Pursuing food sovereignty: Towards defining and meeting requisite interdisciplinary conditions

(1)

Pursuing food sovereignty: Towards defining and

meeting requisite interdisciplinary conditions

Chiel de Block – Anthropology - 10469222

Jorrit Kalkman – Business Studies - 10113665

Douwe de Voogt – Political Science – 10382542

Tutor: Jaap Rothuizen MSc Supervisor: Dr. Crelis Rammelt

19-12-2014 Words: 7677

(2)

2

List of abbreviations

CSV Creating shared value

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

IMF International Monetary Fund

MLP Multi-Level Perspective

SNM Strategic niche management

(3)

3

Abstract

Contemporary unequal distribution of produced food and food price fluctuations imply that the current food system is flawed. This could call for a transition; at least away from a focus on food security, and possibly towards a focus on food sovereignty. This paper examines whether interdisciplinary conditions that make pursuing food sovereignty potentially worthwhile can be defined and how these can be achieved. Through profound literature research conducted into case studies on food sovereignty movements and initiatives, three requisite interdisciplinary conditions were defined: ‘overcoming structure by agency’, ‘political willingness’, and ‘creating shared value’. By using the theoretical framework of the Multi-Level Perspective and strategic niche management, it is argued that these conditions are interrelated and contribute to the establishment of one another. This makes the process of achieving them quite complex, but by displaying these connections and mechanisms in a model, a framework is created that might contribute to policymaking regarding the pursuit of food sovereignty.

Introduction

Since the late 1970s, after the political economic Bretton Woods system failed to produce a stable world market, neoliberal economic reforms to a global free market have been taking place across the world. The development project of the institutions for underdeveloped countries, introduced in the 1980s, consisted of inter alia establishing a free market for most products, including food. Only if developing countries would open up their markets, would institutions like the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) provide (financial) support for countries in times of financial trouble (Patel & McMichael, 2009: 17).

The liberalization of food markets was justified by emphasizing the increase of ‘food security’ that would be concomitant to this liberalization (Patel & McMichael, 2009: 10). The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) defines food security as “when all people at all times have access to sufficient, safe, nutritious food to maintain a healthy and active life” (FAO, 1996); whether the food is acquired by import or production does not matter.

The liberalization of food markets transformed food products from being local commons to being global commodities. International food companies emerged, focused on maximizing profits from agricultural production. In capitalistic terms, the new access to underdeveloped countries was seen as an opportunity to increase profits.

In theory, the increase in agricultural output, as a result of the emphasis on producing as much food as possible to establish food security and of the concomitant Green Revolution (George, 1991: 128), should support food security, as more food should lead to more food availability and access. However, even nowadays there is famine in many developing countries, often caused by high food prices, even though the current food production, if distributed equally, would easily provide enough food for the global population (FAO, 2002).

This phenomenon of unequal distribution suggests that the current food system is flawed. Liberal market forces tend to move food to places where people are able to buy food. If small farmers experience crop failures, they have no income (next to no personal food production, just as landless laborers) and yields in those regions will then be transferred to other regions (Sen, 1981: 461). This implies that the free market cannot support regions where there is inequality between agricultural actors due to liberalization, without any regulative or protectionist policies implemented by politics.

Activists have shown more and more resistance against this economic attitude of the current food regime, as it appears to ignore externalities that affect both ecology and (poor) parts of society. For instance, ecological protesters who are against the current neoliberal

(4)

4

food paradigm desire a shift from an ‘economic calculus’ towards an ‘ecological calculus’ (McMichael, 2009: 162).

Moreover, the dependence of countries on import of agricultural resources or food is another worrisome aspect of the current regime, as food security, in its current definition, can also be achieved by importing food. However, when global food prices rise, it is highly unlikely that imported food remains accessible to poorer people in (underdeveloped) countries due to the interdependence of today’s global markets. Patel & McMichael (2009) also argue that the implementation of the free market contributes to the starvation of people and, therefore, causes many food riots that have occurred in the last few years.

These arguments are in favor of a transition; at least away from a focus on food security, and possibly towards a focus on food sovereignty. Food sovereignty is defined as “the right of communities, peoples and states to independently determine their own food and agricultural policies”, as coined by La Via Campesina (Beuchelt & Virchow, 2012: 259). La Via Campesina, an international peasant movement, also emphasizes the importance of sustainable agriculture, by encouraging a shift to organic farming.

However, transitions between paradigms are complex, long-lasting events that require much effort from its supporters, as for instance most often the current paradigm is still supported by the majority of people (or by the most powerful people). Thus, the main purpose of this paper is to identify conditions that might contribute to the likelihood of success of pursuing food sovereignty on different scales.

The issue of pursuing food sovereignty encompasses multiple disciplines. The whole society needs to be involved in the transition from food security to food sovereignty, as politicians need to establish legislation in order to both initiate the transition and protect the economy and companies from (temporary) negative effects, and people (and their companies) need to implement the legislation in their actions.

Thus, addressing only one discipline would not result in any profound basis or blueprint for the desired transition. It is then requisite to look at the current problem from different perspectives, and to include their various types of reasoning. In this paper, the sociological aspect of food sovereignty will be discussed, from the anthropological, political and business/economic perspectives. These perspectives will be combined to conclude in an interdisciplinary answer to the following research question: how can interdisciplinary

conditions be acquired that make pursuing food sovereignty potentially worthwhile? These

interdisciplinary conditions are ‘political willingness’, ‘overcoming structure by agency’, and ‘creating shared value’ (CSV), as will become clear in the section on the applied literature research. These conditions are viewed as critical in establishing a basis for transitions, as will be discussed in Section 4. ‘Worthwhile’ is a contentious term, but it is argued that something is worthwhile when it contributes to the sustainability of current societies and to the welfare of people with minimal standards of living.

In Section 1 of this paper, a theoretical framework will be constructed that will be used further on in this paper to interweave the different disciplines into an interdisciplinary approach to the main research question. The Multi-Level Perspective and strategic niche management are the analytical tools. In Section 2 and 3 respectively, both the advantages and disadvantages of pursuing food sovereignty will be discussed, in order to clarify, firstly, food sovereignty as a concept, and secondly, obstacles that have to be overcome before transition processes are initiated. After this, in Section 4, the interdisciplinary conditions will be deduced in order to give insight in what is needed for a good transition towards food sovereignty. The final section of this paper will elaborate on the identified conditions and give a conclusion on how these conditions can be met, after which a conclusion and a discussion will be given.

(5)

5

1. The Multi-Level Perspective and strategic niche management

The Multi-Level Perspective (MLP) was originally designed to analyze the complexity of socio-technical transitions, with an emphasis on environmental issues (Smith et al., 2010). It divides the system of society into three levels: niches, regimes, and landscapes. Transitions in society are then “the outcome of alignments between developments at niche, regime and landscape level” (Roep & Wiskerke, 2012: 209).

Niches are the smallest level in MLP and are crucial in forming transitions (Smith et al., 2010: 440). These spaces form some sort of protection for developments that are not in line with the current regime. Without the presence of niches, no path-breaking alternatives to the current paradigm would be able to last, as ‘lock-in mechanisms’ ensure that prevailing institutions, whether positive or negative for the current regime, are ‘protected’ against new institutions or ideas (Spaargaren et al., 2012: 7).

Niches cannot support transitions on their own. As seen through the MLP, aid from either the regime or landscape level is requisite for a successful transition. Spaargaren et al. (2012: 7) argue that strategic niche management (SNM) is crucial. SNM aims to protect these niche initiatives from unfair competition from within the regime. This is mostly conducted at the regime level. By implementing policies, such as providing subsidies for technological innovation in niches, niche developments can be supported. It shows the importance of political actions in transitions on regime level.

Regimes are dominant forms of institutions. These institutions can be inter alia cultural (values and norms), economic, political and technological. Food security and the institutions that encourage its pursuit are interpreted as a regime that originates from the landscape of capitalism.

Landscapes are then a set of structures that provide the basis for regimes and niches to compete in (Smith et al., 2010: 441). As stated, the political-economic ideology of capitalism is viewed as the current dominant landscape, as it is at the core of modern dominant market infrastructures and relations. The ‘economic capitalistic calculus’ is still the main driver behind actions of actors.

There has been some critique on the MLP. Smith et al. (2010) provide an overview of challenges for MLP analyses. The main arguments against the MLP are that the perspective is too simplistic. For instance, the original MLP did not mention any interactions or competitions between different niches or regimes, nor any geographical influence on interactions. Although this is true, MLP does not restrict these interactions from being implemented in the perspective. It merely divides niches, regimes and landscapes for better analysis. Also, critics argue that the MLP is too abstract to operationalize niches, regimes and landscapes. Although the MLP is simplistic in the way that it does not provide detailed descriptions of actors or institutions on different levels, it is argued that the MLP provides a theoretical framework in which interactions between the levels become clearer.

An example of how the MLP is useful in analyzing the complexity of potential transitions can be given by using the sudden rise in food prices in the 21st_{century. The high}

food prices can be seen as a change on landscape level (Spaargaren et al., 2012: 7). This sudden change was a trigger for food riots that were, however, not only aimed at the food prices, but also at the neoliberal food production regime, as argued by Patel & McMichael (2009). These food riots caused the debate on the legitimacy of food security to inflame, contributing to the forming of niche projects regarding food sovereignty. These pursuits of food sovereignty face difficulties in the form of, for instance, ‘lock-in mechanisms’. It is up to politicians to support these projects by SNM.

(6)

6

2. Pursuing food sovereignty: Positive effects

In the introduction of this paper, it is argued that the current neoliberal system of food security is flawed in that it cannot provide a balanced distribution of food. Therefore, a transition away from food security is requisite in order to reduce famine. Marsden (2012: e.g. 291-292) argues that the world food price crisis of 2007-2008 sent Europe down a road of complex processes of revising the current intensive agriculture paradigm in order to construct a more sustainable system. In other words, a transition in the food regime is either upcoming or ongoing, and it will (partially) include sustainability (in Europe, that is).

Sustainability is also one of the main demands of food sovereignty movements. Although achieving perfect food sovereignty as defined by La Via Campesina may be rather utopian and unfeasible (as will be explained shortly), and therefore may not comprise the perfect concept of providing food for everyone, it is perceived as a promising concept of a new food system to strive for that is available. Besides, food sovereignty has come up as arguably the most popular and most mentioned alternative to food security (Beuchelt & Virchow, 2012: 259), therefore probably being the best conceptual alternative in which people can be united in aiming for one specific objective. Thus, (publicly) acknowledging the pursuit of food sovereignty can already contribute to reaching specific conditions that favor food sovereignty, such as awareness.

When aiming for a certain objective, its specifics need to be clear. A definition of food sovereignty by La Via Campesina was already provided, but in this paper it is stressed that free choice comes with food sovereignty. When one actor is more or less food sovereign, it is able to make individual choices on trade relations; whether that person or actor would like to import or export is up to the actor to decide.

During a convention in 2007 in Nyéléni, Mali with representatives of countries, organizations and agrarian individuals, more criteria were established to construct a profound concept of food sovereignty (Nyéléni, 2007). For instance, food sovereignty should ensure new social relations, without any inequality between social and economic ‘classes’. Moreover, a goal of the food sovereignty movements is to fight against neo-liberalism and free trade (Nyéléni, 2007); in other words, to fight against these features of the capitalistic system that forms the landscape of the contemporary world.

In terms of the MLP, pursuing food sovereignty will not cause major changes in the ideological landscape of capitalism, but more a change on regime level. It is argued that food sovereignty is possible within a capitalistic market, albeit with restraints on capitalistic influences that follow from the restraints on global market systems of food sovereignty, such as no more large-scale import and export. This could cause a stabilization of food prices (on landscape level). Still, for instance, on a local scale, gaining profit by completing sustainable projects, such as local food production and distribution, should be possible, as this does not have to oppose the sovereignty of the involved people. Moreover, the right of people to define their own food systems implies that people should be able to obtain food that they cannot produce themselves, such as tropical products (fruit) for countries with continental climates, whenever they have the means and desire to purchase this food. This implies that there is need for free trade to a certain extent within food sovereignty.

This is a different, nuanced point of view on what the implementation of food sovereignty may induce than most food sovereignty movements have. Often, it is stated that food sovereignty implies that any liberal concept or agreement reduces the sovereignty of the involved community, region or country (Nyéléni, 2007). In this paper, it is argued that it is more feasible and relevant to merely investigate whether the pursuit of food sovereignty may become worthwhile after meeting certain conditions, as actually becoming completely food sovereign is near impossible within the current landscape of capitalism and the influence of liberalization, and may prove utopian.

(7)

7

3. Pursuing food sovereignty: Restraints

After having described why one would want to pursue food sovereignty, it is requisite to look at its counter arguments: what are the restraints of pursuing food sovereignty? Also, by describing these restraints, the need for achieving certain favorable conditions becomes clearer. This sector of the paper will firstly address possible personal (internal) reasons as of why someone would not feel the urge to reach the state of food sovereignty.

For example, moving toward food sovereignty would imply a significant change in the present market-based mechanisms, a shift away from the liberalization of food markets. This means deliberately making a trade-off, namely producing food instead of trading food. Instead of trading all goods in the open market to obtain all different kinds of food, people will more likely be restricted to produce most food themselves, or at least, food will be produced on a local scale more often than on the current global scale. This shift will come at a price.

For instance, economic revenue decreases as less is sold through the open market mechanisms, and as agriculture cannot be further intensified. Owners of former conventional farms will (initially) yield less (Holt-Giménez et al., 2012), as they need to adapt to new policies and restrains, and thus sell less and become less prosperous, at least in the short term.This short-term loss in profit may lead to unforeseen problems. This could be a major factor that would give reason for people to be unwilling to pursue food sovereignty, since they may not be able to overcome the (short-term) detrimental effect of economic loss.

The same can be argued for any structural change on larger scale; it is generally agreed upon that sizeable systematic change is hard to achieve, since assumedly not everybody is able or willing to cooperate in achieving the desired state. Also, on national level, strong trading relations between nation-states may weaken when one nation is pursuing food sovereignty and reduces its import and export. The same issue may be applicable on regional level.

Next to this, people who experience the world with its ruling processes as sufficient and do not feel any need for change may inherently claim they do not want to make a shift towards food sovereignty. As everyone is already part of an existing system, the role they play in that system may seem more worthy for them than the role they are possibly going to play when a transition is made; even when it is recognized that the system as a whole is being improved.

The same applies to people who feel protected by their government; presumably they do not want to see their government changed. Even so, people who work for authorities and seek to display power do not desire any change when they are already able to act on their own behalf. They might look at food sovereignty as a threat to their priorities, such as displaying power, because local economies and ecological units can act as a significant counter-power to the state and transnational corporations when trying to pursue food sovereignty.

Moreover, when a transition initiates, the effects might be unexpected and even undesirable. This uncertainty could lead to actors on various levels discarding the idea of transitions. This could be sizeable restraint, as a prerequisite for transitions to happen is that several developments in different domains interact in such a way that they positively reinforce each other (Van der Brugge et al., 2005). Unfortunately, this is not always the case. For example, around the year 2000, many issues regarding the financing of a transition in Central Europe (to a market economy) arose due to the fact that lenders faced the main problem of borrowers engaging in undesirable activities from the lender’s point of view. In other words, lenders were afraid that borrowers would use their money for other purposes than agreed upon (Swinnen & Gow, 1999).

(8)

8

Having described different restraints of pursuing food sovereignty, the largest restraint might come from the concept itself; it is very well possible that the uncertainty about the food sovereignty concept, or ignorance of what the concept upholds, could moderate the initiatives towards food sovereignty. Food sovereignty is not broadly adopted as a concept to strive for by the authorities on national and international level, which is largely due to confusion about the concept of food sovereignty (Hospes, 2014: 119). Although the 2007 Nyéléni convention brought together many different actors involved with food sovereignty, there is hitherto still much debate on what food sovereignty comprises (Rosset, 2003; Schiavoni, 2014). The ambiguity of the concept may undermine potential teaming up of different actors.

This uncertainty or oblivion could have been caused by internal as well as external factors; one may be equivocal in nature resulting in uncertainty, although this person may have sufficient information regarding the concept to take a point of view (this is an example of an internal factor). Also, it is possible that one may not even have heard of the concept. When one does not know what the concept is or that it exists, it cannot be executed. It is important for peasants to understand the concept thoroughly, because “decisions about the shape of the food system ought to be in the hands not of powerful corporations or geopolitically dominant governments, but up to the people who depend on the food system” (Patel, 2012: 2).

From a political economic perspective the existing neo-liberal approach is detrimental to achieving food sovereignty, as it suggests dependence on transnational market mechanisms to ship commodities from one place (of food overproduction) to another (of food underproduction) (Sen, 1981). It also neglects the fact that food should be seen as a basic right. This is contrary to one of the concepts of food sovereignty, which says that every person is (or should be) entitled to food (Flora, 2010).

Nevertheless, although capitalism might not be the ultimate system to enhance food sovereignty, this paper will not focus on changing this system entirely. It merely focuses on pursuing food sovereignty in which the capitalistic system is a given. In the next section, it is examined which conditions are to be met to create a starting point for this pursuit.

(9)

9

4. Favorable interdisciplinary conditions for pursuing food

sovereignty

For this paper, literature research was conducted into case studies that discuss peasants, communities or societies where initiatives or movements occur that promote the transition to food sovereignty. Together with the integrated insights from three disciplines (politics, anthropology and business), the case studies that were analyzed gave understanding of how the transition process works and provided information on which theories of the present research are based.

After scrutinizing the case studies, patterns were recognized. Theories and ideas from the disciplines were reflected in the case studies, and the core overarching themes in the case studies are explained below. Using the framework of MLP and SNM, the information from the literature was synthesized in the theory, which will be elaborated on in Section 5. The common ground was created by integrating the insights of the disciplinary theories by using the framework of MLP and SNM, which gave a better explanation of the way a transition to food sovereignty works than one could find with one single discipline. Repko’s (2012: 368) integrative technique of theory expansion, together with the technique of redefinition, is used to not only modify but also combine the theories of MLP and SNM with the insights of structure-agency, political willingness and CSV, which are described below, in order to address the core factors and condition for a transition towards food sovereignty to successfully initiate. This new understanding (or integrative theory) of the process of such a transition is visualized in a model, that can be found in Section 5, which may help policymakers and other actors in making decisions when pursuing food sovereignty.

Overcoming structure by agency

The case study of Boyer (2010) gave some useful insights into food sovereignty movements. For instance, it clearly shows that the peasants in Honduras united themselves in a union, thereby gaining more influence on a national and international scale. A bottom-up approach is created by using this approach. However, if peasants consolidate in a union, one is able to influence the decision making processes by joining the national (political) debate. So in this way, the unification of the peasants unions made a bottom-up and, subsequently top-down approach possible. It is a complementary process which seems to be on two sides of the same coin and a condition that shows near resemblance to the well-known structure-agency debate.

When pursuing food sovereignty, it is most often a conscious choice and a shift in the way of thinking by actors. However, actors are bound to have structural preconditions for their acts, in other words, the structure of society. This can be seen as the landscape in MLP. This is why food sovereignty is not as easy to imply as one might want to. Current structures (norms, rules, ways of thinking, etc.) or landscapes are preconditions for the current food regime (that of food security) but therefore create a burden for food sovereignty to be implemented and for the people that want to pursue it. Thus, on the one hand humans choose their actions deliberately and try their best to realize their goal. On the other hand, however, humans act under pressure and their freedom and choice is limited, which determines their agency (Eriksen, 2010). Following the ‘structuration theory’ by Giddens (idem: 86), the solution for this seeming paradox is to move beyond the dualism and recognize that the social structure must simultaneously be understood as the necessary conditions for actions and as a cumulative result of the totality of actions.

Interestingly, in the case of pursuing food sovereignty, the actors are the political leaders, the peasant unions, as well as the peasants themselves. The theoretically distinctive groups are embodied by the same people and those actors have positioned themselves in all

(10)

10

levels of the MLP. Most of the actors want the transition from food security to food sovereignty. This implies that the actors want something different than the current situation, as well as a reflection on this situation. This is the essence of agency and also the core factor for a movement such as food sovereignty to grow. The Honduras case, for instance, shows that there has to be agency towards a new regime, in order to initiate such a process.

Agency is embedded in a framework of rules, norms and conditions for social life. This is what is called structure. Within this structure, the transition towards food sovereignty has to take place. However, the structure versus agency seems to be a dichotomy. The current structure, dominated by neoliberal ideologies, creates little opportunity for the idea of food sovereignty to thrive. SNM is one exception and therefore a requisite process.

However, external influences, such as food sovereignty, may change the conditions of existence. The structure of the society might change when external influences are acknowledged (Eriksen, 2010). Thus, the acknowledgement of food sovereignty is essential to initiate such a transition. This acknowledgement is accomplished by the duality of the bottom-up and top-down, which was depicted earlier. In other words, such an approach is a perfect condition of what is needed to overcome the current structure. The condition is the cooperation on the transition of both structure and agency, of the society as well as the individual. This can be done, as shown for instance by the Honduras case, by uniting the smallest units (e.g. peasants or peasant unions) in a larger, more powerful and influential organization that is able to assert power over the structure and politics, therefore creating more balance.

Political willingness

In deciding which policies a country or region will implement, politicians are of natural importance. It is in their power to formulate and ratify policies that affect the area they represent. With regard to food sovereignty, it is then requisite for political actors to put the concept on the agenda, and to implement reforms that change the food regime. It is argued that on many occasions, politicians have been decisive in terms of supporting a transition towards more sustainable agriculture or food sovereignty, and in occasions have failed to deliver, even though there was room or an incentive for these politicians to act.

One example of the influence of politicians is given by Laroche Dupraz & Postolle (2013: 120). The WTO altered liberalization legislation in order to provide some of the world’s poorest countries with the possibility to protect their agriculture to some extent. However, many West African countries have not made full use of this policy. This is rather remarkable, as one would think that any loosening by the WTO of the strict imposed policies would be exploited by poorer countries if this would be beneficial. This suggests that there was not much active participation or thoughtfulness of leading politicians in these African countries.

Another research was conducted into food sovereignty movements in South Korea, specifically into impacts on national policy (Burmeister & Choi, 2007). The authors conclude that success of food sovereignty initiatives was inter alia dependent on the preferences of state officials (idem: 255-256). This implies that their political position gives politicians the power to consider the ideas of these initiatives or to ignore them (idem: 253), which indicates that a politician should be willing and ready to act on behalf of these movements, if their initiatives are to have any success.

In their case studies regarding food transition initiatives, Roep & Wiskerke (2012) argue that regulations concerning inter alia hygiene prevented some of these initiatives to expand. However, through actively engaging in political discussion on legislation by

(11)

11

initiators, for instance the German company Tegut, regulations were changed beneficially for the initiative (idem: 218). In another case in Austria, however, regulations were not changed due to no real promoting from neither the initiators nor policymakers (Lutz & Schachinger, 2013), which indicates that a transition needs outspoken support from both sides.

Political willingness is a critical factor then, and is defined as the readiness of actors to participate actively, to the maximum of their capabilities, in discussions and policymaking that influence the issue at hand. In some cases, this policymaking could have (had) the form of strategic niche management (SNM), such as in South Korea (Burmeister & Choi, 2012), or in Austria (Lutz & Schachinger, 2013: 4787) where the innovations in food supply by the local initiative SpeiseLokal could have been supported by altering the national legal requirements of food production, in order to create space for those innovations to expand.

However, a fundamental problem of political willingness of politicians regarding pursuing food sovereignty is that this pursuit will be a long term process of many years (if not decades), while a government can probably only address these problems in a much shorter term of governance due to elections (that is, in a democratic country with a government that is elected). Not only a small part of politicians should be ready to pursue food sovereignty. The issue should therefore not be to put food sovereignty on the agenda; the issue should rather be what aspects of food sovereignty are put on the agenda, and discussions should be about what different views exist on how to pursue food sovereignty optimally. This can be achieved by, for instance, including food sovereignty in the constitution, as has happened in Venezuela, Bolivia, and Ecuador (Beauregard, 2009).

Also, it is argued that this requires a fundamental shift in the way of thinking of not only politicians, but voters and companies too. Creating the shared value of food sovereignty can be a valuable condition in this process, and there are different options for different actors to achieve this. Political willingness is therefore not only a factor that concerns politicians. When taking into account the different disciplines of this paper, political willingness is also a factor that concerns both citizens and business actors.

For instance, in the case of South Korea, Burmeister & Choi (2007: 256) also conclude that the mass mobilization of public opinion led to the government implementing policies that align with food sovereignty. This suggests that political participation of the public is very important for putting issues on the agenda too. Moreover, initiatives to pursue food sovereignty most often come from people that want to make a difference (e.g. Burmeister & Choi, 2007; Lutz & Schachinger, 2013). Next to that, in order to make a difference, local initiatives have to expand and become regional or national projects through spurring politicians to support these projects. Thus, the willingness of people to be involved in politics regarding food sovereignty is an important condition for pursuing food sovereignty.

Also, in supporting food sovereignty projects companies can have a major influence. For instance, when there is still little willingness among politicians to support niche innovations, companies can help and kick-start these projects by implementing those innovations in their own company policies. On the one hand, this contributes to the development of niche innovations, and on the other hand it may help in persuading politicians (by creating awareness or by lobbying, for instance). Although this may not be a case of ‘political’ willingness of companies, it does suggest that companies influence the political process. An example of this support is the creation of the shared value of food sovereignty by corporations.

(12)

12 Creating shared value (CSV)

Communities that are stuck in certain social, economic, political or environmental conditions are in need of an injection in order to boost morale, which could open up new possibilities to lift up their standard of life. To address the complex problems of areas that are not developing anymore, or at least not as fast as desired, will require the work of many people. It is necessary for all involved stakeholders to participate, communicate and collaborate with each other (Arias et al., 2000). In this way it would open up possibilities for a company to deliver creating shared value (CSV) through sustainable development and simultaneously delivering economic, social and environmental benefits; also referred to as the triple bottom line (Hart & Milstein, 2003).

Thus far, most firms have pursued the survival of just the firm itself by increasing shareholder value. Their justifiable argument was that creating a sustainable environment would require firms to sacrifice profits and shareholder value in favor of public goods. The thought here is that these factors could not coexist, meaning that a choice is to be made between them. This is arguably an outdated approach since these firms are, like communities, being locked-in as their way of thinking is not enhancing innovational ideas.

Hitherto managers have been framing sustainability issues as a one-dimensional nuisance. Unfortunately, with only single disciplines the depth and breadth remains limited (Repko, 2012: 280); thus, an interdisciplinary lens should be used to view the world and its problems to gain a deeper understanding. Bringing this in practice can lead to ‘creating shared value’ (CSV). Porter & Kramer (2011) coined this concept, and it is widely agreed that CSV is a set of operating practices that enhance the competitiveness of companies while simultaneously advancing societal conditions in which the company operates.

CSV captures the school of thought that, in contrast to conventional thinking, societal needs define the market instead of business needs focused on profit maximization. This idea supports the concept of sustainability, as the market, defined by societal needs, only produces what is really needed. Even more, it is likely that communities demand products that are produced, processed and distributed in a sustainable manner since they have interests in keeping their close surroundings and environment intact.

For example, General Electric runs a program called ‘Ecomagination’ which builds solutions for environmental problems amongst communities. Their products in 2009 alone reached nineteen billion dollars. At present they are serving disadvantaged communities in India, China and Brazil and have reached billions of new customers by recognizing viable markets there. This is a typical example of reconceiving your products and markets through the means of CSV (Porter & Kramer, 2011).

In order to meet the societal needs and thus define the market, it is recommended for the companies to know what products are demanded by the people. Cluster analysis is one method to obtain this information (Notari et al., 2011); this communicates what society wants and will help mobilizing their voice, since one can see that through the help of other actors their needs are taken into account. Gathering this info is one of the conditions that should be met before a shift towards food sovereignty is plausible, since only then it can be analyzed what the same interest will be for both society and companies on a business level.

Notari et al. (2011) describe that one of the most important social criteria that shape the composition of the need for products by communities is political attitude. The research connotes that a positive political attitude towards governments results in a raise of demand of products produced in ones’ own country; due to this fact it is recognized that political attitude can be a means to empower self-sufficiency for a country. Obviously, this is not yet being self-sufficient on a local scale. Looking at it from the MLP, however, it is a good starting point, since the ‘landscape’ is shaped more towards being self-sufficient. Altogether, this results in that, although looking through an economic lens, political actors cannot be left

(13)

13

out. As political attitude is dependent on the overarching political structure the approach to meet societal needs by looking at what communities want is related to political forces. To what extent they truly are related remains to be investigated, but it is clear that the bottom-up approach is entangled with top-down initiatives. Nevertheless, the complexity of food sovereignty (and therefore instability) as it vies for status as the development template to displace food security may well be one of the factors impeding its ready acceptance at the grassroots level (Boyer, 2010: 334).

CSV does not make use of any barriers between levels, but encompasses that from the bottom-up approach all levels are intertwined and that they are all related to each other. However, all this effort would be abolished if there are no building blocks for creating a fair dialogue between the two actors. This building block facilitates the shared value experience. It should provide both parties with dialogue, access, risk-benefits and transparency (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004). This implies interactivity, dedication and the willingness to act on both sides.

As interaction is crucial to CSV, emphasis is necessary on another condition to overcome problems that involve more than one actor and that are interdisciplinary in nature (such as problems that arise when making a transition towards food sovereignty), which is to have proper interaction between all involving parties. A perfect example for a good relation between farmers and the firm they work for is Nestlé; the coffee making company worked intensively with its growers, which are small farmers in impoverished rural areas of Africa and Latin America. These farmers were trapped in a cycle of low productivity, poor quality and environmental degradation. Nestlé established local facilities, paid premium directly to farmers, and nowadays the income of farmers have increased and the environmental impact of farms has shrunk (Porter & Kramer, 2011). These were steps (in the pursuit) towards more sovereignty (regarding coffee, in this instance).

The nature of the issue of food sovereignty is quite complex, and one party may have better access or insights in the problem or even the solution. When this occurs, the existing dialogue could be leveraged towards the advantageous party. Therefore, ‘proper’ interaction means creating a dialogue where all parties are equal: there needs to be a mutual understanding that both parties do have some, albeit it different, power over each other. Therefore, it is requisite that the concept of CSV itself should be understood to favor the dialogue; when it is well understood one could benefit from helping the other, it is obvious one is more willing to ‘meet in the middle’ rather than pursuing one's own interest. For example; “The Greenery’, one of the leading concerns in Europe in the vegetable, fruit and mushroom sector, started in 2005 making policies for promoting corporate social responsibility. By making these policies their strategy was to support grower-initiated sustainability initiatives as well as focusing more on the consumer (Van Amstel et al., 2012: 187). By doing so, the company operates as a mediator of the supply and demand side. Thus, shared value was created.

(14)

14

5. Meeting the conditions

So far, the most important conditions that may make pursuing food sovereignty worthwhile have been identified. Actually reaching these conditions is a totally different thing, as it comprises inter alia overlapping projects, progression, setbacks, and it will take several years in most cases. Besides, every region or country will need to act differently in achieving these conditions. However, it is argued that it is useful to construct a certain guideline that describes, for instance, what effects the different conditions have on each other, how they are interconnected, and in what order they might be established. This may provide a useful framework for policymakers to work with.

When conducting research into these food sovereignty movements, it became clear that most initiatives towards food sovereignty are founded in niches, as described by the MLP. Several studies (e.g. Boyer, 2010; Spaargaren et al., 2012) suggest that this is because the current food regime does not allow policymakers on regime level to take the initiative, due to lock-in mechanisms such as checks and balances on different levels (parliament, elections etc.). “As an alternative paradigm and counter-frame to neo-liberal thinking on food security [...] the concept of food sovereignty is a threat rather than a starting point for discussion with public authorities on how to fundamentally change food and agriculture policies. The result is a deadlocked debate [...]” (Hospes, 2014: 128). Therefore, establishing the right balance within the society between structure and agency, preferably by a bottom-up approach of concerned peasants as described earlier in this paper, is essential to give agents in niches the opportunity to take initiative, while the structure in the form of the regime may aid these initiatives in due time. The aim of these initiatives is to pursuit food sovereignty, which is “the right of communities, peoples and states to independently determine their own food and agricultural policies” (Beuchelt & Virchow, 2012: 259).

However, to establish this balance, political willingness is requisite, as, for instance in the case of SpeiseLokal (Lutz & Schachinger, 2013), there was too much legislation (structure) that restricted the development of the project that was initiated by a local community (cluster of agents). Furthermore, one way to create political willingness of pursuing food sovereignty among politicians and other actors is to create the shared value of food sovereignty, as was described earlier. This, in turn, may be triggered by niche innovations aimed at involving as much actors as possible. Moreover, political willingness comprises inter alia SNM, which may support the development of niche initiatives by protecting these from regime pressure. For instance, CSV can be a form of SNM as well, which will open up more space for local innovations to develop as it will trigger the support of more actors. Thus, it becomes clear that all identified conditions plus niche innovations interact with each other directly or indirectly; this is schematically depicted in Figure 1.

Figure 1 depicts the view that the process towards food sovereignty comprises a long feedback mechanism, but it is argued that many pursuits of food sovereignty will probably start within a niche where a niche innovation takes place, after which the feedback mechanisms could begin. In this research, the importance of niche initiatives is emphasized, while addressing the similar importance of support for and development of these initiatives.

However, as described by Beauregard (2009) and Laroche Dupraz & Postolle (2013), developments (of transitions) towards food sovereignty can also be initiated by the national government. This would imply a top-down approach that starts on the regime level, rather than the bottom-up approach that begins in niches.

(15)

15

This top-down approach may suggest a more important role for political willingness, but every policy begins with one agent (be it in the form of one person or one political party), which suggests an important role for a balanced influence of structure and agency as well. Also, including food sovereignty in national policies is one thing, but actually implementing these is another. This is where the role of companies becomes clear, as well as the role of creating the shared value of food sovereignty, which might make incorporating food sovereignty easier.

Figure 1. A framework of interactions and interconnectedness between interdisciplinary conditions and niches, visualized within the Multi-Level Perspective.

(16)

16

Conclusion and discussion

The aim of this research was to define, through literature research, interdisciplinary conditions that may prove worthwhile in the pursuit of food sovereignty and to describe possibilities to meet these conditions. Food sovereignty is defined as “the right of communities, peoples and states to independently determine their own food and agricultural policies”, as coined by La Via Campesina (Beuchelt & Virchow, 2012: 259).

Through scrutinizing case studies, three interdisciplinary conditions were defined, all with a foundation in one of the three applied sociological perspectives on the issue of food sovereignty, namely politics, anthropology, and business/economics. These conditions are ‘overcoming structure by agency’, CSV, and political willingness.

In examining the connections between these conditions, it became clear that they are interconnected through a long feedback mechanism with different paths (as depicted in Figure 1), which implies that the process towards a favorable pursuit of food sovereignty is very complex. All the different conditions that have been identified are favorable in order to pursuit food sovereignty, but they cannot initiate this transition by themselves. In other words, what is concluded is that the transition these conditions can bring about is only achievable when all those conditions are ‘working together’ in order to achieve the main goal of making pursuing food sovereignty worthwhile.

The model that is created in this paper is formed by the insights that were generated while reading the literature on this topic. The case studies made it possible to abstract the conditions as well as the way in which they are connected. The result was a new model of, as well as a model for, the pursuit of food sovereignty. In the model we combined our understanding of the whole process; the perspective is that this is the underlying system that causes the pursuit. As with all models, it is not intended to be the answer for or reality of such a pursuit. Rather, it is a way in which one can look at the process.

By visualizing this complexity and interconnectedness of conditions that contribute to the pursuit of food sovereignty, it could become clearer for policymakers where problems might occur, where critical developments can be initiated, and which necessary conditions are yet to be met or can be set in motion in order to increase the probability of the pursuit becoming worthwhile. This framework might form a foundation for further developments towards food sovereignty and possibly also for further research on this issue.

Although this research has comprised an interdisciplinary approach, there are some aspects that have not been taken into account. For instance, in ascribing importance to political willingness of both politicians and the public, it is assumed that these people have influence on the (political) processes of the addressed country, region, or community. In other words, this research is directed at democracies. However, there are many places where there is no true democracy, such as in many countries in the Middle East. This affects the probability of implementation of our suggested framework in these countries.

Also, as this research is entirely focused on the sociological science regarding food sovereignty, important aspects or conditions of, for instance, geography and climate were not considered in the process either. In order to become food sovereign, countries or regions need arable land to become self-sufficient, and the fertility of land and amount of fertile land available is dependent on for instance geography and climate.

Next to that, earlier on it was stated that ‘worthwhile’ is a debatable term for which we have provided a broad definition. However, this definition might be not specific enough for some, as it does not include the potential cost of the pursuit of food sovereignty. Is improving the conditions of poor people slightly against billions of dollars of investment a worthwhile project? We acknowledge that questions like these remain unanswered, but within the scope of this research, it was impossible to address the economic issue of

(17)

17

effectiveness. It is suggested to conduct further research into this, but it will probably remain a very subjective term.

Also, an aspect we elaborated little on is the issue of control regarding a transition from food security. Undoubtedly, transitions require shifts in control, or power, while actors such as multinationals or export-oriented countries might not be supportive of a transition that decreases their control (such as a transition towards food sovereignty). This might be another impediment to any pursuit of transition.

Lastly, in providing a framework for policymakers, we have not specified for which level of policy this framework is intended. Although there are undoubtedly differences between for instance the policymaking on national level and regional or local level, we think that our framework could be supportive for all levels, as the conditions that are described involve and are involved by all these levels.

(18)

18

References

Arias, E., Eden, H., Fischer, G., Gorman, A., & Scharff, E. (2000). Transcending the individual human mind—Creating shared understanding through collaborative design. ACM

Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 7(1), 84-113.

Beauregard, S. (2009). Food policy for people: Incorporating food sovereignty principles into

state governance. Senior Comprehensive Paper. Los Angeles: Occidental College.

Retrieved December 1, 2014, from

http://www.oxy.edu/sites/default/files/assets/UEP/Comps/2009/Beauregard%20 Food%20Policy%20for%20People.pdf

Beuchelt, T. D., & Virchow, D. (2012). Food sovereignty or the human right to adequate food: which concept serves better as international development policy for global hunger and poverty reduction? Agriculture and Human Values, 29(2), 259-273.

Boyer, J. (2010). Food security, food sovereignty, and local challenges for transnational agrarian movements: the Honduras case. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 37(2), 319-351.

Burmeister, L. L., & Choi, Y. J. (2012). Food sovereignty movement activism in South Korea: National policy impacts? Agriculture and Human Values, 29, 247-258.

Eriksen, T. H. (2010). Small places, large issues: An introduction to social and cultural

anthropology. London: Pluto Press.

Flora, B. C. (2010). Schanbacer, William D: The politics of food: The global conflict between food security and food sovereignty. Agricultural Environment Ethics, 24, 545-547. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). (1996). Rome declaration on

food security and World Food Summit plan of action. Retrieved December 18, 2014,

from http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/w3613e/w3613e00.htm

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). (2002). World agriculture

2030: Main findings. Retrieved October 11, 2014, from

http://www.fao.org/english/newsroom/news/2002/7833-en.html

George, S. (1991). Green revolution. In How the other half dies: Real reasons for world hunger (pp. 113-132). Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books Ltd.

Hart, S. L., & Milstein, M. B. (2003). Creating sustainable value. The Academy of Management

Executive, 17(2), 56-67.

Holt-Giménez, E., Shattuck, A., Altieri, M., Herren, H., & Gliessman, S. (2012). We already grow enough food for 10 billion people… and still can't end hunger. Journal of

Sustainable Agriculture, 36(6), 595-598.

Hospes, O. (2014). Food sovereignty: the debate, the deadlock, and a suggested detour.

(19)

19

Laroche Dupraz, C., & Postolle, A. (2013). Food sovereignty and agricultural trade policy commitments: How much leeway do West African nations have? Food Policy, 38, 115-125.

Lutz, J., & Schachinger, J. (2013). Do local food networks foster socio-ecological transitions towards food sovereignty? Learning from real place experiences. Sustainability, 5, 4778-4796.

Marsden, T. (2012). Food systems under pressure: Regulatory instabilities and the challenge of sustainable development. In G. Spaargaren, P. Oosterveer, & A. Loeber (Eds.), Food

practices in transition: Changing food consumption, retail and production in the age of reflexive modernity (pp. 291-311). New York: Routledge.

McMichael, P. (2009). A food regime genealogy. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 36(1), 139-169.

Notari, M., Ferencz, A., Leval, P., & Czegledi, M. (2011). Marketing analysis of the connection of food sovereignty and consumers’ patriotism in Hungary. International Journal of

Management Cases, 13(3), 607-615.

Nyéléni. (2007). Nyéléni 2007 - Final declaration. Retrieved November 22, 2014, from http://nyeleni.org/spip.php?article280

Patel, R. C. (2012). Food sovereignty: power, gender, and the right to food. PLoS medicine,

9(6), e1001223.

Patel, R., & McMichael, P. (2009). A political economy of the food riot. Review, 12(1), 9-35. Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). Creating shared value. Harvard Business Review.

Retrieved November 22, 2014, from https://hbr.org/2011/01/the-big-idea-creating-shared-value

Prahalad, C.K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). Co-creation experiences: The next practice in value creation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(3), 5-14

Repko, A. F. (2012). Interdisciplinary research - Process and theory. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage Publications.

Roep, D., & Wiskerke, J. S. C. (2012). Reshaping the foodscape: The role of alternative food networks. In G. Spaargaren, P. Oosterveer, & A. Loeber (Eds.), Food practices in

transition: Changing food consumption, retail and production in the age of reflexive modernity (pp. 207-228). New York: Routledge.

Rosset, P. (2003). Food sovereignty: A future without hunger. Statement by the NGO forum to the World Food Summit. NGO Forum to the World Food Summit.

Schiavoni, C. M. (2014). Competing sovereignties, contested processes. ISS Working Paper

Series/General Series, 583, 1-47.

Sen, A. K. (1981). Ingredients of famine analysis: Availability and entitlements. The Quarterly

(20)

20

Smith, A., Voß, J. P., & Grin, J. (2010). Innovation studies and sustainability transitions: The allure of the multi-level perspective and its challenges. Research Policy, 39(4), 435-448.

Spaargaren, G., Oosterveer, P., & Loeber, A. (2012). Sustainability transitions in food consumption, retail and production. In G. Spaargaren, P. Oosterveer, & A. Loeber (Eds.), Food practices in transition: Changing food consumption, retail and production

in the age of reflexive modernity (pp. 1-34). New York: Routledge.

Swinnen, J. F. M., & Gow, H. R. (1999). Agricultural credit problems and policies during the transition to a market economy in Central and Eastern Europe. Food Policy, 24, 21-47. Van Amstel, M., Van der Pijll, S., & Spaargaren, G. (2012). The role of regime actors in

sustainability transitions: An application of the MLP methodology in the Dutch food sector. In G. Spaargaren, P. Oosterveer, & A. Loeber (Eds.), Food practices in

transition: Changing food consumption, retail and production in the age of reflexive modernity (pp. 177-204). New York: Routledge.

Van der Brugge, R., Rotmans, J., & Loorbach, D. (2005). The transition in Dutch water management. Regional Environmental Change, 5(4), 164-176.

Pursuing food sovereignty: Towards defining and meeting requisite interdisciplinary conditions