Do we need to categorize it? Reflections on constituencies and quotas as tools for negotiating difference in the global food sovereignty convergence space

Convergence–as an objective and as a process–designates the coming together of different social actors across strategic, political, ideological, sectoral and geographic divides. In this paper, we analyze the global food sovereignty movement (GFSM) as a convergence space, with a focus on constituencies and quotas as tools to maintain diversity while facilitating convergence. We show how the use of constituencies and quotas has supported two objectives of the GFSM: alliances building and effective direct representation in global policy-making spaces. We conclude by pointing to some convergence challenges the GFSM faces as it expands beyond its agrarian origins.</p

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

A Latin American Perspective to Agricultural Ethics

The mixture of political, social, cultural and economic environments in Latin America, together with the enormous diversity in climates, natural habitats and biological resources the continent offers, make the ethical assessment of agricultural policies extremely difficult. Yet the experience gained while addressing the contemporary challenges the region faces, such as rapid urbanization, loss of culinary and crop diversity, extreme inequality, disappearing farming styles, water and land grabs, malnutrition and the restoration of the rule of law and social peace, can be of great value to other regions in similar latitudes, development processes and social problems. This chapter will provide a brief overview of these challenges from the perspective of a continent that is exposed to the consequences of extreme inequality in multiple dimensions and conclude by arguing for the need to have a continuous South-South dialogue on the challenges of establishing socially and environmentally sustainable food systems

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

Красноуральский рабочий. 2015. № 17

Farmers’ organizations all over the world are very well aware that in order to build and retain a critical mass with sufficient bargaining power to democratically influence local governments and international organizations they will have to unite by identifying common goals and setting aside their differences. After decades of local movements and struggles, farmers’ organizations around the globe found in the concept of “food sovereignty” the normative framework they were long searching for. The broadness of the concept has had a remarkable success in embracing the interests of food producers and consumers from all geographic locations and development levels

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