 18th century up to today of major developments related to land tenancy and commons in the Netherlands.
Source: Authors.
Art. 12(1) page 6 of 17 Goris et al: Collective land arrangements for agroecological transformations
shows a decommodification process. It also shows the
political recognition at that time that land security is at
the heart of food security. At the same time, this recogni-
tion did not eliminate the historical power imbalance
between the noble families’ heads, churchwardens, and
tenants. Tenants still had to comply with the unwritten
rules and to deal with the superior attitude of the
landowners.
Over time landowners claimed that land lease wasn’t
financially rewarding. It was more lucrative to sell a farm
not in use than a farm that was leased (van den Noort,
1986). In 2007 land tenure measures were liberalized to
ensure more rights and revenues for landowners. The lat-
ter indicates a process of commodification. The assump-
tion was that this would promote new land tenure
contracts. Generally, land tenure is perceived by policy-
makers as a way for farmers to create room for agricultural
investments. What is saved by leasing instead of buying
can be used for other agricultural investments. However,
the liberalization of land tenure measures resulted in sim-
ilar problems (short-term land tenure contracts and high
prices) as indicated by land tenant farmers in the begin-
ning of the 20th century (Figure 2). According to van den
Noort (1982), it was obvious that measures that address
only rights to exist (term, continuation) or only land prices
would not succeed. Options other than liberalization of
land tenure legislation were available. van den Noort
(1982) pointed to the option of regulating the land sales
market and in doing so leasing land would remain attrac-
tive for landowners and tenants of agricultural land. The
legal framework of regulating land prices was in operation
until 1963 and could have been reinforced (van den
Noort, 1982). The latter could have been a way to tackle
the historical cycle of decommodification and commodi-
fication. The political climate in the beginning of the 21st
century, however, was not favorable for regulating the
agricultural land market. Today, this is different: in the
proposed agricultural agreement with the sector land pol-
itics are at the core. Also, among farmers, the topic is
becoming of increasing urgency. The following section
presents the findings after the coding of data gathered
in farmers’ meetings and interviews.
Six integrated processes inherent to
decommodification
The systematization of the issues raised at the meetings with
agroecological farmers was translated by the tenancy group
in 13 principles for the revision of land tenure regulations
(Table 2). The following section aims to understand these
principles and how they relate to the 6 integrated processes
inherent to decommodification, as identified by De Moor
(2015) and supplemented by the authors after analyzing the
data. Equally, other results of the tenancy and commons
group will be discussed within the framework of decommo-
dification. Herewith, commonalities in principles and pro-
cesses become visible between the tenancy and commons
groups, even though strategies and practice in terms of land
arrangements diverge.
Process 1: Immunization from market dependency
Dependency on the land tenure system was a recurring
issue at the meetings of the tenancy group. A female
farmer describes the status of land:
Land is a financial asset. (Maria, CSA farmer, NL)
Table 2. The 13 principles for revising Dutch land tenure regulations (Toekomstboeren, 2022a)
1 There are criteria in lease contracts for ensuring soil quality.
2 Long-term contracts are the norm to improve the soil quality (and thus the ecological, social, and monetary value of the land).
That is why our proposal that career lease becomes standard with first right to new career contract/purchase by successor(s)
farm. Cultivation lease lapses to prevent farmers failing to invest in soil quality.
3 Lease for sustainable agriculture is not only guaranteed through existing certification labels.
4 All costs of sustainable land management are included in the lease price assessment.
5 Smaller plots than 1 hectare are also eligible for career lease and lease price review.
6 Investments in woody plants (trees and shrubs), soil improvement, biodiversity, and water management can be earned back
within the lease term or are transferable.
7 A lease is transferable to farm, rural workers, and/or citizens’ initiative, regardless of whether they have family ties to the
previous tenant.
8 Barter leases among farmers are possible.
9 Lease to an organized group of farmers and citizens, now often in foundations or associations, is easily possible.
10 Public landowners have an example function and provide standard career leases with sustainability clauses.
11 New leased land of all types of landowners must be publicly announced.
12 The tenant has the right to sustainable living-workspace to be realized on leased land for agricultural activities.
13 The owner can only make rules in all reasonableness regarding use, view, and installation, as these rules can get in the way of
contemporary, sustainable agricultural techniques, and way of life. Unwritten rules are not legally valid.
The tenancy group formulated this set of 13 principles by systematizing the input of agroecological farmers at the meetings.
Goris et al: Collective land arrangements for agroecological transformations Art. 12(1) page 7 of 17
According to her, farmers must talk a lot about these
issues to raise their own awareness and achieve a change
in their mindsets. Most farmers expressed their feelings dur-
ing the farmer meetings about the insecure situation they
find themselves in. Their land tenure contracts are short-
term, and with the regular change of tenant farmer, lease
prices are rising with each new contract signed. Another
issue mentioned is that banks require land security to pro-
vide loans. The minutes of the farmer meetings demonstrate
a wish to become more independent from the land tenure
market and to reverse power relations between landlord and
tenant. This links to Principle 2 for revising land tenure, “First
right to purchase, new career contract to tenants” means
limiting the transferability of property titles. These farmer
insights also link to Principle 4 “True cost accounting,” and
Principle 6 “Ecological investments are transferable” demon-
strating a wish to interfere with the market.
The commons group gives insight into this aspect of
decommodification in multiple ways. In the handbook for
starting commoners, a list is provided with commons
initiatives from national to local level, including a descrip-
tion of the way they work and function (Toekomstboeren,
2022b). These initiatives differ in the degree of immuni-
zation from market dependency. While Foundation Land
for Existence (Stichting Grond van Bestaan) aims to mon-
etarily devalue land to zero and therefore, only works with
donation money, Biodynamic Land Management (BD
Grondbeheer) leases land with long-term contracts to farm-
ers and with the lease money they pay out interest on
perpetual bond loans. The latter secures the land for (bio-
dynamic) organic farming and the farmer’s position but
departs from land as a financial asset of which debt must
be paid off through leasing. An increasing number of
Dutch farmers—many of them small-scale CSA farms–are
challenging that notion of farmland as a financial asset:
Receiving interest on land is something that
I strongly disagree with. I think taking it out of the
market would be a good thing. Land should be no
one’s or everyone’s. I’m finding out what the best
juridical structure is to accomplish that. (Valerie,
CSA farmer, NL)
At the same time, she acknowledged that farmers need
their agricultural land and holdings for a good pension.
Buying the land communally can offer a solution to a lack
of private capital or bank loans. Also, when short-term ten-
ure contracts prohibit long-term (ecological, monetary, affec-
tive, lifetime) investments, collectively buying land can offer
new opportunities. By bringing the land in a Community
Land Trust, a nongovernmental organization that democrat-
ically arranges sustainable land use on behalf of a place-
based community, regulations can be included about the
nontransferability of property titles, land can be taken out
of the market and perpetual possession and use by the
community is ensured. Interviews with people of long-
established commons in the United Kingdom show how
possession and use can be arranged. Vast stretches of land
are accessible to a large group of commoners, who each
have specific rights to “harvest” from the commons. This
provides nonmarketed land resources that generate (eco-
nomic) resilience and a specific quality of life (noneconomic
value) for the commoners. New markets such as carbon
markets and environmental payment schemes (payment for
ecosystem services), as well as land speculation and gentri-
fication are mentioned as a potential threat to the com-
mons. Table 3 provides an overview of how immunization
from market dependency is promoted within the 2 groups.
The numbers in the following tables refer to 13 Principles
for revising land tenure regulations in Table 2.
Process 2: Arrangement of social entitlements
In the meeting that farmers of the tenancy group had with
a public officer, social contracts were discussed. A farmer
present contested the proposal of the officer to use exclusive
certification schemes as a control mechanism for sustainable
land tenure. She explained that quite some agroecological
farmers do not work with certification as they are engaged in
CSA systems based on trust and transparency. The develop-
ment of participatory guarantee systems
1
and social con-
tracts about sustainable land use may also fulfill
transparency and accountability issues required by the land-
owner or the government for different purposes. Issues of
Table 3. Immunization from market dependency
Land Issues
Considered Commons Group Tenancy Group
Possession and
use of land
Possession and use secured by community Use secured by farmer or organization
Property title Nontransferable Principle 2: First right to purchase, new career contract to
tenants, limiting transferability of property titles
Market value Monetary downgrading to align with ecological
and agroecological carrying capacity of land
Market interventions proposed: Principle 4: True cost
accountability; Principle 6: Ecological investments are
transferable
Source: Authors.
1. Participatory guarantee system (PGS) is a quality
assurance system of organic and agroecological products that
build on social networks of producers and consumers and on
trust, and that define, measure, and assess sustainability to
induce knowledge exchange and learning (Loconto and
Hatanaka, 2018; Kaufmann et al. 2020).
Art. 12(1) page 8 of 17 Goris et al: Collective land arrangements for agroecological transformations
social contracts were also mentioned in questions related to
the takeover of land tenure contracts. Both in family farming
and in CSA, land is a collective resource, but land tenure is
currently geared toward personal agreements and family
transfer. These issues have resulted in the formulation of
Principle 7 for revising land tenure, “Lease transferable
beyond family ties” and Principle 9 “Lease to an organization
of farmers and citizens is possible.”
Social entitlements in commons are visible in the gover-
nance agreements on use to make sure the carrying capacity
of the commons is not exceeded. These can become formal-
ized (e.g., the verderers court in the United Kingdom, Robin-
son, 2019; Verderers of the New Forest, 2023), or statutes
and bylaws of the legal entity that holds land ownership in
the Netherlands—see for example the prospectus for perpet-
ual bonds of Stichting BD Grondbeheer (2021), a foundation
that aims to safeguard land for biodynamic farming, but
many of these agreements are informal social contracts
based on trust and reciprocity. Farmers in the Netherlands
build trust and reciprocity within their community by
actively involving people in the land:
At the start of the market garden 20 years ago we
deliberately chose to work with an association to
ensure shared decision making. By giving members
a voice, you get credit. They trust you that you will do
what is best as a farmer and ask if there is anything
they can help with. I think you need a feeling of
shared responsibility, and as few rules as possible.
Otherwise, people stop thinking and just follow the
rules. (Klaas, CSA farmer, NL)
In CSAs, members share the risk of crop failure and the
yield, trusting that the farmer is a capable steward and
food producer. In addition to this formal agreement, farm-
ers try to create resilience by building a web of relations:
The participants support me in numerous ways. For
transport, mowing, advice, and so on. (Valerie, CSA
farmer, NL)
In the centuries-old commons in the United Kingdom,
these social contracts exist predominantly between the farm-
ers. For example, because the animals are free to roam, the
commoners keep an eye out for each other’s animals and
take care of them when necessary. Social contracts are tools
for managing the commons sustainably, but they also create
customs and traditions, shared values and identity, and
strengthen reliance on people within the group instead of
dependence on the market.
Commoning is communal, you have to do it
together. (Lindsey, Commoner Dartmoor Forest
Commons, UK)
The handbook also discusses inclusivity and openness
to new people. Who is welcome to join and who is not is
a debated question and the answer to it will differ from
case to case. The commons group writes that ideally every-
body who feels directly connected to a common has
access, but that concessions might have to be made to
prevent exceeding the (ecological) carrying capacity. Inter-
viewed farmers have expressed their awareness of this
dilemma and some are actively trying to find a workable
answer together with their existing community. One
example of this is the community farm De Meent, host
of one of the meetings of the agroecological farmers orga-
nization Toekomstboeren, and which actively involves peo-
ple in asylum procedures and people from the nearby
village. To promote their participation, they have arranged
transport to the farm and compensation, mostly in kind
(warm meal, food, and training) for their voluntary work.
This proactive attitude ensured access to farmland, food,
and popular education for new inhabitants of the Nether-
lands. Table 4 provides an overview of how social entitle-
ments are arranged within the 2 groups. Numbers in the
table correspond to the Principles in Table 2.
Process 3: Restoring human
-
nature relationships
Moreover, the farmers describe how their land is for humans
and other species, not just agricultural land. Temporality of
land tenure is indicated by farmers as the main obstacle to
agroecological farming. The short-term land tenure contracts
restrain long-term investments, for example, in woody plants
and the regeneration of soils to improve soil health. Some
farmers indicated that agreements about sustainable land
use practices have been made with the landowner:
I had a land tenure contract where it was an
obligation that you maintain a decent crop rotation.
But I find that insufficient when it comes to soil
quality, soil life and being careful with the humus
content of the soil. (Maria, CSA farmer, NL)
Table 4. Arrangement of social entitlements
Land Issues
Considered Commons Group Tenancy Group
Possession and
use of land
Farmers and citizens Principle 7: Lease transferable beyond family ties; Principle 9: Lease to an
organization of farmers and citizens possible
Property title Property title community
organization
Principle 7: Lease transferable beyond family ties, limiting transferability of
property titles
Market value If any, monetary value in hands of
community organization
Ecological costs shared responsibility: Principle 4: True cost accountability;
Principle 6: Ecological investments are transferable
Source: Authors.
Goris et al: Collective land arrangements for agroecological transformations Art. 12(1) page 9 of 17
Another farmer proposed:
Not the highest bidder, but the healthiest soil farmer
should have the first choice. In this way, farmers who
invest slightly less in the soil will make the change
faster to take even better care of their managed plot.
(Jolke, CSA farmer, NL)
Principle 11 for revising land tenure regulations indi-
cates that new available land should be publicly
announced to ensure equal access to land. Yet, when new
lease land is publicly announced, and this is not coupled
with sustainability criteria and agroecology, the land tends
to go to the highest bidder, and this is often highly inten-
sive livestock farmers who need more land area to main-
tain their herd size:
Land management organizations (TBOs in Dutch)
sometimes choose conventional farmers instead of
agroecological farmers because of the higher lease
price that a conventional farmer can pay. (Sytze,
livestock farmer, NL)
Local and state governments tend to go for conven-
tional livestock farmers to easily meet policy criteria on
extensification to reduce nitrogen emissions. The first-
generation agroecological farmers, who argue for the
open announcement of new lease contracts, are still expe-
riencing difficulties in this case to obtain lease land or to
ensure continuation of their lease contracts.
Quite some principles for revising land tenure center
on the human–nature relationships, such as Principle 1
insisting on criteria for improvement of soil health, Prin-
ciple 2 identifying the need for long-term contracts to
build up soil health and take measures to enhance biodi-
versity, Principle 6 requiring the transferability of ecolog-
ical investments for longevity, Principle 8 promoting
barter leases to increase crop rotation, and Principle 10
the use of public contracts with sustainability clauses.
Farmers note that the restoration of human–nature
relationships not only benefits soil health and biodiversity
but also regenerates themselves:
We recognize the value of connection with nature
for health and wellbeing. Commoning [in the New
Forest] is quite a slow way of life. We don’t have
high expectations of income and therefore, we’re
perhaps a little happier, maybe? (Lindsey,
Commoner at the New Forest Commons, UK)
Table 5 provides an overview of how restoration of
human–nature relationships is promoted by the 2 groups.
Numbers in the table correspond to the Principles in
Table 2.
Process 4: Revising power relationships
The price of short-term contracts, of 1–6 years, is not
eligible for assessment by the chamber of agricultural land
(grondkamer), which means that there is no control on the
lease price in relation to agricultural production capacity
of the land. Also, regular contracts longer than 6 years and
under 1 hectare of land are also not eligible for assess-
ment, except for horticulture land of minimal 0.5 hectare
in the provinces Zuid-Holland and Noord-Holland. This is
based on an incorrect assumption that one requires more
than 0.5 or 1 hectare of land to be able to have a livable
income with farming. This is why below these minimal
acreages of agricultural land the lease price is not eligible
for assessment. This aligns with the feelings expressed by
small-scale farmers. One farmer stated:
Small-scale agriculture doesn’t seem to exist, also
not for banks. (Doetie, Goat keeper, NL)
This is confirmed in a meeting with an agricultural law
expert who was not aware of the problem with the min-
imal acreage of 1 hectare. As small-scale farmers they feel
they are not being taken seriously. A horticulture farmer
stated:
I am a scribble in the margin for them. (Esther, CSA
farmer, NL)
The minimal acreage for assessing the price has been
adjusted throughout the years and followed the growth in
average size of a farm in the Netherlands, thereby
Table 5. Restoring human–nature relationships
Land Issues
Considered Commons Group Tenancy Group
Possession and
use of land
Coexistence with nature Principle 1: Criteria; and Principle 2: Long-term contract
to improve soil quality; Principle 3: Divers guarantee
systems; Principle 4: True cost accountability; Principle
6: Ecological investments are transferable; Principle 8:
Barter lease to increase crop rotation, Principle 10:
Public contract with sustainability clauses
Property title Property title with community organization Property title with owner
Market value Restoring human–nature relationships by aligning
agroecological production capacity with
ecological carrying capacity
Restoring human–nature relationships by aligning
agroecological production capacity with ecological
carrying capacity
Source: Authors.
Art. 12(1) page 10 of 17 Goris et al: Collective land arrangements for agroecological transformations
neglecting small-scale and part-time farmers. Within the
research period (2017–2023) power relations shifted. The
work of the land tenure group enabled engaged farmers to
achieve better land tenure contracts, and the farmers’
organizations became a negotiating partner of the govern-
ment. At a meeting with a public officer to discuss the
revision of land tenure regulations, possibilities were dis-
cussed to change the taxes on land property, and through
these measurements reduce land lease prices. The officer
referred to decommodification processes when he referred
to the arts, which are also public assets excluded from
tax payments.
The land tenancy group has gathered good practices,
examples of land tenure contracts including agreements
on sustainable land use. In one of these good practices, they
have included the option to revise sustainable land use
objectives if they aren’t sufficient anymore to promote bio-
diversity and soil health. This contract also includes a point
system that leaves space for the farmer to choose between
the different measures for sustainable land use. Both aspects
of the land tenure contract show that the autonomy of the
farmer is more respected and power relations are reversed.
Also, commoners mentioned the importance of self-
determination as a farmer, and as a community. By using
legal structures such as cooperatives and foundations, and
through forging mutual interdependence on social relations,
farmers strive to reverse power relations. Table 6 provides an
overview of mechanisms to reverse power relations as
expressed by the 2 groups. Numbers in the table correspond
to the Principles in Table 2.
Process 5: Transcending generations
Farmers explain that they want to construct social struc-
tures for sustainable land use that transcend their own
lives. They want to ensure continuity. Long-term for these
farmers transcends the duration of their own activities on
the land: it is imperative for them that their care for the
land and healthy food is continued when they retire.
For the continuity of the farm it is important that
the land will be brought into collective ownership. It
would be a shame if that value that I created
disappeared after I stop, or if something happens to
the landowner. (Valerie, CSA farmer)
The perpetuity of a farm (a “place” with meaning, tradi-
tion, long-term care, and investment) was mentioned as
a vital aspect, and something that calls for protection. Table 7
provides an overview of how generational transcendence can
be ensured according to the 2 groups. Numbers in the table
correspond to the Principles in Table 2.
Process 6: Place-based arrangements
Farmers mention that the maximum price is defined by
the national government at regional level, whereas in
some municipalities there are vastly different soil types.
They plea for a more place-based approach by differenti-
ating within the municipal boundaries. Promoting resto-
ration of nature is often mentioned as one of the main
reasons to start commoning. As indicated before, this has
much to do with the perpetuity or continuation of the
farm as a biodiverse place with healthy soil.
Table 6. Reversing power relations
Land Issues
Considered Commons Group Tenancy Group
Possession and
use of land
Possession and use by farmers and
citizens
Principle 3: Diverse guarantee systems; Principle 5: Small plots eligible for
career lease and lease price review; Principle: 11 Land for lease publicly
announced
Property title Property title community
organization
Principle 2: First right to purchase, new career contract to tenants, limiting
transferability of property titles
Market value If any, monetary value in hands of
community organization
Principle 4: True cost accounting; Principle 5: Small plots eligible for price
review; Principle 13: Abolishment of unwritten rules
Source: Authors.
Table 7. Transcending generations
Land Issues
Considered Commons Group Tenancy Group
Possession and
use of land
Possession and use remain with
community organization
Principle 6: Ecological investments are transferable; Principle 7:
Lease transferable beyond family ties
Property title Property title community organization Principle 7: Lease transferable beyond family ties, limiting
transferability of property titles
Market value If any, monetary value in hands of
community organization
Principle 6: Ecological investments are transferable
Source: Authors.
Goris et al: Collective land arrangements for agroecological transformations Art. 12(1) page 11 of 17
The reason that I started this permaculture garden
was to make a plot of earth more fertile, diverse,
and sustainable. (Valerie, CSA farmer, NL)
The commoners in the United Kingdom are even more
explicit about their relationship with the landscape in
which they live and whose history they want to keep alive:
The New Forest is a landscape that has been grazed
for thousands of years. It has shaped the landscape.
You can find plants, insects and wildlife that are
now rare species. The commoners turn their animals
out on the commons and are very connected to the
land. (Tom, commoner at the New Forest
Commons, UK)
This quote illustrates how centuries of living within
a landscape, with only methods of human scale (vehicles
are not allowed in some commons in the United King-
dom), the two—people and landscape—have coevolved
together. This comes with a certain sensitivity for the inter-
action between humans and nature that has delivered
highly appreciated landscapes:
The forest is a very special place, and if you change
one thing, it alters everything. (Tom, commoner at
the New Forest Commons, UK)
In that, local and social agency allows for context sensitive
practices: commons are essentially place-based. With that
come local customs and understanding of the landscape,
often passed on from generation to generation or through
close observation over longer periods over time.This is a form
of inherited ecological knowledge, an indigenous knowl-
edge. Table 8 provides an overview of how place-based is
arranged within the 2 groups. Also, here numbers in the
table correspond to the Principles in Table 2.
Discussion
Our research question touched upon the commonalities
among upcoming forms of communal land ownership and
land tenancy arrangements. In our study, the tenancy and
commons groups might have appeared as opposing
groups in the sense of pursuing different strategies, that
is “adaptation” versus “transformation,” and how they deal
with possession and use, property title and market value
of land. In practice, this concerns groups, with some over-
lap in people, who farm in a similar agroecological way
and who are at the same time concerned with tenancy
rights out of existence of agroecological farmers and who
want simultaneously to rethink and transform the agricul-
tural land use system.
The concept of decommodification allows us to under-
stand the commonalities among both groups by looking at
processes and shared principles. Decommodification pro-
motes a greater integration of processes for withdrawing
agricultural land from global financial markets and restoring
ecological balance and communities. It foresees a shared
narrative to Toekomstboeren’s tenancy and commons group
that also puts underlying values such as rootedness, care for
nature and future generations, and autonomy at the center.
As such, our findings show a multilayered understanding of
land decommodification among the Dutch agroecological
farmers (De Moor, 2015; Bollier, 2021). Not only is decom-
modification applied for the practical and highly necessary
reason to enable existence of the farm, but both the tenancy
and commons group have also articulated nonmaterial,
affective, and biophilic values that underlie land decommo-
dification processes.
Underlying values include (1) decreased market depen-
dency, (2) social entitlements, (3) tending human–nature
relationships (De Moor, 2015), and as this study shows (4)
reversing of power relations, (5) transcending generations,
and (6) place-based developments. Such values have been
found to be crucial in transformation toward agroecology
(Horlings, 2015; Gosnell et al., 2019; Bakker, 2023) but
haven’t been linked to the decommodification discourse
before. Values and resulting processes as described above,
as well as basic needs such as clean water, healthy food
and a livelihood, are seen as the outcomes to which any
measures should lead. Revising regulations in tenancy and
the land sale market can create space and time to achieve
those outcomes. These analogue processes are character-
istic for the groups of agroecological farmers engaged in
this study.
The distinction between “property” and “possession”
made by Gerber and Gerber (2017), and market value proved
relevant in assessing to what extent a proposal or principle of
the commons and tenancy group challenge property titles
and the dominant financial model. “Commoning” land and
Table 8. Place-based
Land Issues
Considered Commons Group Tenancy Group
Possession and
use of land
Territorial approach Principle 12: Right to living-workspace on leased land
Property title Property title with community
organization in the territory
Principle 7: Lease transferable beyond family ties, limiting
transferability of property titles
Market value If any, monetary value in hands of
community organization in the territory
Ecological costs shared responsibility, Principle 4: True cost
accountability; Principle 6: Ecological investments are
transferable
Source: Authors.
Art. 12(1) page 12 of 17 Goris et al: Collective land arrangements for agroecological transformations
possession-based land tenure systems challenge the concept
of property and monetary value and depart from the princi-
ples of possession and communal use, responsibility and
reciprocity. Commons and possession-based systems, in
which “decommodification” is a central concept, challenge
the current neoliberal paradigm (Bollier and Helfrich, 2014;
Lijster, 2022), but perhaps more importantly they provide
approaches toward rethinking and transforming agricultural
land use systems.
This study shows transformative principles for the revi-
sion of land tenure regulations, such as restricting the
transferability of property titles by proposing the first
right on continuation of the tenancy or purchase to the
tenant. The same counts for commons systems of which
the examples in this study are more transformative of
nature than commoning initiatives described by Jellema
et al. (2023) that follow the financial model and maintain
the monetary value of agricultural land. So far, the ten-
ancy group has pushed the internal and public debate on
revision of land tenure regulations and sustainable lease
contracts toward better lease constructs for agroecological
farming. Moving forward with negotiations at a detailed
level is more toward reforms than transformation of the
agricultural land use system. The ongoing negotiations for
revising land tenure regulations in the Netherlands has
led to greater social organization of farmers’ organizations
for reestablishing land tenure rights. However, this might
lead to a repeat of history. As described in the historic
introduction, through social organization of tenant farm-
ers, a land tenure law was implemented in 1937 and a land
tenure agreement in 1941 (Swinnen, 2002). Yet this land
tenure law and agreement was not aligned with the agri-
cultural land market, and this resulted in landowners pre-
ferring to sell a farm not in use instead of a leased farm.
An integral approach was missing. Regulating the land
sale market parallel with revision of land tenure regula-
tions may ensure that with improving land tenure rights,
offering long-term lease contracts is more attractive than
speculating with agricultural land.
The latter is crucial to ensure sufficient agricultural
land is available for land tenure. This allows farmers to
invest their financial capital in other things than in land
ownership. This is especially necessary since first-
generation agroecological farmers start without or limited
financial capital and prefer not to loan or are not eligible
for loans from banks. However, the results show that the
ongoing revision of land tenure regulations and securing
land tenure rights are discussed without considering what
needs to happen with the agricultural land market. Thus,
an integral perspective on land tenure and the agricultural
land market is missing. The 6 integrated processes of
decommodification provide a theoretical base to come
to this integral perspective.
The link between a good pension for farmers and unre-
alistic prices for the takeover of agricultural land and
holdings is made but can be worked out further in a polit-
ical agenda on a good pension for farmers that is not
based on land property titles. And, to date there is no
well-articulated discourse on pro-poor land reform among
both tenancy and commons group. In meetings with the
public officer on revision of land tenure regulations it has
been discussed the options for making land in the
National land bank (Nationale Grondbank) available for
first-generation, less capitalized agroecological farmers
but as this wasn’t the right institutional setting to discuss
this matter there was no follow-up. Generally, the tenancy
and commons group lack the capacity to work on these
issues as most of this work is done voluntarily besides full-
time work as farmers.
Noteworthy is that monetary devaluation (up to 85%)
is already happening for agricultural land that is converted
to nature area in the Netherlands. This monetary devalu-
ation entails compensation for loss of income possibilities
with the conversion of agricultural land to nature area.
The instrumentation is there to put also in place for con-
version of agricultural land to land used for food produc-
tion following the agroecological principles. This means
that the agroecological production capacity is aligned with
the land’s ecological carrying capacity and production
needs to benefit soil health and biodiversity. No high
yields need to be obtained to pay off the high land lease
or purchase price at the costs of soil health, and biodiver-
sity, and at costs of agroecological food prices that are
affordable by low-income households.
The concept of situational justice might be useful in
enabling institutions such as the Chamber of Agricultural
Land to also evaluate land tenure prices of agricultural land
below 1 hectare. Yet, the Chamber does not do so, which is at
odds with general principles of good administration (such as
the principle of equality), that obliges the government to
treat all cases by the same standards. Furthermore, it could
be relevant in the cases of tenant farmers who lose their land
to extension of nature, extensification of livestock farming,
housing, or infrastructure. Such concepts could ensure that
tenant farmers will be treated equally to farmers that own
most of their land. Further research can pay more attention
to the social class difference of farmers with and without
land and capital. In the group of farmers represented in the
commons and tenancy group there were few dairy farmers.
Therefore, only a few land issues specific to this sector have
been addressed.
Conclusion
The work on communal land ownership and land tenancy
arrangements by groups of farmers within Toekomstboeren
is connected by a shared narrative on land decommodifi-
cation directed toward agroecological farming, resilience,
and relative autonomy from global financial markets. This
narrative creates a space for agroecological transformation
as it fosters the unveiling of principles for land tenure
regulations, the showcasing and experimenting with sus-
tainable land tenure contracts and commons construc-
tions. In the past few years sustainable land tenure
contracts have become a reality for farmers that have
achieved a long-term contract. However, other agroecolo-
gical farmers still lose (part of) their lands in use due to an
increasing need for land for housing and infrastructure
coupled with land speculation. In addition, there is an
emerging interest in acquiring more land by dairy farmers
who want to maintain the same size of livestock instead of
Goris et al: Collective land arrangements for agroecological transformations Art. 12(1) page 13 of 17
reducing the livestock herd to realize a lower number of
livestock per hectare to achieve sustainability goals. Also,
diverse commons land initiatives have emerged that advo-
cate for different collective property arrangements.
The processes of improving land tenure rights and cre-
ating new commons arrangements both depend on land
tenure policies. These policies influence the availability of
both land for lease and for sale. Therefore, an integral
vision of land policies is needed. The results show that
some of the efforts toward improving land tenure rights
are transformative in nature, while continuing to work on
land tenure rights without an integral approach may end
up being adaptive. Importantly, although the initial impe-
tus and articulation of farmers was gaining rights and
access to land, this study shows that, for the farmers
involved, decommodification processes are not only about
the continuity of farms but also about a social and spiri-
tual dimension. Farmers’ motivations are grounded in
values of care and solidarity. This implies decommodifica-
tion processes reach further than social contracts, reduc-
ing market dependence, and restoring human–nature
relationships and are associated with an intergenerational,
grounded worldview which challenges anthropocentric
power and reverses outdated power relations among land-
owners and land tenants.
Data accessibility statement
The 6 steps of farmer-led research are depicted in Figure 1.
Meeting minutes, excel with data retrieved from online
form, and interview transcripts cannot be provided for
reasons of confidentiality. Table 1 shows the 6 integrated
processes inherent to decommodification and used for
coding.
Acknowledgments
We thank the farmers in the tenancy and commons group
of Toekomstboeren for their cooperation and sharing of
experience and knowledge. Also, we are very grateful for
the valuable feedback of the guest editor and anonymous
reviewers of this article.
Funding
POP3 Project, Province Gelderland, “New land arrange-
ments for sustainable agriculture” and Internal Funding
Agrosystems Research Group, Wageningen Plant Research.
Competing interests
The authors don’t have any competing interests.
Author contributions
Contributed to conception and design: MG, EB.
Contributed to acquisition of data: MG, EB, LB.
Contributed to analysis and interpretation of data:
MG, EB.
Drafted and/or revised the article: MG, EB, MS, SOK, CB,
MR, LB, JH.
Approved the submitted version for publication: MG,
EB, MS, SOK, CB, MR, LB, JH.
References
Appadurai, A. 1988. Commodities and the politics of
value, in Appadurai, A ed., The social life of things,
commodities in cultural perspective. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press: 3–61.
Bakker, E,Hassink, J,van Veluw, K. 2023. The ‘inner’
dimension of Dutch farmers’ trajectories of change:
Drivers, triggers and turning points for sustained
agroecological practices. Agroecology and Sustain-
able Food Systems 47(5): 687–717. DOI: http://dx.
doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2023.2180563.
Bezner Kerr, R,Liebert, J,Kansanga, M,Kpienbaareh, D.
2022. Human and social values in agroecology: A
review. Elementa Science of the Anthropocene 10(1):
00090. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/elementa.
2021.00090.
Bollier, D. 2021. Commoning, in Klomp, K, Oosterwaal, S
eds., Thrive, fundamentals for a new economy.
Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Business Contact.
Bollier, D,Helfrich, S eds. 2014. The wealth of the com-
mons: A world beyond market and state.Amherst,
MA: Levellers Press.
Bollier, D,Helfrich, S. 2020. Frei, fair und lebendig die
macht der commons. Bielefeld, Germany: Transcript
Verlag.
Bravo, G,De Moor, T. 2008. The commons in Europe:
From past to future. International Journal of the
Commons 2(2): 155–161.
Calo, A,Shields, K,Iles, A. 2023. Using property law to
expand agroecology: Scotland’s land reforms based
on human rights. The Journal of Peasant Studies.
50(5): 2075–2111. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.
1080/03066150.2022.2083506.
Carlisle, L,Montenegro de Wit, M,DeLonge, MS,Calo,
A,Getz, C,Ory, J,Munden-Dixon, K,Galt, R,Mel-
one, B,Know, R,Iles, A,Press, D. 2019. Securing
the future of US agriculture: The case for investing
in new entry sustainable farmers. Elementa Science
of Anthropocene 7:17.
CBS. 2021. Landbouwgrond naar gebruikstitels per pro-
vincie. Available at https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/
maatwerk/2022/12/landbouwgrond-naar-gebruik
stitels-per-provincie-2008-2021. Accessed May 29,
2024.
CIDSE. 2018. The principles of agroecology, towards just,
resilient and sustainable food systems. Brussels, Bel-
gium: CIDSE.
Cornish, F,Breton, N,Moreno-Tabarez, U,Delgado, J,
Rua, M,de-Graft Aikins, A,Hodgetss, D. 2023.
Participatory action research. Nature Reviews Meth-
ods Primers 3: 34.
Curtis, DR. 2016. Did the commons make medieval and
early modern rural societies more equitable? A sur-
vey of evidence from across Western Europe,
1300–1800. Journal of Agrarian Change 16(4):
646–664.
De Moor, T. 2009. Avoiding tragedies: A Flemish common
and its commoners under the pressure of social and
economic change during the eighteenth century.
The Economic History Review 62(1): 1–22.
Art. 12(1) page 14 of 17 Goris et al: Collective land arrangements for agroecological transformations
De Moor, T. 2013. Homo cooperans. Instituties voor collec-
tieve actie en de solidaire samenleving. Utrecht, The
Netherlands: Universiteit Utrecht, Faculteit Geestes
wetenschappen.
De Moor, T. 2015. The dilemma of the commoners: Under-
standing the use of common-pool resources in the
long-term perspective. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Demoed, HB. 1987. Mandegoed schandegoed. De mark-
verdeling in Oost-Nederland in de 19e eeuw [disser-
tation]. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Universiteit
van Amsterdam.
Diez-Hurtado, A. 2001. Guı
´a Metodologico para la Siste-
matizacion de Experiencias del Secretariado Rural.
Lima, Peru: Secretariado Rural do Peru.
Erisman, JW. 2021. Setting ambitious goals for agricul-
ture to meet environmental targets. One Earth 4(1):
15–18. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.
2020.12.007.
Eurostat. 2019. The professional status of rural women in
the EU. Available at https://www.europarl.europa.
eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2019/608868/IPOL_
STU(2019)608868_EN.pdf. Accessed May 29, 2024.
Eurostat. 2022a. Agricultural land prices by region. Avail-
able at https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/
view/apri_lprc/default/bar?lang¼en. Accessed Jan-
uary 9, 2023.
Eurostat. 2022b. Agricultural land renting prices for one
year by region. Available at https://ec.europa.eu/
eurostat/databrowser/view/apri_lprc/default/bar?
lang¼en. Accessed January 9, 2023.
FAO. 2019. News article: Agroecology can help change
the world’s food production for the better.
Available at https://www.fao.org/newsroom/detail/
Agroecology-can-help-change-the-world-s-food-
production-for-the-better/en#:~:text¼A%20path
%20to%20sustainable%20development&text¼
Agroecology%20can%20safeguard%20natural
%20resources,countries%20where%20hunger%
20is%20concentrated. Accessed April 19, 2019.
Foley, JA,Defries, R,Asner, GP,Barford, C,Bonan, G,
Carpenter, SR,Chapin, FS,Coe, MT,Daily, GC,
Gibbs, HK,Helkowski, JH,Holloway, T,Howard,
EA,Kucharik, CJ,Monfreda, C,Patz, JA,Prentice,
IC,Ramankutty, N,Snyder, PK. 2005. Global con-
sequences of land use. Science 309(5734): 570–574.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2023.
2180563.
Formsma, W. 1981. Beklemrecht en landbouw: een
agronomische-historische studie over het beklemrecht
in Groningen, in vergelijking met ontwikkelingen
elders. Groningen, The Netherlands: Nederlands
Agronomische-Historische Instituut.
Gerber, JD,Gerber, JF.2017.Decommodificationas
a foundation for ecological economics. Ecological
Economics 131: 551–556. DOI: https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.ecolecon.2016.08.030.
Gliessman, S. 2018. Defining agroecology. Agroecology
and Sustainable Food Systems 42(6): 599–600. DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2018.1432329.
Gomiero, T. 2016. Soil degradation, land scarcity and food
security: Reviewing a complex challenge. Sustain-
ability 8(3): 281. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/
su8030281.
Gosnell, H,Gill, N,Voyer, M. 2019. Transformational adap-
tation on the farm: Processes of change and persistence
in transitions to ‘climate-smart’ regenerative agricul-
ture. Global Environmental Change 59(3–4): 101965.
Greer, I. 2016. Welfare reform, precarity and the re-
commodification of labour. Work, Employment and
Society 30(1): 162–173.
Hall, R,Edelman, M,Borras, SM,Scoones, I,White, B,
Wolford, W. 2017. Resistance, acquiescence or
incorporation? An introduction to land grabbing
and political reactions ‘from below’, in Edelman,
M, Hall, R, Borras, SM Jr, Scoones, I, White, B, Wol-
ford, W eds., Global land grabbing and political reac-
tions ‘from below’. New York, NY: Routledge: 1–22.
Horlings, LG. 2015. The inner dimension of sustainability:
Personal and cultural values current opinion. Envi-
ronmental Sustainability 14: 163–169.
Jellema, A,Beldman, A,Woltjer, J. 2023. Verkenning
nieuwe eigendoms- en pachtvormen voor landbouw-
grond. Een stimulans voor een meer grondgebonden
melkveehouderij? Wageningen, The Netherlands: WUR.
Kaufmann, S,Hruschka, N,Vogl, CR. 2020. Bridging the
literature gap: A framework for assessing actor par-
ticipation in Participatory Guarantee Systems (PGS).
Sustainability 12(19): 8100.
Lamine, C,Schmitt, C,Palm, J,Derbez, F,Petersen, P.
2021. How may policy instruments favor an articula-
tion between open ended and deterministic perspec-
tives to support agroecological transitions? Insight
from a Franco-Brazilian comparison, in Lamine, C,
Magda, D, Rivera-Ferre, M, Marsden, T eds., Agroeco-
logical transitions, between determinist and open-
ended visions. Bruxelles: Peter Lang: 129–152.
Lijster, T. 2022. Wat we gemeen hebben. Amsterdam, The
Netherlands: Uitgeverij de Bezige Bij.
LNV. 2020. Voorstel herziening pachtwetgeving.DenHaag:
LNV.
Loconto, A,Hatanak, M. 2018. Participatory guarantee
systems: Alternative ways of defining, measuring,
and assessing ‘Sustainability’. Sociologia Ruralis
58(2): 412–432.
MacMillan, T. 2018. Learning from farmer-led research,
For Whom? Questioning the Food and Farming
Research Agenda: 24–25.
Nye
´le
´ni Declaration. 2015. Declaration of the Interna-
tional Forum for Agroecology, Nye
´le
´ni, Mali: 27 Feb-
ruary 2015. Development 58(2–3): 163–168.
Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the commons: The evolution of
institutions for collective action.Cambridge,UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Paping, R. 2021. Eigendomsrechten als motor voor
sociale ontwikkeling in Groningen, Van Beklemrecht
tot uiterst gepolariseerde samenleving. Groniek, His-
torisch Tijdschrift 53(228/229): 240–259.
Paulissen, MPCP,van Beek, R,Nekrassoff, S,Huijbens,
EH,Spek, T. 2021. Dire necessity or mere
Goris et al: Collective land arrangements for agroecological transformations Art. 12(1) page 15 of 17
opportunity? Recurrent peat commercialisation from
raised bog commons in the early modern low coun-
tries. International Journal of the Commons 15(1):
100–118.
Peredo, AM,McLean, M. 2020. Decommodification in
action: Common property as countermovement.
Organization 27(6): 817–839.
Petersen, P,Mussoi, E,Dalsoglio, F. 2012. Institutiona-
lization of the agroecological approach in Brazil:
Advances and challenges. Journal of Sustainable
Agriculture 37(1): 103–114. DOI: http://dx.doi.
org/10.1080/10440046.2012.735632.
Pimbert, M. 2015. Agroecology as an alternative vision to
conventional development and climate-smart agri-
culture. Development 58: 286–298. DOI: http://dx.
doi.org/10.1057/s41301-016-0013-5.
Polanyi, K. 1944. The great transformation. Boston, MA:
Beacon Press.
Regt, de WJ. 2003, Oct 31. De grondmarkt in gebruik. Een
studie over de grondmarkt, ten behoeve van MNP-
beleidsonderzoek en grondgebruiksmodellering.
RIVM. Rapportnummer 550016001.
Robinson, NA. 2019. The public trust doctrine in the 21st
century. George Washington Journal of Energy and
Environmental Law 10: 83.
Rotz, S,Fraser, ED,Martin, RC. 2019. Situating tenure,
capital and finance in farmland relations: Implica-
tions for stewardship and agroecological health in
Ontario, Canada. The Journal of Peasant Studies
46(1): 142–164. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/
03066150.2017.1351953.
RVO. 2023. Nationale Grondbank. Available at https://
www.rvo.nl/onderwerpen/nationale-grondbank.
Accessed September 11, 2023.
Saturnino, M,Borras, JCF Jr,Monsalve Sua
´rez, S. 2015.
Land and food sovereignty. Third World Quarterly
36(3): 600–617. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
01436597.2015.1029225.
Schils, RLM,Bufe, C,Rhymer, CM,Francksen, RM,
Klaus, VH,Abdalla, M,Milazzo, F,Lellei-Kova
´cs,
E,ten Berge, H,Bertora, C,Chodkiewicz, A,
Dˇ
amˇ
atı
ˆrcˇ
a, C,Feigenwinter, I,Ferna
´ndez-
Rebollo, P,Ghiasi, S,Hejduk, S,Hiron, M,
Janicka, M,Pellaton, R,Smith, KE,Thorman, R,
Vanwalleghem, T,Williams, J,Zavattaro, L,Kam-
pen, J,Derkx, R,Smith, P,Whittingham, MJ,
Buchmann, N,Newell Price, JP. 2022. Permanent
grasslands in Europe: Land use change and intensi-
fication decrease their multifunctionality. Agricul-
ture, Ecosystems & Environment 330: 107891.
Schutter, OD;UN, Human Rights Council, Special
Rapporteur on the Right to Food. 2010. Report
submitted by the Special Rapporteur on the right to
food, Olivier De Schutter. Geneva, Switzerland:
United Nations. A/HRC/16/49.
Silvis, HJ,Voskuilen, MJ. 2018. Economie van de pacht.
Wageningen, The Netherlands: Wageningen Eco-
nomic Research.
Souza, HN,de Cardoso, IM,de Sa
´Mendonça, E,Car-
valho, AF,de Oliveira, GB,Gjorup, DF,Bonfim,
VR. 2012. Learning by doing: A participatory meth-
odology for systematization of experiments with
agroforestry systems, with an example of its appli-
cation. Agroforestry Systems 85(2): 247–262.
Stichting BD Grondbeheer. 2021. Informatie memoran-
dum Eeuwigdurende Obligatielening II. Available at
https://cdn.sanity.io/files/2ocd7kk4/production/
9b5e11957d6531ecdfa2ed11f2d6caa781b29914.
pdf. Accessed October 24, 2023.
Stock, PV,Carolan, M,Rosin, C eds. 2015. Food utopias:
Reimagining citizenship, ethics and community. New
York: Routledge.
Swinnen, J. 2002. Political reforms, rural crises, and land
tenure in western Europe. Food Policy 27(4):
371–394. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0306-
9192(02)00045-3.
Swinnen, J,Van Herck, K,Vranken, L. 2016. The diver-
sity of land markets and regulations in Europe, and
(some of) its causes. The Journal of Development
Studies 52(2): 186–205. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.
1080/00220388.2015.1060318.
Toekomstboeren.2019a.Jaarverslag.Wageningen,The
Netherlands: Toekomstboeren. Available at https://
toekomstboeren.nl/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/
Jaarverslag-2018-vereniging-Toekomstboeren.pdf.
Accessed April 28, 2023.
Toekomstboeren. 2019b. Grond van Bestaan: Land voor
agroecologie en nieuwe boeren.Wageningen,The
Netherlands: Toekomstboeren. Available at https://
toekomstboeren.nl/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/
Grond-van-Bestaan-Land-voor-agroecologie-en-
nieuwe-boeren.pdf. Accessed April 28, 2023.
Toekomstboeren. 2022a. Visie op pacht en agro-ecologie.
Land is geen handelswaar, maar een publiek goed.
Duurzame pachtregelgeving en loopbaanpacht
onmisbaar voor voedselsoevereiniteit en agro-ecologie.
Wageningen, The Netherlands: Toekomstboeren.
Available at https://toekomstboeren.nl/wp-
content/uploads/2022/12/Visie-op-pacht-en-
agroecologie.pdf. Accessed April 28, 2023.
Toekomstboeren. 2022b. De Commons van nu, handboek
voor startende commons boerderijen.Wageningen,
The Netherlands: Toekomstboeren.
van den Noort , PC. 1982. De teruggang van de pacht in
Nederland. ESB Economisch Statische Berichten 67:
1049–1054.
van den Noort , PC. 1986. The decline in Dutch agricul-
tural tenancy. Land Use Uolicy 3(1): 5–8.
Verderers of the New Forest. 2023. Verderers of the
new forest policies. Available at https://www.
verderers.org.uk/policies-and-byelaws/. Accessed
October 24, 2023.
Wiedmann, T,Lenzen, M,Keyßer, LT,Steinberger, JK.
2020. Scientists’ warning on affluence. Nature Com-
munications 11(1): 3107.
Wittman, H,James, D. 2022. Land governance for agroe-
cology. Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene 10(1):
00100. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/elementa.
2021.00100.
Art. 12(1) page 16 of 17 Goris et al: Collective land arrangements for agroecological transformations
How to cite this article: Goris, M, Bakker, E, van den Berg, L, Siegmund-Schultze, M, OKeeffe, S, Ravesloot, M, Bufe, C,
Hassink, J. 2024. Collective land arrangements that decommodify land for agroecological transformations.
Elementa: Science
of the Anthropocene
12(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/elementa.2023.00061
Domain Editor-in-Chief: Alastair Iles, University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA
Guest Editor: Adam Calo, Environmental Governance and Politics, Radboud University, The Netherlands
Knowledge Domain: Sustainability Transitions
Part of an Elementa Special Feature: Land and Sustainable Food Transformations
Published: June 13, 2024 Accepted: April 08, 2024 Submitted: April 28, 2023
Copyright: ©2024 The Author(s). This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original author and source are credited. See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Elem Sci Anth
is a peer-reviewed open access
journal published by University of California Press.
Goris et al: Collective land arrangements for agroecological transformations Art. 12(1) page 17 of 17
... In our project, pursuing a fundamental orientation could have involved exploring pathways toward restructuring production, consumption, and supply chains, such as reconfiguring systems in line with degrowth economics (Guerrero Lara et al., 2023), promoting and facilitating agroecological production methods for sustainable and healthy diets (Frison & Clément, 2020), and exploring new forms of land tenure and multi-use management (Goris et al., 2024). These would target the root causes of the impacts of the food system, rather than the immediate effects. ...
Article
Full-text available
Within research on societal transitions, ‘post-normal’ scientific approaches such as transdisciplinary research are increasingly prominent. The difficulties of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research are well-established, but less attention has been paid to the underlying causes of these difficulties. In this essay, we argue that the political natures of both ‘transdisciplinarity’ and ‘transitions’ themselves underlie the more visible research challenges. While recent work has outlined how transitions research, embedded as it is in the sociopolitical milieu, can reproduce or challenge existing regimes, here we discuss more specifically the politics of projects themselves, which necessarily affect how they inform societal transitions. Using literature and examples from our own work, we outline three politically contested areas in projects – stakeholder inclusion, understanding of transitions, and research questions that are considered – and identify two broad orientations that research can follow to address these: incremental or fundamental. The interconnectedness of the political aspects of transdisciplinary transitions research requires explicit attention, we argue, if such work is to effectively address complex and ‘wicked’ societal challenges.
Article
Full-text available
Transformation to sustainable agriculture in the Netherlands is increasingly called for. Agroecology is acknowledged as a sustainable – potentially transformative – alternative for conventional methods of agriculture. However, few farmers adopt agroecological practices. Recent literature suggests failure to achieve sustained and transformational change may be due to neglectance of personal, nonmaterial aspects of such processes, also referred to as “inner” dimensions of sustainability. Aiming for empirical underpinning, individual transition pathways of nine agroecological farmers were explored, and processes of change were analyzed using a conceptual framework of “zones of friction and traction” across three interconnected and embedded spheres of transformation: the personal, the practical and the political. The chosen framework allows for seeing the role of the personal aspects of transformation, without losing sight of pressures and influences from the “outside.” Identification of zones of friction and traction revealed where and why transformation was happening, as well as the drivers behind farmers’ choice and passion for agroecology. We argue that focus on the “inner” dimension or personal sphere is foundational to sustained transformational change in the practical and political spheres, i.e. the outside world. The presented findings have implications for strategies targeting envisioned transition toward a sustainable food system.
Article
Full-text available
Agroecological transitions aim to redesign the structure of contemporary global food systems to improve food security, ecosystem health, community development, worker livelihoods, and social and ecological justice. A fundamental principle of agroecology is the responsible governance of land. Yet land—as a concept, resource, and territory—is heavily contested through processes of colonization, enclosure, commodification, and financialization. The governance of land and natural resources is also intimately tied to questions of power and privilege—Who governs land? Who benefits, and who is excluded? These questions presuppose an ontological understanding of land that can also be contested: What is land, what purpose(s) does it serve, and for whom? In this article, we review key concepts at the intersection of land governance and agroecology. We take a case study approach to highlight how tensions around ontologies of land mediate agroecological futures in 2 settler-colonial contexts: Brazil and Canada. We then explore how land governance for agroecology might be experienced and understood across different land governance institutions—including relational and community commons, private property regimes, and new forms of hybrid land relations that challenge land privatization. We discuss how these land regimes influence people, landscapes, and agroecological outcomes and conclude with a consideration of the access, equity, and justice implications of different land governance approaches for sustainable food systems.
Article
Full-text available
Agroecological transitions in the Global North are inhibited by the cultural and legal norms of an ‘ownership model’ of property that underpins agrarian capitalism. The resulting property system limits asset transfers to agroecological regimes and co-produces technologically oriented reforms. Scotland’s land reforms are emergent legal interventions to reshape land ownership within a Western legal context. By examining legal manoeuvres, mobilizing discourses, and governance considerations in Scotland, we sketch a roadmap for rethinking property in regions where the ownership model is entrenched. This case suggests that existing property law can be leveraged to achieve shifts in property norms towards promoting agroecology.
Article
Full-text available
Permanent grasslands cover 34% of the European Union’s agricultural area and are vital for a wide variety of ecosystem services essential for our society. Over recent decades, the permanent grassland area has declined and land use change continues to threaten its extent. Simultaneously, the management intensity of permanent grasslands increased. We performed a systematic literature review on the multifunctionality of permanent grasslands in Europe, examining the effects of land use and management on 19 grassland ecosystem service indicators. Based on the evidence in 696 out of 70,456 screened papers, published since 1980, we found that both land use change and intensification of management decreased multifunctionality. In particular, preventing conversion of permanent grasslands to croplands secured the delivery of multiple ecosystem services. A lower management intensity was associated with benefits for biodiversity, climate regulation and water purification, but impacted the provision of high-quality animal feed. Increasing the number of species in the sward enhanced multifunctionality of permanent grassland without significant trade-offs such as losses in production. Our review covered many aspects of land use, management and ecosystem services, but we also identified areas with no or only few studies. The most prominent gaps were related to comparisons between permanent and temporary grasslands, and effects of management practices on the provision of cultural values, and on erosion and flood control. We suggest that, despite apparent changes in human dietary preferences, the protection of permanent grasslands in Europe must be prioritised. At the same time, considering the need to reduce ruminant livestock’s contribution to climate change, the time seems ripe to increase support for low-intensity grassland management to optimise the provision of essential ecosystem services from Europe’s permanent grasslands.
Article
Full-text available
Commercialisation of resources taken from commons is considered problematic in several ways in traditional commons scholarship. In particular common-pool resource (CPR) theory argues that institutions for collective action such as commons are largely autonomous, experiencing little influence from either the market or the state, and focusing only on the needs of entitled (local) communities. Consequently, commercialisation and sustainable collective use of common-pool resources are largely considered incompatible. Moreover, the dominant focus of CPR theory is on renewable resources rather than non-renewable resources such as peat. Although commons scholarship has broadened over the last decades and come to more nuanced views on the state-market-common trichotomy, our study adds historical depth and does pay attention to peat as a valuable non-renewable resource. We analyse historical sources on two cases of peat commercialisation from raised bog commons in the early modern Low Countries: the Bakelse gemeint in the Dutch Peel region, and the commune de Xhoffraix in the Belgian Hautes-Fagnes. In terms of volume, the share of commercialised peat in the total peat exploitation was limited; the significance of peat commercialisation lay in its permanence, recurrence, and/or regional outreach. Taxes and high debts placed communities in dire financial straits, which was one of the motives for peat commercialisation. In addition, state institutions could intervene in commons management if there was an (internal) conflict. Sources indicate that these institutions had a pragmatic attitude towards peat commercialisation, probably to foster social harmony and local prosperity in times of resource contestation and economic hardship. This study adds a novel intermediate category of peat exploitation to the traditional binary subdivision in domestic peat extraction from commons versus large-scale commercial exploitation of privatised bogs. We demonstrate that long-term use of common-pool resources could go together with a moderate degree of commercialisation. Rather than being fully autonomous, commons in the early modern Low Countries were-permanently or at times of internal conflict-clearly impacted by markets, notions of private user rights, and state institutions.
Article
Full-text available
Participatory guarantee systems (PGS) have become increasingly important for organic quality assurance. PGS are promoted as more suitable than third-party certification (TPC) for smallholder farmers in the Global South. The advocated benefits of PGS include the promotion of organic agriculture, farmer empowerment, and the facilitation of food system sustainability. To deliver these benefits, local actor participation is key. To date, there is still an absence of in-depth studies on participation in PGS in the literature. The aim of this study was to contribute to closing this research gap by (i) conducting a meta-analysis on PGS participation and (ii) presenting a framework for studying actor participation in PGS. A systematic literature review on participation in PGS was carried out, using a framework based on Cohen and Uphoff (1980). The results showed that data on participation in PGS are still fragmented in scientific literature. Quantitative empirical evidence and data on the extent and purpose of participation and actors' perception of participation, for example, are very scarce or not available at all. This paper argues that a systematic and theory-based approach to further research on participation in PGS is needed for improved understanding and facilitation, and suggests an adapted version of Cohen and Uphoff's (1980) framework for conducting this research.
Article
Food production in the Netherlands is an economic success but has led to many environmental issues, including nitrogen pollution. Recently, the policy to allow economic growth while reducing nitrogen losses was disapproved by the highest court in the Netherlands, casting the country into a nitrogen crisis. More integrated policies are necessary for global future sustainable food production.