There's an interesting amiguity that I struggled with when reading this report and it turns on the phrase "Collective Action."

This report was released by the International Land Coalition (ILC) in partnership with the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR)'s System-wide Program on Collective Action and Property Rights (CAPRI) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). While I can't find anything amiss about the ILC -- in fact, their principles, mandate, and members are impressive -- the CGIAR and FAO leave something to be desired in terms of their ties to transnational agribusiness, and in the case of the former, in terms of its place at the WB as well as its historical agenda of promoting the Green Revolution in the Global South.

Harriet Friedmann Lecture at the Havens Centre for the Study of Social Structure and Social Change

Wednesday October 11 2006 http://www.havenscenter.org/VSP/2006fall/friedmann/friedmann.html

Harriet Friedmann is Professor of Sociology and Fellow of the Centre for International Studies, University of Toronto. Her research over thirty years has explored many aspects of food and agriculture, mainly through the historical framework of “food regimes.” These include the structure of family farms, international political economy of food and agriculture, agricultural policy from local to national, regional and international, changing patterns of trade and specialization, diasporic cuisines, agronomies and food practices, and international trade rivalries and institutions. Her current research is on the politics of certification and standards both globally and locally. Globally, how do new institutions and practices use “quality” standards to contest the restructuring of transnational and local agrofood relations? Locally, how can we understand creativity in local food networks and institutions, particularly in Toronto? She was recently a Fellow of the Agrarian Studies Program at Yale University, of All Souls College Oxford, and the Rockefeller Centre in Bellagio, Italy.

http://www.landcoalition.org/

This report is the beginning of my education on the relationship between the WB and private propertization schemes. The most damning report I've read so far is George Caffentzis' "Tale of Two Conferences," which is also posted on this website. Caffentzis accuses the WB of responding to the worldwide revolts against Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs) by pushing common property arrangements as a way of controlling indigenous resistance. However, this report on the destructive agrarian reforms of the WB focuses mostly on the sale of land, rather than on the promotion of common property as a subversive method of propertization. These methods are described here in this excerpt from the report:

Comprehensive historical reports and monitoring papers on Land Reform efforts in various countries

Common Property Resource Management and the World Bank

 The World Bank, in 1997, released this document siting the importance of recognizing traditional common property resource management systems. The brief concludes that, "all natural resources that are managed in a traditional way, or in a way that combines traditional and more modern approaches, are affected by Bank projects." However, little to no research has been done on these impacts. The blame is placed on the shoulders of borrowers: "As a rule, borrowers attach little value to supporting and maintaining communally managed natural resources." Two years prior to the publication of this report, the Common Property Resource Management Network (CPRNET) was established to raise awareness among Bank staff about common property resource regimes.