food as a new old commons

The industrial food system, which is becoming highly dominant, is increasingly failing to fulfil its basic functions: producing food in a sustainable manner, feeding people adequately and avoiding hunger. As hunger remains steadily high and obesity numbers do not cease to grow in a world that is overconsuming natural resources far beyond planetary boundaries, producing food unsustainably and wasting one third of it, there is a need to bring unconventional perspectives into the debate on possible solutions for a transition towards a fairer and sustainable food system. The dominant paradigms that have sustained human development and economic growth during the twentieth century (productivism, consumerism, individualism, survival of the fittest, the tragedy of the commons and endless growth) do not provide viable solutions to the multiple crises and the current challenges. Considering food as a commons can be an alternative paradigm worth exploring. The food commons, anchored to the adequate valuation of the multiple dimensions of food to humans, can provide a discourse of convergence that embraces contemporary (i.e. urban innovations) and customary (i.e. indigenous practices) food activities, being at the same time the aspirational vision that coalesce the different collective actions for food into a networked web that relentlessly grows to challenge and render obsolete the industrial food system that only values the economic dimension of food as a commodity, keeps food producers hungry and makes food consumers obese

Notas corológicas para la flora de Andalucía

.

Food as commons:Towards a new relationship between the public, the civic and the private

This book was motivated by the need to approach with a fresh look what we regard as perhaps the most embarrassing predicament of the Anthropocene/Capitalocene (Capra and Mattei, 2015, Altvater et al., 2016, Moore, 2017).We live in an era with roughly the same number (about one billion) of over-fed people and of people lacking access to nutritious food (which means that do not know in the morning if they will be able to feed themselves and their children during the day). Our era also stands out by the remarkable amount of food that is wasted in some parts of the world and by the unprecedented number of livestock that populates this planet (Patel and Moore, 2017). Moreover, in the current phase of neoliberal capitalism that dominates in the Anthropocene/Capitalocene, the ecological footprint is out of control; some rich people (the majority in the Global North and the elite in the Global South) can enjoy every day food shipped from thousands of miles away on gas gulping aircrafts and boats that pollute the environment beyond imagination. Such luxury, the result of the worldwide colonization of diets,would be impossible without a very significant environmental subsidy; if all the externalities had to be internalized, eating Nile Perch would be unaffordable to most people everywhere. The subsidy is ultimately paid by the poor in the South and, in general, will certainly be paid by future generations. Unless we deal with and avoid the hidden social and environmental costs that are so far unaccounted for in the hegemonic food system (TEEB, 2018

Introduction:The food commons are coming...

1 Seeing with new eyes Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, only one vision has become hegemonic worldwide. The marginalization of any alternative to the single thought, also known as the end of history (Fukuyama, 1989; IUC, 2009), has quickly generated what is known as neoliberalism, the new form of hybridization between public sovereignty and private corporations that has come to dominate contemporary structures of global governance (Harvey, 2007).This arrangement, with a crucial role for the military industrial complex, has not only produced new forms of world dis- orders. It has also disrupted the fundamental understanding of modernity, that of a neat distinc- tion between a public and a private sector. The new hybrid corporate power, the current form of capital accumulation, now runs the world within a logic of global sovereignty that defeats every form of democratic control. Every single aspect of human life has been attracted within this bio-political machinery so that the very human being is now commodified like every other aspect of nature. The most tangible manifestation of this process is in the domain of two of the fundamental building blocks of human life: water and food. These two essential components of life are now almost entirely transformed into commodities, leading to forms of domination and subordination that are difficult to overestimate. The consequences of the current extractive system are so deep as to produce a new geological era, the so-called Anthropocene (Crutzen, 2006;Purdy, 2015) or Capitalocene (Moore, 2017), which is likely to destroy the very conditions of life and human civilization (Brown, 2008; Capra and Mattei, 2015)

Rigorous monitoring is necessary to guide food system transformation in the countdown to the 2030 global goals

Food systems that support healthy diets in sustainable, resilient, just, and equitable ways can engender progress in eradicating poverty and malnutrition; protecting human rights; and restoring natural resources. Food system activities have contributed to great gains for humanity but have also led to significant challenges, including hunger, poor diet quality, inequity, and threats to nature. While it is recognized that food systems are central to multiple global commitments and goals, including the Sustainable Development Goals, current trajectories are not aligned to meet these objectives. As mounting crises further stress food systems, the consequences of inaction are clear. The goal of food system transformation is to generate a future where all people have access to healthy diets, which are produced in sustainable and resilient ways that restore nature and deliver just, equitable livelihoods. A rigorous, science-based monitoring framework can support evidence-based policymaking and the work of those who hold key actors accountable in this transformation process. Monitoring can illustrate current performance, facilitate comparisons across geographies and over time, and track progress. We propose a framework centered around five thematic areas related to (1) diets, nutrition, and health; (2) environment and climate; and (3) livelihoods, poverty, and equity; (4) governance; and (5) resilience and sustainability. We hope to call attention to the need to monitor food systems globally to inform decisions and support accountability for better governance of food systems as part of the transformation process. Transformation is possible in the next decade, but rigorous evidence is needed in the countdown to the 2030 SDG global goals

The state of food systems worldwide in the countdown to 2030

This Analysis presents a recently developed food system indicator framework and holistic monitoring architecture to track food system transformation towards global development, health and sustainability goals. Five themes are considered: (1) diets, nutrition and health; (2) environment, natural resources and production; (3) livelihoods, poverty and equity; (4) governance; and (5) resilience. Each theme is divided into three to five indicator domains, and indicators were selected to reflect each domain through a consultative process. In total, 50 indicators were selected, with at least one indicator available for every domain. Harmonized data of these 50 indicators provide a baseline assessment of the world’s food systems. We show that every country can claim positive outcomes in some parts of food systems, but none are among the highest ranked across all domains. Furthermore, some indicators are independent of national income, and each highlights a specific aspiration for healthy, sustainable and just food systems. The Food Systems Countdown Initiative will track food systems annually to U. Rashid Sumaila, Maximo Torero Cullen, Francesco N. Tubiello, Jose-Luis Vivero-Pol, Patrick Webb & Keith Wieb

The commons-based international Food Treaty: A legal architecture to sustain a fair and sustainable food transition

Chapitre de l’ouvrage collectif Penser une démocratie alimentaire Volume II – Proposition Lascaux entre ressources naturelles et besoins fondamentaux, F. Collart Dutilleul et T. Bréger (dir), Inida, San José, 2014, pp. 177-206.International audienceFood as a purely private good prevents millions to get such a basic resource, since the purchasing power determines access and the price of food does not reflect its multiple dimensions and the value to society. With the dominant no money-no food rationality, hunger still prevails in a world of abundance. Hunger is needlessly killing millions of our fellow humans, including 3.1 million young children every year, condemning many others to life-long exposure to illness and social exclusion. This paper argues this narrative has to be re-conceived and a binding Food Treaty, based on a commons approach to food, will create a more appropriate framework to work together towards a fairer and more sustainable world. The eradication of hunger no later than 2025 would be the main objective within a broader framework whereby food and nutrition security shall be understood as a Global Public Good. Within the treaty framework, those governments that are genuinely determined to end hunger (a coalition of the willing) could commit themselves to mutually-agreed binding goals, strategies and predictable funding. The paper presents the rationale to substantiate the treaty, as well as objectives, provisions and a possible route map for the process

The commons-based international Food Treaty: A legal architecture to sustain a fair and sustainable food transition

Chapitre de l’ouvrage collectif Penser une démocratie alimentaire Volume II – Proposition Lascaux entre ressources naturelles et besoins fondamentaux, F. Collart Dutilleul et T. Bréger (dir), Inida, San José, 2014, pp. 177-206.International audienceFood as a purely private good prevents millions to get such a basic resource, since the purchasing power determines access and the price of food does not reflect its multiple dimensions and the value to society. With the dominant no money-no food rationality, hunger still prevails in a world of abundance. Hunger is needlessly killing millions of our fellow humans, including 3.1 million young children every year, condemning many others to life-long exposure to illness and social exclusion. This paper argues this narrative has to be re-conceived and a binding Food Treaty, based on a commons approach to food, will create a more appropriate framework to work together towards a fairer and more sustainable world. The eradication of hunger no later than 2025 would be the main objective within a broader framework whereby food and nutrition security shall be understood as a Global Public Good. Within the treaty framework, those governments that are genuinely determined to end hunger (a coalition of the willing) could commit themselves to mutually-agreed binding goals, strategies and predictable funding. The paper presents the rationale to substantiate the treaty, as well as objectives, provisions and a possible route map for the process

How do people value food ? Systematic, heuristic and normative approaches to narratives of transition in food systems

Food, a life enabler and a cultural cornerstone, is a natural product with multiple meanings and different valuations for societies and individuals. Throughout history and geographies, food has shaped morals and norms, triggered enjoyment and social life, substantiated art and culture, justify commons-based systems and affected traditions and identity. More importantly, food has been closely related to power and the interaction between society and nature. From the industrial revolution to present days, food has been increasingly valued for its commodity dimension: food as a mono-dimensional commodity produced and distributed in a global market of mass consumption. In this research, the progressive commodification of food as a vital resource is presented as a social construction, informed by an academic theoretical background, which shapes specific food policy options and blocks or discard other policies grounded in different valuations of food. As such, the value of food cannot be fully expressed by application of a value-in-exchange approach, since this value derives less from the market price than from its multiple dimensions relevant to humans and therefore cannot be either quantified (E.g. essentialness for human survival) or sold (E.g. food as a right). In opposition to the dominant paradigm, an alternative valuation of “food as a commons” is discussed, which has been barely explored in academic and political circles. This is based on the innovative idea of the six dimensions of food that is introduced in the present work: food as an essential life enabler, a natural resource, a human right, a cultural determinant, a tradeable good and a public good, cannot be reduced to the mono-dimensional valuation of food as a commodity. Those dimensions seem to align better with the multiple values-in-use food enjoys across the world. In light of this, the objective of this thesis is to trace the genealogy of the meaning making and policy implications of the two conflicting narratives of “food as a commodity” and “food as a commons”. In order to achieve this result, it focuses on the “Food Narratives of Agents in Transition” using two theoretical frames (Discourse Analysis and Transition Theory) and adopting three methodological approaches, including the combination of quantitative and qualitative tools. The work is divided into three sections, that correspond to the three approaches undertaken (systematic, heuristic and governance), and eight chapters (two per section plus the introduction and the conclusions). In the first part, the work presents a genealogy of meanings of commons and food by using a systematic approach to schools of thought plus a research on academic literature where food is discussed either as a commons or as commodity. Notwithstanding the different interpretations, the economists’ framing as private good and commodity prevailed. This framing was rather ontological (“food is a commodity”) thus preventing other phenomenological meanings (“food as…”) to unfold and become politically relevant. The second part adopts a heuristic approach and contains two case studies that investigate the relevance that the two narratives had in influencing individual and relational agency in food systems in transition. That includes a case study with food-related professionals working in the food system at different levels and another one with members of the food buying groups in Belgium as innovative niches of transition that nurture shared transformational narratives through conviviality, networking and social learning. Part three introduces the central issue of governance and navigates the policy arena with the use of a case study on how the absolute dominance of the tradeable dimension of food in the political stance of some important players (the US and EU) obscures other non-economic dimensions such as the consideration of food as a human need or human right. In response to the monolithic approach of governments, this part also contains a prospective chapter where different governing arrangements based on the narrative of food as a commons are proposed, with specific policy measures suggested. Finally, the conclusion chapter is structured as a synthesis of those approaches, and formulates a normative theory of food as a commons, with particular attention to different policy and legal options that should inform and justify institutional arrangements radically different from the business-as-usual proposals to reform the industrial food system. As discussed through the thesis, the consideration of food as a commons rests upon its essentialness as human life enabler, the multiple-dimensions of food that are relevant to individuals and societies, and the multiplicity of governing arrangements that have been set up across the world, now and before, to produce and consume food outside market mechanisms. As a social construct based on the “instituting power of commoning”, food can be valued and governed as a commons. Once the narrative is shifted, the governing mechanisms and legal frameworks will gradually be molded to implement that vision. A regime based on food as a commons would construct an essentially democratic food system (food democracy) based on the proper valuation of the multiple dimensions of food, sustainable agricultural practices (agro-ecology) and emancipatory politics (food sovereignty). That regime would also support the consideration of open-source knowledge (E.g. cuisine recipes, traditional agricultural knowledge or public research), food-producing resources (E.g. seeds, fish stocks, land, forests or water) and services (E.g. transboundary food safety regulations, public nutrition) as commons.(AGRO - Sciences agronomiques et ingénierie biologique) -- UCL, 201

The idea of food as commons or commodity in academia. A systematic review of English scholarly texts

Food systems primary goal should be to nourish human beings. And yet, the current industrial food system, with its profit-maximising ethos, is not achieving that goal despite producing food in excess. On the contrary, this system is the main driver of malnutrition on the planet, as well as environmental degradation. Nonetheless, food systems also play a double role as Nature's steward. Deciding which role we want food systems to play will very much depend on the idea we have about food. What is food for humans? The dominant narrative of the industrial food system undeniably considers food as a tradeable commodity whose value is mostly determined by its price. This narrative was crafted and disseminated initially by academics, who largely favoured one option (commodification of food) over the others (food as commons or public good). In this research, the author aims to understand how academia has explored the value-based considerations of food as commodity and private good (hegemonic narratives) compared to considerations of food as commons and public good (alternative narratives). A systematic literature review of academic papers since 1900 has been carried out with Google Scholar™, using different searching terms related to “food + commons”, “food + commodity”, “food + public good” and “food + private good”. Following the PRISMA methodology to clean the sample, a content analysis has been carried out with the 70 references including “food + commons” and “food + public good”. Results clearly show that both topics are very marginal subjects in the academic milieu (only 179 results before cleaning) but with a sharp increase in the eight years that followed the 2008 food crisis. On the contrary, “food + commodity” presents almost 50,000 references since 1900 (before cleaning), with a remarkable increase since the 1980s, coincidental with the dominance of neoliberal doctrines. The phenomenological approach to food (epitomised in the “food as” searching term) largely prevails over the ontological approach to food (“food is”) except when food is identified as a “private good”. This result points to the ontological absolute ”food is a private good” developed by the economic scholars as a dominant narrative that locked other valuations of food by legal, political or historical scholars or non-scientific epistemologies. In a world where the industrial food system has clearly proven its unfitness to feed us adequately in a sustainable way, the need for academia to explore other food valuations seems more urgent than ever. Scholars need to approach other narratives of food (as commons or public good) that go beyond the hegemonic and permitted ideas, unlocking unexplored food policy options to guarantee universal access to food for all humans, regardless their purchasing power, without mortgaging the viability of our planet