Food Sovereignty: Difference between revisions
Florez4747 (talk | contribs) |
Florez4747 (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
= Seed Banks = | = Seed Banks = | ||
== India == | |||
= Counter-Sovereignty = | = Counter-Sovereignty = | ||
Revision as of 17:06, 13 January 2023
Although it was first developed to challenge the neoliberal globalisation being promoted by the World Trade Organization (WTO), the influence of the concept of food sovereignty has grown because it offers a different way of thinking about how the world food system can be organised; it offers an alternative. As developed initially by Via Campesina and further elaborated at the 2007 Nyéléni Forum for Food Sovereignty, food sovereignty is based on the right of peoples and countries to define their own agricultural and food policy and has five interlinked and inseparable components:
(1) A focus on food for people: food sovereignty puts the right to sufficient, healthy and culturally appropriate food for all individuals, peoples and communities at the centre of food, agriculture, livestock and fisheries policies, and rejects the proposition that food is just another commodity.
(2) The valuing of food providers: food sovereignty values and supports the contributions, and respects the rights, of women and men who grow, harvest and process food and rejects those policies, actions and programmes that undervalue them and threaten their livelihoods.
(3) Localisation of food systems: food sovereignty puts food providers and food consumers at the centre of decision making on food issues; protects providers from the dumping of food in local markets; protects consumers from poor quality and unhealthy food, including food tainted with transgenic organisms; and rejects governance structures that depend on inequitable international trade and give power to corporations. It places control over territory, land, grazing, water, seeds, livestock and fish populations in the hands of local food providers and respects their rights to use and share them in socially and environmentally sustainable ways; it promotes positive interaction between food providers in different territories and from different sectors, which helps resolve conflicts; and rejects the privatisation of natural resources through laws, commercial contracts and intellectual property rights regimes.
(4) The building of knowledge and skills: food sovereignty builds on the skills and local knowledge of food providers and their local organisations that conserve, develop and manage localised food production and harvesting systems, developing appropriate research systems to support this, and rejects technologies that undermine these.
(5) Working with nature: food sovereignty uses the contributions of nature in diverse, low external-input agroecological production and harvesting methods that maximise the contribution of ecosystems and improve resilience. It rejects methods that harm ecosystem functions, and which depend on energy-intensive monocultures and livestock factories and other industrialised production methods. [1] [2]
Localization
Localized food production is a key tenet of the Food Sovereignty movement in that the production of healthy food in a sustainable manner by local farmers and workers is fundamental to transition away from globalized neoliberal industrial agriculture. While this is a key tenet of food sovereignty the concept and implementation of localized food production cannot stand on its own to combat industrial agriculture and massive international corporations' production of food, which is why localization must be implemented within a broader framework of food sovereignty such as the key tenets above.[3]
Furthermore, the very definition of localization and its connection to food sovereignty is not static, but dynamic; The dynamic nature of localized food production make it difficult to determine if local food producers are contributing to a broader movement of food sovereignty. Often times small scale farm projects are viewed as antithetical to industrialized agriculture/capitalism, but small scale farmers can also employ similar methods of production as industrial agriculture. Beyond simply producing food locally it's key to note that:
Local food initiatives established with agroecological production methods fall more fully within the food sovereignty framework. Agroecology is based on enhancing small-scale farm productivity while conserving ecological resources through engagement in deeply rooted traditional practices and scientific knowledge of ecological processes. 44 Rosset et al summarise agroecology as a set of principles that include soil conservation and soil building, recycling of nutrients, poly-cropping and biodiversity preservation, and the use of biological mechanisms for pest control.45 While agroecology practice is spreading through food sovereignty networks, questions remain about whether enough food can be produced, at affordable prices, to feed everyone.46 [4]
Localized food production, theoretically, decreases the distance food must travel to reach consumers. The decrease of distance does not necessarily end the commodification of food, but it does present the potential to end the abstraction of food into uniform mass produced commodities, which have no tangible connections between the producer and consumer.[5] Dr. Vandana Shiva discusses the abstraction of food within a capitalist society versus local food producers focusing on food sovereignty:
There are two kinds of markets. Markets embedded in nature and society are places of exchange, of meeting, of culture. Some are simultaneously cultural festivals and spaces for economic transactions, with real people buying and selling real things they have produced or directly need. Such markets are diverse and direct. They serve people, and are shaped by people.
The market shaped by capital, excludes people as producers. Cultural spaces of exchange are replaced by invisible processes. People's needs are substituted for by greed, profit, and consumerism. The market becomes the mystification of processes of crude capital accumulation, the mask behind which those wielding corporate power hide.
It is this disembodied, decontextualized market which destroys the environment and peoples' lives.[6]
Another facet of localized food production is the dispossession of farmers from their land as a result of neoliberal capitalism and its leg of industrialized agriculture. This dispossession happens to small scale sustainable farmers and farmers trapped within the industrial agricultural business, which makes it difficult to exit due to costly inputs such as fertilizer and expensive large scale farm equipment necessary to plant, grow and harvest large monocultures:[7]
...Dispossession not only occurs to those caught struggling against the imposition of cheap imports flooding their national and local markets, it also happens to those who engage and participate in the same industrial food system that is eventually responsible for their dispossession. The dispossessed may be ‘adversely incorporated’ into the global food system, where they are marginalised and exploited,79 for example as migrant labourers on highly industrialised, single commodity-driven farms or as contract farmers integrated into corporate production systems. Participation is often forced by the search for higher yields to offset low prices or the consolidation of processers who prefer to contract production on their terms or by the difficulty of unhooking from the industrial system once you are connected to it through inputs and other means.[8]
Metabolic Rift
Historians have argued that the first instances of agricultural domestication, allegedly around 10,000 years ago, triggered an irreversible trend of human domination over nature.[9] This historical analysis does not take into account multiple sites of agricultural domestication across the so called Americas dating before colonization and its genocidal destruction came to the shores. Ignoring these pre-colonial sites of agriculture does not consider how Capitalism affected agricultural production and assumes that the process of domestication within itself led to the alienation of nature from humanity. Karl Marx created the idea of the metabolic rift and it explains:
...the concept of a socio-ecological exchange or metabolism as a dynamic and interdependent process linking society to nature through labour: members of society appropriate the materials of nature through labour, in the process transforming the environment and simultaneously their own (human) nature. The socio-ecological metabolism in agriculture is maintained over time and space through the recycling of nutrients. Formerly small-scale, local agricultural initiatives took nutrients from the soil in the form of food, fodder, and fibre, later replenishing soil fertility with wastes to ensure continued productivity.... ....This theoretically sustainable, metabolic relationship between society and nature prior to the advent of capitalism was broken by the creation of labour markets and the commodification of nature, and of land in particular. The widening separation of rural producers from urban consumers disrupted traditional nutrient cycling, causing extensive soil depletion and an increasing dependence on imported fertilizers...[10]
As capitalism expanded, the relationship between humans, production, and nature transformed as well creating more and more distance between consumers and producers. Through this distance, ecological symbiosis was replaced with market-relations resulting in commodification of the land, which over time would transform into monocultured industrialized agriculture. Capitalist expansion resulted in a rupturing of a sustainable metabolic rift,
... which resulted in unforeseen, if not entirely unintended, consequences. Water pollution, deforestation, and over time, food crises were all characteristics of transformed land and labour markets. Subsequent social and economic disruptions associated with waves of capitalist expansion and the Industrial Revolution further reorganised the landscape of production and engendered systemic cycles of agroecological transformation (Foster 1999, 2000, Moore 2000).[11]
Industrialized agriculture required a decrease in seed varieties and a streamlined production to maximize agricultural output. The streamlining and scaling down of genetic diversity facilitated and required increased inputs of chemical fertilizers to replenish depleted soil, which has led to water pollution, desertification, and soil degradation; While the decrease in genetic diversity caused crops to become less resistant to pests, predators, and disease. All of these factors have led to the globalized food system becoming far less resilient to disturbances, which are becoming more frequent as industrial agriculture continues to massively contribute to climate collapse and ecosystem destruction.[12] [13]
Reestablishing a symbiotic metabolic rift between humanity and nature requires recognizing they are both inextricably linked. Understanding the metabolic rift in conjunction with localized food production within a food sovereignty framework helps provide a path forward away from industrialized agriculture toward food justice and true food sovereignty.
Indigenous Food Sovereignty
Global Food Sovereignty Movements
India
Seed Banks
India
Counter-Sovereignty
The Washington Consensus
“The immediate objects are the total destruction and devastation of their settlements… It will be essential to ruin their crops now in the ground and prevent their planting more… Our future security will be in their inability to injure us, the distance to which they are driven, and in their terror.”
-Orders by U.S. General George Washington, planning war crimes against the Haudenosaunee in 1779 (La Duke 2005: 154)
"Control oil, you control nations; control food and you control the people."
-U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, 1974 (National Security Study Memorandum 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interest)
English Imperialism
Transition
Just Transition
Sources
- ↑ A. Haroon Akram-Lodhi, "Accelerating towards food sovereignty", Third World Quarterly, 2015 Vol. 36, No. 3, 563–583, https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2015.1002989
- ↑ International Planning Committee for Food Sovereignty, “Définition de la souveraineté alimentaire.”
- ↑ Martha Jane Robbins (2015) Exploring the ‘localisation’ dimension of food sovereignty, Third World Quarterly, 36:3, 449-468, DOI: 10.1080/01436597.2015.1024966
- ↑ Martha Jane Robbins (2015) Exploring the ‘localisation’ dimension of food sovereignty, Third World Quarterly, 36:3, 449-468, DOI: 10.1080/01436597.2015.1024966
- ↑ Martha Jane Robbins (2015) Exploring the ‘localisation’ dimension of food sovereignty, Third World Quarterly, 36:3, 449-468, DOI: 10.1080/01436597.2015.1024966
- ↑ Dr.Vandana Shiva, Earth Democracy: Justice, Sustainability, and peace, Page 16
- ↑ https://time.com/5736789/small-american-farmers-debt-crisis-extinction/
- ↑ Martha Jane Robbins (2015) Exploring the ‘localisation’ dimension of food sovereignty, Third World Quarterly, 36:3, 449-468, DOI: 10.1080/01436597.2015.1024966
- ↑ Graeber, D., & Wengrow, D. (2021). The dawn of everything: a new history of humanity. First American edition. New York, Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
- ↑ Hannah Wittman (2009): Reworking the metabolic rift: La Vía Campesina, agrarian citizenship, and food sovereignty, The Journal of Peasant Studies, 36:4, 805-826
- ↑ Wittman, H. (2009). Reworking the metabolic rift: La Vía Campesina, agrarian citizenship, and food sovereignty. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 36(4), 805–826.
- ↑ Hannah Wittman (2009): Reworking the metabolic rift: La Vía Campesina, agrarian citizenship, and food sovereignty, The Journal of Peasant Studies, 36:4, 805-826
- ↑ https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/nov/03/big-agriculture-climate-crisis-cop27