Whose Power to Control? Some Reflections on Seed Systems and Food Security in a Changing World

Four key words are essential in understanding the changing global food system: power, control, risks and benefits. The interplay between state and private actors vying to influence the direction of change, and use whatever tools for control they can, is at the heart of the contention for the future control of food. It is one shaped by history and influenced by a changing geopolitics. This interplay has led to the creation of a range of global rules affecting food, agriculture and biodiversity in which those on ‘intellectual property’ or IP are central. These rules come from a system dominated by the interests of the biggest players. Also important are the changing understandings and nature of food security and the pathways to innovation in agri?food systems that are most likely to lead to a just, healthy and sustainable future for all. Developments in food and farming are central to this and are the context in which the political economy of cereal seed systems in Africa is grounded

Sustainable intensification – “oxymoron” or “third-way”? A systematic review

Sustainable Intensification (SI) is a term that has been advanced to capture a concept that some consider as the ‘third paradigm’ for global agricultural development. However, the term has become subject to intense debates as well as scepticism and confusion regarding its meaning and the characteristics of production systems that could indicate SI (defined as “indicators”). This has resulted in a proliferation of literature. We have conducted a systematic review of a sample of this literature analysing the most commonly suggested indicators of SI in order to investigate the extent to which the critiques of SI are valid in their viewpoints that SI is an oxymoron, underpinned by a productivist agenda, and to identify the critical issues in the development of a comprehensive and unambiguous set of SI indicators. From 633 articles identified by a search of relevant databases, a sample of 75 articles were selected and analysed using the NVIVO™ software. The results were organised according to a Socio-Ecological Systems (SES) framework comprising seven sub-systems or components − resource system, resource units, governance system, resource users, interactions, outcomes, and environment. A total of 218 indicators (both positive and negative) were identified. Most of these indicators focused on the ‘outcomes’ of agricultural systems with the majority being related to agricultural production. Few indicators were identified as relating to the economic and societal dimensions of food systems. Whilst this potentially suggested a productivist bias in the current interpretation of SI it was difficult to draw a black and white conclusion, since for the other system components, the majority of the indicators suggested appeared to take a more holistic point-of-view and emphasised both productivity and sustainability of agricultural systems. Our analysis suggests that a key reason why SI may be viewed with scepticism is a lack of specificity and elucidation of the rationale, scale, and farm type for which SI is proposed. Moreover, a number of the indicators were so loosely defined that the interventions they imply could be enacted without due consideration of the social impacts of their adoption. We conclude that there is need to develop SI indicators according to specific farming types and scales and also with more consideration of the social and political dimensions of food systems in order to promote a constructive dialogue around the concept of SI to take place. Unless the concept of SI is described and measured in such a holistic and inclusive manner, it is unlikely to be accepted as a valid descriptor of sought-after agricultural practices by players in the Third Sector

Does indigenous and campesino

The current challenge for world agriculture is to provide food for a growing population, within a context of environmental degradation and economic inequality. The challenge is how to produce accessible, healthy, diverse, nutritious, safe and abundant food in a way that is sustainable, allowing farmers to exert food sovereignty while at the same time addressing ecosystem conservation. The aim of this study is to explore the potential contribution of traditional agriculture to food sovereignty and also to understand the challenges that indigenous communities are facing today. Our case studies are from six Latin-American countries: Chile, Peru, Ecuador, Colombia, Guatemala and Mexico, where we carried out semi-structured, guided visits and field observations. Our results shed light on how traditional agricultural knowledge, techniques and practices can contribute to these issues, but also to the need of protecting and recovering the cultural and ecological heritage. There is a need to resolve public management issues, related to development investment, technological packages, cultural loss and gender. If these are not addressed, the potential contribution of ancient agricultural knowledge will fail to contribute to strengthen food sovereignty and maintain the local markets, which are also places for seed exchange, knowledge sharing and social networking