The prospect of food sovereignty in a neoliberal trade system : a case study on opportunities

(1)

“The harsh reality about food is that the true value for peoples resides in its nutritional and cultural benefits, but it is

most commonly perceived as a priced commodity, subject to the rules of the

neo-liberal market” (Wittman, Desmarais, & Wiebe, 2010)

The prospect of food

sovereignty in a neoliberal

trade system

a case study on opportunities

L.T. Kronenberg

Program: Political Economy

Course: Global environmental politics and governance: In theory and practice

Year: 2018-2019 Date: 21-06-2019

Supervisor: Dhr. Dr. R.J. Pistorius 2nd Reader: Dhr. Dr. M. Parvizi Amineh Word Count: 20,797

(2)

1

Abstract

The fact that planet earth is running out of natural resources, while humanity is trying to sustain the current global food system is an unsustainable mix. The relatively new concept of food sovereignty might be a tool to meet the demands for future needs in the food sector. Yet, it collides with the power structures of food security. In this respect, trade (liberalization) plays an essential role in sustaining the corporate food regime. This research looks into the relation of trade mechanisms on the concept of food sovereignty. Case studies on Brazil, Cuba and Mexico showed that trade mechanisms impede food sovereignty in different ways. Brazil depends on its agro-export industry for economic growth, making trade a relevant factor, disqualifying food sovereignty implementation to a compensatory social development program. Cuba on the other hand, showed promising statistics on country-level food sovereignty implementation. Yet, current statistics show that trade imports have resumed. Lastly, Mexico is a critical examples expressing the influence of trade liberalization on loss of food sovereignty principles. The exploration of different relations between trade and food sovereignty principles in Latin America shows that food remains a priced commodity subject to neo-liberal market rules.

(4)

3

1.The relatively new concept of Food Sovereignty and its

inconvenient relationship with trade

1.1 The demand for food sovereignty and contiguous critiques

Ensuring sustainable food security on a global scale is an urgent and complex challenge according to Dermody et al (2018, p. 103). Its magnitude is outlined in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which sets a target of zero hunger. (Dermody et al, 2018, p. 105). Yet, grave imbalances reflected in 1.9 billion adults being overweight or obese, whilst 462 million people are underweight, show the unequal distribution of development and the incompetence of humanity to meet the SDG of zero hunger, as is stated in the Algemeen Dagblad (2009, p. 1). Complementary, the World Health Organisation (2019, p. 1) reports that our current food system generates 25 to 30 percent of CO2 emissions globally. These statistics provide a demand for a re-conceptualization of our global agrarian sector (World Health Organisation, 2019, p. 1). The relatively new framework of ‘food sovereignty’ addresses this demand and offers an alternative paradigm to structure our food and agricultural sectors according to Altieri & Toledo (2011, p. 587).

Food sovereignty is defined by the First Nations Development Institute (2004, p. 4) as “the right of countries, communities and peoples to define their own agricultural policies1_{, which are economically,}

socially, ecologically and culturally appropriate to their unique environment and subsequent circumstances”. According to the institute, that assess levels of food sovereignty, one essential aspect herein is the implicit notification that policies do not hurt third countries. It also includes the right of people to have access to food and to produce food, which essentially means that peoples have right to safe nutritious and culturally appropriate food-resources. In this sense, peoples are allowed to sustain themselves as well as the communities they live in (First Nations Development Institute, 2004, p. 4).

This definition draws upon a different perception on the role food plays in current societies, herewith challenging existing frameworks. Rosset (2008, p. 463) states that the concept of food sovereignty offers a comprehensive alternative proposal to reconstruct the consumption and production of food on a global, national and local scale. In this respect, he describes the concept as an alternative agrarianism which contests the corporate food regime. He states that this anti-systemic movement was created out of activist motives to address the current food regime crisis (Rosset, 2008, p. 463). According to Jansen (2015, p. 214), the food sovereignty movement strives to develop a programmatic approach to restore

(5)

4

the potential of the countryside by reinstalling the peasant as the central figure. Subsequently, they form the potential to kick start the engine towards a sustainable agricultural growth, especially in developing countries.

Thus, food sovereignty calls for the localization of food systems in contrast to current processes of globalisation. Jansen (2015, p. 215) adds that the concept of food sovereignty protects local, small and domestic farmers from major agro-export powers dumping food in lesser developed countries. In policy terms, this means that agrarian reform supports smaller-scale farmers by putting emphasis on the creation of redistributive agrarian measures based on protection. This also implies moving away from chemical and fossil fuel intensive agriculture depleting already vulnerable soil. Complementary, food sovereignty promotes a move towards the diversification of our food production and distribution systems. Cadman (2013, p. 159) argues that a step like this will make smarter use of the lands yielded, democratize food economies, making much more effective and sustainable agrarian policy possible. In this respect, the proponents of food sovereignty see potential in this relatively new concept to change the grave imbalances and unsustainable methods presented in the first paragraph.

Where most authors in favour of the concept of food sovereignty have suggested the positive potential other scholars highly criticize the approach. Wittman, Desmarais, & Wiebe (2010, p. 4) present the stance of Jim Handy (2007) who summarizes the revolutionary implications of the seemingly simple idea of democratizing the food systems according to the concept of food sovereignty:

“Food sovereignty challenges not just a particular development model, doesn’t just challenge a particularly abhorrent form of neo-liberalism, doesn’t just suggest a new set of rights. Rather, it envisions fundamental changes in the basis of modern society. Modern society is based upon capitalism and food sovereignty demands us to challenge the very fundaments of the system our society is based on. Such transition, implicates something nearly impossible to human capabilities (Wittman, Desmarais, & Wiebe, 2010, p .4).

This position on the impossibility of transition due to the working structures of capitalism is complemented by critiques that evolve around the many ambiguities in terms of conceptualizing food sovereignty in practice (Edelman et al 2014, p. 911). An example scholars provide is to which extent non-local dietary preferences can or should be challenged. While food cultures have historically been tied to agricultural capabilities, making it highly place-based, it is inescapable that some distance must be allowed, making it difficult to draw fixed lines on what’s ‘culturally appropriate’ (Edelman et al 2014, p. 911). Thus, the questions posed relate to what is permissible within the food sovereignty conept. These lines are often ambiguous according to Edelman et al (2014; P.911), making it hard to envision how practical this alternative is compared to the current global food regime.

(6)

5

Logically, one needs examples to determine success, applicability and the possibility of further implementation of food sovereignty in developing countries, to counter these critiques. Complementary, Chaifetz & Jagger (2014, p.89) conclude that while food sovereignty has promise as a normative concept, it is unlikely to be implemented in any substantive way in the near future. Major powers affecting the future of food including population growth, upward price trends and globalization are major adversaries to food sovereignty. Taken into account that international food policy objectives, like the SDG of eradicating hunger, need to be met, while simultaneously restructuring the food and agricultural system, is a bridge to far according to Chaifetz & Jagger (2014. p. 89). They state that to even consider food sovereignty, when so many people are hungry is a questionable manoeuvre. Even if it leads to a more equitable outcome, it is a transition that would come with great costs.

In essence, the critiques evolve around the unlikely chances of sustainable transition due to the structures of capitalism and ambiguities surrounding this relatively new concept. Conclusively, scholars who critique food sovereignty do not see a realist fit in addressing future needs of population growth and reducing hunger. Furthermore, Martinez-Torres & Rosset (2010, p. 150) state that as the concept of food sovereignty stresses the importance of the re-localization of agriculture, it also opposes the main frameworks and mandates of international institutions like the World Trade Organisation (WTO), International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank. Within these institutions, it is common policy to focus on global ‘food security’ through the highest rate of achievable efficiency. As food security is defined by the World Food Summit (1996, p. 5) as, and exists when, “all people at all times have physical and economic access to sufﬁcient, safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life”, it mainly focusses on food availability and access to food. According to neo-liberal principles, this is best achieved via free trade and global processes of trade liberalization (Martinez-Torres, & Rosset, 2010, p. 150).

However, these global processes have an inconvenient relationship with the re-localisation process of creating food sovereignty. The latter is explained in paragraph 1.2 where the discrepancy between trade (liberalization) and food sovereignty is displayed. Afterwards, the main focus of this research is presented by posing the research questions in section 1.3. Then, the problem statement captures the essence of this research in section 1.4. Lastly, the methodology and operationalisation of this research outlines the structure of this research.

1.2 Food sovereignty and the inconvenient relationship with trade

The food sovereignty movement supports a critical stance on free trade, which according to Burnett, & Murphy (2014, p. 1071) promotes the altercation of developmental and ecological/environmental effects. However, they stress that trade does matter in the food sovereignty approach as tens of millions

(7)

6

of farmers earn their living through the focus of exporting their crops. Burnett, & Murphy, (2014, p. 1069) argue that the food sovereignty movement does not explain how a transition is made away from global trade, nor if it is the desire of these tens of millions of small-scale producers to do so. According to the authors, the food sovereignty movement proposes to focus on feeding local communities first, whereas trade raises the question where commodities fit across the globe. This shows the colliding character of both the food sovereignty concept and the process of global trade (Burnett, & Murphy, 2014, p. 1069). This colliding character is further explained by posing the arguments of four scholars addressing the relationship of trade and food sovereignty.

Firstly, it is not the full concept of global trade that is incompatible with the concept of food sovereignty. Essentially, the opposition to further trade liberalization provides the core tenet of food sovereignty according to Alkon & Mares (2012, p. 347). The authors explain that food sovereignty’s goal is to challenge and dismantle the monopoly power of the current global food regime. In this, the food sovereignty movement favours regionally controlled and democratic food systems in which the peasant agriculture is ought to create a larger distribution of wealth among citizens, while at the same time respecting nature (Alkon & Mares, 2012, p. 349). According to Burnett & Murphy (2014, p. 1071) food sovereignty allows for trade, when domestic production cannot meet needs. Additionally, the agricultural sector prioritizes providing food for domestic populations with only a surplus available for export. Thus, the scholars argue that the food sovereignty movement does nog disregard trade in itself, only the current working structure of it. The main reason for this is the negative effects it implicates for the central figures in food sovereignty; peasants and small-farmers (Burnett & Murphy, 2014, p. 1069).

Secondly, drawing upon Alkon & Mares (2012), Edelman et al (2014, p. 915) point out that the increasing durability and distance of food is deeply interweaved with the overwhelming presence of corporate power in the global agro-food systems. These scholars state that, as the food sovereignty wishes to dismantle this power and redistribute the focus to small farmers and peasants, trade can be marked as the indispensable tool that offers these global agro-food companies significant power. In this respect, trade and the food sovereignty movement seem to have an adversary relationship (Edelman et al, 2014, p. 915). The authors add that industrialized agriculture is a major source of greenhouse gas emissions, stemming from large machinery, pesticides and fertilizers. Also, extreme specialization of agricultural products and landscapes means that both agro-inputs and outputs frequently travel over long distance. Both links constitute a collusive relationship with the sustainable character of the food sovereignty approach (Edelman et al, 2014, p. 916).

Thirdly, ever since the inception of the food sovereignty movement, the latter has contested the World Trade Organisation’s legitimacy as the just institution to guide food and agriculture processes across the globe. Windfuhr & Jonsén (2005, p. 4) state that the reason for this is the imbalance in the level of

(8)

7

liberalization obligations for different groups of countries. While the developing countries opened up the last couple of years, their smallholder farmers and peasants have to compete with subsidized exports from industrialized countries. Windfuhr & Jonsén (2005, p. 7) highlight the financial situation of these developing countries, in not being able to pay subsidies, while being forced to remove trade barriers. On the other hand the industrialized countries are still paying subsidies to their farming sectors. The amounts provided, especially in the case of export subsidies, enable developed countries to sell their products at lower prices than the cost of production, sometimes in both food exporting and importing countries. Thus, Windfuhr & Jonsén (2005, p. 8) state that trade allows developed countries to enlarge their competitive advantage to dominate the agricultural sector. Additionally, the opening up of agricultural markets for food imports puts many small and medium producers in developing countries in direct competition with competitors on the world market, which collides with the local principles of food sovereignty.

Last but not least, the sticky issue for the relationship between food sovereignty and trade is the extent to which non-local food preferences can be challenged according to Edelman et al (2014, p. 916). They state that throughout history food cultures have evolved relatively place-based, highly dependent on the agricultural capabilities of the region. Essential foods that are not present within these capabilities must be traded internationally. Therefore, Edelman et al (2014, p. 916) state trade will always be needed. Furthermore, the extent to which trade and distance can be justiﬁed is complicated further by the matter of necessity or nutritional value versus luxury. As of now we still live in a world based upon capitalism according to Edelman et al (2014, p. 916).

In summary, Burnett, & Murphy (2014, p. 1069) and Alkon & Mares (2012, p. 347) state that the trading system based upon neo-liberal principles, promoting trade liberalization, will disregard the development of small peasant farmers. Ignoring this central figure in food sovereignty, so desperately needed for national development, only leads to the enforcement of the corporate global food regime as posed by Edelman et al (2014, p. 915). Global institutions like the WTO contribute to the enforcement and centralization of this agricultural power because they promote processes of trade liberalization. Subsequently, developing countries are forced into unfair competition with subsidized agro-industries disregarding the local principles of food sovereignty (Windfuhr & Jonsén, 2005, p. 7). Also Edelman et al (2014, p. 915) point to the creation of detrimental effects for the environment, as extreme specialization of agricultural products and landscapes means that both agro-inputs and outputs frequently travel over long distance. Consequently, large amounts of CO2 are emitted into our atmosphere. Yet, required changes and a transition as such, are not properly defined by the food sovereignty movement, as some distance in regards to food products in inescapable, but not yet accounted for (Burnett, & Murphy, 2014, p. 1071). Thus, food sovereignty collides with trade in respect to the enforcement of global agricultural power structures, the localisation of food systems and the effect

(9)

8

on the environment. Therefore, trade can be seen as an important factor that complicates the applicability of food sovereignty in contemporary societies.

1.3 The central research questions and their related chapters

As mentioned in the introduction, the food sovereignty concept could provide the tools to address current and future human needs in terms of the food and agricultural sector. Yet, critiques evolve around its adversary relationship with the workings of capitalism and the subsequent aspect of global trade (liberalization). Given that food sovereignty is a fairly new concept with limited practical experience worldwide, the inconvenient relationship with global trade is central to this thesis. Food sovereignty offers an ecological-friendly approach to consuming and producing our foods, compared to an existent non-sustainable structure of trading foods. In this respect, it is relevant to study food sovereignty’s chance of survival, the mechanisms blocking this and the amendments needed to allow for an ecological transition in the food sector. Consequently, the following research question will be answered in this thesis:

“How do existing global trade mechanisms impede food sovereignty in developing countries”?

“Subsequently, what adjustments in global trade should be made to allow for food sovereignty”? In order to answer the research question in chapter 5, the following sub-questions combined allow for the formulation of a valid answer. As such, these sub-questions will be answered through the subsequent chapters. Therefore, sub-question 1: “What does food sovereignty in developing countries entail and what are negative and positive experiences?” is addressed in chapter 2. Here a literature study on the concepts and experiences within the food sovereignty paradigm will outline what has been studied on the topic before. This entails background information about the concept, like the movement La Via Campesina and the importance of agroecology as a method of farming, in section 2.1. The former is the social movement behind the food sovereignty principle and allows for a better understanding of the concept. This movement formed the basis for food sovereignty implementation in developing countries and provides the tools to understand what food sovereignty essentially means. To add, agroecology is essential in understanding the methods of food sovereignty, representing the practical side of the concept. As food sovereignty promotes a return to localism through the methods of agroecology, it replaces the concept of large agro-industries in the current corporate food regime that substantiate the use of globalised trade. The friction trade mechanisms cause in this respect, is essential to understand the current power relations in the food sector. Here the food security versus food sovereignty debate enters the playing field in section 2.2 to explain the different paradigms in the food sector. In section 2.3 experiences with aspects of food sovereignty, like self-sufficiency and agroecology, are presented to

(10)

9

determine parameters essential for the analyses of this thesis. A concluding paragraph will determine the parameters extracted from all the sections in chapter 2 in order to conceptualize food sovereignty. From here, this research will move to the theoretical framework in chapter 3. Here, sub-question 2: “What are essential trade mechanisms, and how do these relate to food sovereignty?” is mentioned. The chapter starts with theory on the relation between food sovereignty and trade. Furthermore, the policy tool of protectionism is highlighted as an important factor to limit the influence of trade. Chapter 3 provides a further conceptualization on the relation between the main concepts in this thesis and their collusive character.

The last sub-question: “What can be learned from food sovereignty implementation and how do these findings collide with existing trade mechanisms?” will be answered in the analyses, located in chapter 4. This chapter digs into the case studies selected and draws upon food sovereignty implementation. Because of the Green Revolution, Latin-America provides significant examples that can be compared to trade mechanisms. In this respect, Brazil, Cuba and Mexico were chosen due to their share in the revolution. Given that all countries are structured differently, in terms of social, economic, political and ecological aspects, the analyses will allow for diversified substance to answer the research question in chapter 5. Before engaging into answering these research questions, section 1.4 will summarize the problem, which also provides the relavance for conducting this research. Afterwards, a detailed operationalization is presented in section 1.5.

1.4 The problem and relevance of food Sovereignty in light of future challenges

In order to determine the relevance of this research, the actual problem central to this research is highlighted. In this respect, Altieri, Funes-Monzote & Petersen (2012, p. 1) highlight that planet earth is running out of natural resources, while trying to sustain the current global food system. In addition, demands even grow bigger as large increases in production are needed to feed the growth of the human population. Complementary, these scholars note a growing push towards unsustainable industrialization and globalization. They state that humankind is walking into a spiral of crisis if we do not intervene (Altieri, Funes-Monzote & Petersen, 2012, p. 1). Cadman (2013, p. 158) adds that the current situation is already one of crisis in many developing countries. These marginalized areas experience economic, social and ecological impacts and risks due to the current structure of the global food system and early effects of global warming. He states that the permanent and intensifying global food crisis is becoming difﬁcult to ignore and demands a paradigm shift, especially in the unsustainable composition of our global food system. Ayres & Bosia (2011, p. 47) argue that the food sovereignty concept offers a new paradigm in approaching agriculture, but its success is still to be determined. As this new concept of

(11)

10

food sovereignty is believed to open new opportunities for developing countries, it also challenges the existing corporate food structures and regimes, which show high reliance on trade (liberalization). Intrinsically, one can detect a collision between a return to localism and the current trend of globalisation (Ayres & Bosia, 2011, p. 47). This demand of a return towards localism merits further scrutiny and cannot be left unnoticed in light of the ecological challenges mankind faces.

The problem raised is the unsustainable structure of existing globalized food structures that are based on trade that might impede the more sustainable alternative paradigm of food sovereignty. While the latter, focussing on localization, seems more capable of addressing future human needs, its key premise collides with current globalism based on international trade and dominant processes of trade liberalization. Given that food sovereignty is a relatively new concept with limited practical experience, it is highly relevant to study the effect of trade as an aspect that could impede food sovereignty implementation. Therefore, the likeability of sustainable transition according to the principles of food sovereignty partly depends on amendments made to existing trade mechanisms. This research wishes to contribute to further conceptualization of the food sovereignty concept.

1.5 Methodology

This subsection will elaborate on the structure and methodology in relation to the research question presented in section 1.3. The main goal of this thesis is to determine the effect of trade on the success or failure of food sovereignty implementation in developing countries. Depending on the level of successful implementation of (aspects of) food sovereignty, one could determine what subsequent policy adjustments to trade could be made in order to allow for food sovereignty.

This main goal is represented in the research question:

“How do existing global trade mechanisms impede food sovereignty in developing countries”?

“Subsequently, what adjustments in global trade should be made to allow for food sovereignty”?

The format within the research conducted is case studies, with the main goal to find comparative empirical evidence in relation to the process of global trade mechanisms impeding food sovereignty. Within the case studies, existing literature on examples of successful implementation of food sovereignty policy is highlighted, representing the qualitative analyses of this thesis. This part is presented in section 1.5.3, where the motivation for the case studies chosen is displayed. On the other hand, data about the food sector within these case studies is used to determine the presence of food sovereignty aspirations. These indicators are determined in section 2.3, where parameters of food

(12)

11

sovereignty are identified. In this respect, the format chosen is in line with a deductive qualitative approach.

Firstly, this research engages into the question: “What does food sovereignty in developing countries entail and what are negative and positive experiences?”. In this respect, the question allows for an answer to what food sovereignty inherently means and of what factors it consists. Furthermore, the link can be made to positive and negative experiences from the past in order to determine what aspects are essential to analyse in respect to food sovereignty implementation.

Secondly, the research digs deeper into existing trade mechanisms and its relation to food sovereignty. This is clearly explained in the second sub-question: “What are essential trade mechanisms, and how do these relate to food sovereignty”. In this approach the concept of trade is outlined in respect to global agriculture. The aim is to locate mechanisms that inherently collide with the concept of food sovereignty. Conclusively, the case studies are outlined in order to answer sub-question 3: “What can be learned from food sovereignty implementation and how do these findings collide with existing trade mechanisms”? The next step will be to analyse how different forms of food sovereignty are applied and how they all deal with existing trade mechanisms. Looking into trade statistics in order to relate them to food sovereignty implementation, will determine structural hindrances.

The idea behind this approach is to get a clear view on: (1) existing food structures in developing countries and their place in global trade; (2) To identify aspects of successful food sovereignty implementation in Latin America and their relation to trade; (3) To identify structural impediments to implementation of food sovereignty in the existing trade structures.

1.5.1 Units of Analyses

In this research the food sovereignty concept is the main unit of analyses. Wittman, Desmarais & Wiebe (2010, p. 3) state that the food sovereignty concept evolved out of a critical analyses by marginalized farming peoples, that were affected by the changes in national and agricultural policy worldwide during the 1980s and 1990s. As a result, the food sovereignty movement emerged as a critical alternative to the present neoliberal model for agriculture and trade. The latter concept of trade is the second unit of analyses. Wittman, Desmarais & Wiebe (2010, p. 3) add that the term “food sovereignty” approaches the economic and political power dimension of the food and agriculture debate. In this respect, the relationship between food sovereignty and trade is analysed.

As the food sovereignty concept, in practice and theory, has the potential to foster dramatic and widespread change in agricultural, political and social systems according to Wittman, Desmarais &

(13)

12

Wiebe (2010, p. 5), it is a process that emerged bottom up. Trade on the other hand reflects national and international policies. This is an important aspect in assessing its relationship.

1.5.2 Operationalisation

The units of analyses will both be explored, yet, with a special focus on the concept of food sovereignty. Chaifetz & Jagger (2014, p. 89) state that there is no full-ﬂedged food sovereignty model as the terminology of the movement lacks precision as well as a strict deﬁnition. This is partly because the literature has rarely been crafted by academics. Chaifetz & Jagger (2014, p. 89) add that the attempt to measure food sovereignty is critical to understand accomplishments. However, it is still uncertain whether the principles of the movement are actually empirically tractable. In essence, the focus on food sovereignty as a movement suggest that the mere aim is institutional change in the global agricultural sector, not the pursue the achievement of a set of specific objectives. One can conclude, that the achievement of food sovereignty is hampered by several challenges related to articulation, operationalization, and measurement of the concept. However, this research is built upon the attempt to articulate parameters of food sovereignty in chapter 2 in order to use them in the analyses. This will establish aspects that are empirically tractable and will allow for an analyses that can extract food sovereignty aspirations.

Focussing on the agricultural history of Latin American countries, this approach offers the possibility to determine the effect of trade in this process. Given that three cases will be analysed within the food sovereignty concept: Brazil, Cuba and Mexico, different political social and economic backgrounds apply that will lead to a diversified mix of evidence to substantiate the findings in the conclusion. The main idea is to link the food sovereignty concept to existing trade mechanisms in order to explore its relationship. By using a diversified literature review on contributions to food sovereignty implementation, impediments caused by trade might arise by the complemented statistics. This allows this research to suggest alternative propositions to the working structure of trade or the implementation of food sovereignty.

1.5.3 Case studies & Data

In section 1.5.3 the case studies and the motivations for selection are presented together with relevant data. Food sovereignty is not a national policy in all cases, but is formulated bottom-up. Yet, these countries are chosen because of agricultural reform promoted by food sovereignty movements and their varying relationships to trade as is presented below.

(14)

13

1. Brazil

In light of agroecological expansion in the agricultural sector of Brazil, there is no other country that has made an agricultural transition of this magnitude in the world according to Altieri & Toledo (2011, p. 598). Yet, Brazil is considered an agro-export powerhouse. In this respect, Brazil is an interesting case to conduct research on because trade holds a significant role in the agricultural sector, while there seems to be an aspiration for food sovereignty implementation via the expansion of agroecology. This relation can contribute to get a better understanding about the effect of trade on food sovereignty implementation.

2. Cuba

In the last two decades Cuba has been forced to experiment with energy and food system transformation due the crises in the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union. Moreover, as a result of an US trade embargo, food sovereignty has been among the attempts of survival organized by the Cuban People (Altieri & Toledo, 2011, p. 598). Consequently, food sovereignty implementation is relevant to the survival of this nation, while there is an absence of existing trade mechanisms due to the embargo. In this respect, Cuba is highly relevant to understand the effect of absent trade mechanism in relation to food sovereignty processes.

3. Mexico

Mexico is unique in agrarian terms, especially within the context of Latin America (Altieri & Toledo, 2011, p. 604). Moreover, the country has experienced multiple processes of trade liberalization. Given the uniqueness of Mexico in agrarian terms and its status of self-sufficiency as a component of food sovereignty, in relation to trade liberalization, the case study provides the tools to determine the effect of trade on food sovereignty. In detail, it can provide new insights into the status of self-sufficiency and the creation of it. Subsequently, the influence of trade could be factor to impede and distort this status.

The reasons for choosing countries in Latin America as a successful example of the implementation of food sovereignty is because of the amount of literature available. Therefore, the analyses of all countries will start with an introduction into the agricultural sector based upon the parameters and theoretical framework discussed in chapter 3 and 4. After that an attempt is made to link the data retrieved from the World Bank and Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) to the implementation of food sovereignty in order to test if there is a relationship.

(15)

14

2. The Food sovereignty paradigm: La Via Campesina,

agroecology, food security and historical experiences

This chapter provides a literature review about relevant concepts and factors within the food sovereignty paradigm. This is complemented by existing historical experiences of (aspects of) food sovereignty in order to get a clear understanding of what the food sovereignty paradigm entails. Firstly, an introduction into the concept of food sovereignty is presented by drawing upon essential literature in regards to the origin and basic elements of food sovereignty. In using the protagonist of food sovereignty, La Via Campesina, one is able to understand how the concept challenges existing food structures. Additionally, the link between food sovereignty and agroecology is explained to further clarify the alternative framework that is proposed by means of farming. This is then linked to section 2.2, where the peculiar relationship of food sovereignty and food security is further discussed. The two contrasting principles contribute to the understanding of the forces at play in the food domain. Subsequently, section 2.3 highlights negative and positive experiences with the concept of food sovereignty. These experiences provide insights into the (dis)advantages of food sovereignty. Drawing upon all these themes, a conceptual framework that highlights parameters for food sovereignty implementation is presented in section 2.4. This conceptual framework is reiterated in chapter 4 for further analyses.

2.1. The origin, characteristics and driving forces of food sovereignty

Food sovereignty is built around the re-centralization of peasants in the agricultural sector. According to

Martinez-Torres & Rosset

(2010, p. 149) this concept calls for the revival of a group of farmers that have been predicted to disappear as an inevitable result of the penetration of capitalism into the agricultural sector. Over the past 30 to 40 years, institutions that supported the peasantry and family farming eroded, as neoliberal economic policies started to dominate the agricultural sectors (

Martinez-Torres & Rosset,

2010, p. 150)

Yet, Pimbert (2009, p.3) highlights that food is still grown, collected and harvested by 2.5 small-scale farmers. This food is primarily produced and consumed locally, with many people depending on incomes and livelihoods from activities surrounding this process. Therefore it is a group that cannot be ignored in terms of ecology, but also socio-economic and political reasons. Consequently, Pimbert (2009, p. 4) argues that peasantry and the current working mechanisms of the global corporate food regime are conceived irreconcilable. Consequently, the alternative policy for food sovereignty is a citizen and peasant response to the current social and environmental crises created by the modern food

(16)

15

system. The aim here is to create an endogenous food system that is rich in bio-cultural diversity. This implicates for radical changes in four closely interrelated domains: ecological, political, social and economic (Pimbert, 2009, p. 8).

In striving towards structural changes in these four different domains the food sovereignty movement has globalized their struggles bottom-up and is represented by La Via Campesina (Literally: ‘the peasant way’). Martinez-Torres & Rosset (2010, p. 150) state that this collectivism of farmers envisions a new agrarian trajectory based on old culturally-based principles, that would reintegrate food production in a natural approach. Additionally, it would also imply structural development opportunities that are currently ignored by the corporate food regime. Therefore, the next paragraph is dedicated to La Via Campesina as the representative organization for food sovereignty in order to get a better grasp of the concept, while simultaneously learning about the importance of social movements in food sovereignty aspirations. Secondly, a discussion surrounding the method of agroecology, as part of food sovereignty, is provided. This method is crucial to meeting food sovereignty principles. A review of these important food sovereignty concepts allows for a clear connection to the essential debate between food sovereignty and food security.

2.1.1 The vision of La Via Campesina on food sovereignty

One central aspect of food sovereignty, are the activist motives to address the current food regime crisis (Rosset, 2008, p. 463). These activist motives are often translated to food sovereignty organisations which are mainly constructed bottom-up, as is the case of La Via Campesina. Over the course of the past decades, this food sovereignty movement has evolved as an international movement of poor peasants and small farmers from the global south and north. The movement was officially launched in 1993, and currently represents more than 150 (sub)national rural movements in 56 countries, stretching from all sides of the globe (Borras Jr, 2008, p. 260). According to Borras Jr (2008, p. 287) the movement, countering the neoliberal food agenda, has a varied and heterogeneous membership in terms of class, gender and ethnicity, but also varies in ideological persuasions.

Despite the differences in worldviews, methods of work and political agendas, they are unified in representing sectors among the global north and south, who are economically and politically marginalized (Borras Jr, 2008, p. 287). According to Borras (2008, p. 259) La Via Campesina can be regarded as the global protagonist for food sovereignty. This is the case because the organisation is perceived as the global alliance of peasants and family farmer organisation from Europe, Africa, Asia and the Americas

(Martinez-Torres & Rosset,

2010, p. 170). Given that food sovereignty movements exist all over the world and are created through activist motives, they are crucial in assessing the food

(17)

16

sovereignty concept, mainly because they form the bottom-up driving forces behind the implementation of food sovereignty principles.

The definition that the umbrella organization of food sovereignty, La Via Campesina, has used is crucial to understand what instrumental aspect there are:

“The right of peoples to healthy and culturally appropriate food produced through ecologically sound and sustainable methods, and their right to define their own food and agriculture systems. It puts those who produce, distribute and consume food at the heart of food systems and policies rather than the demands of markets and corporations. It defends the interests and inclusion of the next generation. It offers a strategy to resist and dismantle the current corporate trade and food regime, and directions for food, farming, pastoral and fisheries systems determined by local producers. Food sovereignty prioritizes local and national economies and markets and empowers peasant and family farmer-driven agriculture, artisanal—fishing, pastoralist-led grazing, and food production, distribution and consumption based on environmental, social and economic sustainability” (Simon Reardon & Pérez, 2010 , p. 910).

In light of this definition provided by La Via Campesina, Pimbert (2009, p. 8) argues that food sovereignty, among others statements, implies individuals’, peoples’, communities’ and countries’ right: (1). to define their own agricultural management policies which are ecologically, socially, economically and culturally appropriate to their unique circumstances; (2). to food and to produce food, in order to sustain themselves and their societies; (3). to protect and regulate domestic production and trade and prevent the dumping of food products and unnecessary food aid in domestic markets.

These rights that stand central to the concept of food sovereignty are all discussed or further analysed throughout this thesis. The first right is closely connected to what will be discussed in the next paragraph (2.1.2). The agricultural management policies which are ecologically, socially, economically and culturally appropriate to their unique circumstances is perceived as identical to the method of agroecology. The latter is a central concept within food sovereignty and impossible to ignore according to Altieri, Funes-Monzote, & Petersen (2012, p. 2), because agroecology paves the way for ecologically sound and sustainable methods as is mentioned in the definition provided by La Via Campesina. The second right refers to self-sufficiency and the possibility to sustain societies, which will be central, among other examples, to the historical experiences discussed in section 2.3. Lastly, the third right refers to the inconvenient relationship between trade and food sovereignty. Food sovereignty promotes domestic production as well as consumption, making international trade loose its significance. This statement is further analysed in chapter 3.

(18)

17

2.1.2 Agroecology: The crucial and inherent method of food sovereignty

Food sovereignty organisations, which are member of La Via Campesina, often promote the use of agroecological methods. Herewith, they redirect the focus from agri-industrial products to agro-ecological products, changing the agricultural focus of production. Agro-ecology, in this sense, is providing a technological, scientific and methodological basis on the production of food that makes a new agrarian revolution possible (Simon Reardon & Pérez, 2010, p. 908). According to Altieri & Toledo, (2011, p. 587) agroecology-based products are energetically efficient, biodiverse, socially just, resilient, and contribute to a productive food sovereignty strategy. It focuses on an agricultural paradigm that encourages local and national production, by small farmers with local knowledge and innovation, fuelled by renewable energy, such as solar energy. In essence, agroecology meets the criteria in the following part of the definition provided by La via Campesina:

“The right of peoples to healthy and culturally appropriate food produced through ecologically sound and sustainable methods, and their right to deﬁne their own food and agriculture systems. (Simon Reardon & Pérez, 2010 , p. 910).

In practice this means complete access of peasants to land, water, seeds and credits to create local markets. This is made possible through the creation of new agro-ecological technologies, financial incentives and economic policies (Altieri, Funes-Monzote, & Petersen, 2012, p. 2). The key idea here is to develop agroecosystems, with low dependence on unsustainable chemical and energy inputs. In this respect, agro-ecology is highly knowledge intensive and developed bottom-up by local farmers. Altieri & Toledo (2011, p. 587) conclude that it is based on farmers’ knowledge and experimentation, compromising the top-down approach from governing institutions with the mere focus on land. Like the concept of food sovereignty, agroecology promotes the transition to sustainable and local farming. McMichael (2014, p. 936) contributes that rather than tweaking the practices of unsustainable agricultural systems, agroecology offers the possibility to transform food and agricultural systems, addressing root causes of problems like socio-economic inequality and climate change in an integrated way. The method provides a long-term and holistic solution to the agricultural sector. However, huge investment are required to create such a transition. This promotion of a new sort of localism (or anti-globalism) could be perceived as the driver for sustainable national growth in developing countries. The peasantry and subsequent agricultural output can form the basis of this economic growth (McMichael, 2014, p 937). In this respect, agro-ecological products are not meant to be traded, rather they are to be consumed locally. However, questions are raised about the sufficiency of agricultural output. Dermody et al (2018, p. 103) argue that a transition to food sovereignty might involve implications for global food security.

(19)

18

Agroecology is a crucial factor for food sovereignty, as it provides ecologically sound and sustainable methods of farming. In this respect, it is one of the parameter for food sovereignty implementation. This method of farming recentralizes the peasantry and allows for the redirection to ecological agricultural products, neglected process of trade of long distance. By its nature it provides an alternative to challenge the methods of the corporate food regime. Yet, critiques evolve around the feasibility of achieving food security through this method. On this note, this research moves towards the debate on food sovereignty and food security debate as two seemingly incompatible concepts.

2.2 The food security versus food sovereignty debate

In section 2.1 essential aspects about the origin of food sovereignty were addressed. These constitute the presence of food sovereignty movements, which often promote the use of agroecological methods to realise food sovereignty principles. Section 2.2 focusses on these aspects within the debate of food sovereignty and food security. These concepts are often perceived adversarial, but focus on different aspects within the food regime. The debate is essential in understanding the driving forces behind trade as impediment to food sovereignty implementation. Herein the process of trade liberalization plays an essential role, it being the perceived key method to achieve global food security. As mentioned in the introduction, opposition to further trade liberalization is the core tenet of food sovereignty. Thus, the debate identifies the main friction between food sovereignty and trade.

The neoliberal trade regime, promoting trade liberalization, wields a double standard in demanding developing countries to open up their markets, while permitting protectionism in developed countries. This is backed up by Gonzalez (2004, p. 421) stating that developing countries must compete with subsidized agro-industries, sometimes producing below the cost price of their agricultural products. This double standard allows trade to undermine the livelihoods of small-farmers, degrade natural resources and impede economic diversification necessary to achieve food security (Gonzalez, 2004, p. 421). In this respect, trade is viewed as the essential mechanism to achieve global food security, but simultaneously disregards rural smallholder livelihoods that become dependent on agro-industries. The peasantry is the key figure within rural livelihoods as well as food sovereignty. Conclusively, both concepts seem to be related to one another, even though they pursue different goals.

The aims of food security and food sovereignty are often perceived irreconcilable. Wittman, Desmarais, & Wiebe (2010, p. 1) clearly present both stances in the debate, and focus on the ideologies behind the food sovereignty movement and the corporate food regime. They state that the proponents of the latter, in favour of neoliberal globalization, would have us believe that the current food crises was caused as a result of market failures and shortages in production. Wittman, Desmarais, & Wiebe, (2010, p. 12) state that there is the strong believe, present within the camp of food security, that their methods are the only

(20)

19

way to address future challenges in regards to food and agriculture. One can think of growing populations and processes of urbanisation. Additionally, the authors state that within the food security camp there is a focus on scientific high-tech approaches, increasing production through the adoption of genetically modified seeds (GMOs) and the liberalization of the agriculture sector. Only if these methods are applied, we will be able to keep the world food secure (Wittman, Desmarais, & Wiebe, 2010, p. 12).

On the other hand, Wittman, Desmarais, & Wiebe (2010, p. 1) state that proponents of food sovereignty argue that the current food crises, accompanied by an economic and environmental crises, are the direct result of decades and destructive economic policies promoted by the neoliberal food regime. Wittman, Desmarais, & Wiebe (2010, p. 1) resume their argument by stating that this globalization of a neoliberal, industrial, capital-intensive and corporate-led model of agriculture is not fit to address future challenges, like growing populations and climate change, because of its unsustainable nature. They argue that this is the reason for La Vía Campesina to claim that “the time for food sovereignty has come” in offering the socio-economic and environmental tools to avert future crisis (Wittman, Desmarais, & Wiebe, 2010, p. 1).

In the comparison of both camps, one is able to detect the anti-systemic nature of the food sovereignty movement calling for the localisation of food structures. According to Hospes (2014, p. 121) this anti-globalization and anti-neoliberalization stance present in La Via Campesina and among small-farmers is reflected in the fact that large amounts of social movements and NGOs reaching from the global south to the global north, have embraced the concept of food sovereignty. Yet, not many public authorities on the (inter-)national level have adopted the food sovereignty paradigm into their agriculture and food policies. According to Hospes (2014, p. 119) the reason for this is that existing power structures determined by institution such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Trade Organization (WTO), are biased towards maintaining the corporatist food regime and he neo-liberal thinking behind it in order to achieve global food security. This is also because these institutions are led by countries that have a huge interest in the corporate food regime, as it constitutes a huge part of their economic wealth.

Subsequently, one can see that the bottom-up approach of food sovereignty is a response from the marginalized rural areas of the world, to show the consequences of an unsustainable globalised top-down approach that enforces power structures in the realm of food and agriculture. Yet, both do not seem irreconcilable. Clapp (2014, p. 207) contributes to this argument by stating that the terms food security and food sovereignty emerge as separate terms, describing two different extremes. Yet, the former is a concept describing a condition regarding access to adequate food, while the latter refers to a political agenda on how to address inadequate access food.

(21)

20

Searching in one’s own conscience, Hospes (2014, p. 119) states that confusion about the concept of food sovereignty on a globalised scale, complemented by the failure to debate on how to reconcile conflicting, institutions, values and discourses within the presented debate, are the basis to address future food challenges. Complementary, Clapp (2014, p. .211) argues that both food security and food sovereignty are useful concepts to help us understand, debate, and formulate policies to address the most pressing issues of hunger and inequality in the global food system today. Accordingly, the challenge is to engage in a more constructive and meaningful dialogue about the approaches present on the table. Only then policy changes can be mapped out to realize required outcomes in the food sector. In other words, the challenge is to address whether the two camps are really incompatible. In section 2.2.1 this challenge is further discussed.

2.2.1 The compatibility of food sovereignty and food security

As presented, both concepts do overlap in some occasions, yet, they differ in methods and focus (Chaifetz & Jagger, 2014). As the principles and definition of food sovereignty have been explained in section 2.1, this section will move into the four major aspect of food security. These are then related to principles of food sovereignty to determine areas of (in)compatibility.

Food security is defined as, and exists “when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufﬁcient, safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life” (World Food Summit, 1996). In this food security is based upon four major concepts; (1). Food availability, (2). Access to food, (3).Utilization and (4). Stability. Accordingly, Chaifetz & Jagger (2014) claim that there is a considerable amount of overlap with food sovereignty. The complementarity of both concepts would mean that a turn towards a more sustainable method of agriculture could be envisioned, making a transition possible, limiting the unsustainable influence of trade.

Firstly, the availability of food is also a critical part for the food sovereignty dialogue, from seeds to the potential of small-farmer and families to obtain their desired foods. However, the quality and quantity leave a large question mark due to the global food inequity and the ability to reach full potential according to Chaifetz & Jagger (2014, p. 87). As such, Chaifetz & Jagger (2014, p. 87) claim that it is a question of time and political effort to suffice according to this criteria. This fits the statement of La Via Campesina (2007) declaring that food sovereignty is marked as a precondition to genuine food security. As such, researchers must focus on the application of food sovereignty in terms of food and resource availability.

(22)

21

The second concept of food security is most relevant to this research. Access to food refers to the affordability of food in the marketplace (World Food Summit, 1996). Obviously, food sovereignty ideals have not yet infiltrated the corporate food structure of the market, even though some communities have been successful in doing so. These examples have managed to create localised approach of food sovereignty within the goals of food security according to Chaifetz & Jagger (2014, p. 88). Yet, globalization and increased trade liberalization are major challenges for the food sovereignty paradigm in relation to improving access to food. Burnett and Murphy (2014, p. 1067) suggest that the food sovereignty community fails to present a clear position on the issue of trade. Where the food sovereignty movement used to promote a stance against trade, more recent developments show the movement towards a use of socially responsible value chains. This allows small-scale producers to engage in trade, which is in line with the broader objectives of food sovereignty and perceived more realistic.

Lack of a forum to actively participate in trade of agricultural inputs is highlighted as another problem. For example, Chaifetz & Jagger (2014, p. 89) argue that small scale producers continue to have a limited role in World Trade Organization negotiations. On the other hand, Chaifetz & Jagger (2014, p. 89) argue that the rise of the BRIC countries in WTO negotiations as an example of low and middle income promoting aspects of food sovereignty, have turned out to be fruitless due to institutional path dependency and incremental changes in trade policy. Conclusively, there seems limited scope for systemic change from the top down.

Where the food sovereignty dialogue has little to say about the third factor of utilization, stability and environmental sustainability are addressed as core components of food sovereignty. Here they fill in a conceptual gap in relation to food security. Efficient farming creating stability is addressed in the method of agroecology where the environment is taken into account. Yet, the current working structure of the food regime, is rather unsustainable an doesn’t meet the aspects of stability in light of the grave imbalances presented in the introduction. Chaifetz & Jagger (2014, p. 89) highlight that proponents view a fundamental shift towards agroecology as necessary. Yet, can food production carry the weight to improve the situation of the poorest given the limited examples of implementation.

Conclusively, the two concepts of food security and food sovereignty are essentially different, but are not irreconcilable according to most authors (Chaifetz & Jagger, 2014; Clapp, 2014; Hospes, 2014). Given the relative newness of the concept of food sovereignty, one must turn to practice in order to learn more about the relationship of both concepts. Therefore, section 2.3 will look into aspects of food sovereignty, such as self-sufficiency, its relation to trade and practical farming to further conceptualize food sovereignty in light of trade.

(23)

22

2.3 Experiences that address (aspects of) food sovereignty in practice

As the concepts and characteristics of food sovereignty have been presented, together with the colliding camps of food security and food sovereignty, essential parameters for food sovereignty have been touched upon. Drawing upon these sections, further conceptualisation of food sovereignty is displayed by addressing experiences with (aspects of) food sovereignty from the past. According to Chaifetz, & Jagger (2014, p. 85) food sovereignty focuses on a sort of industrial detox that creates local food economies. It replaces export-and-import driven global food markets and the complement policies that enable them. Subsequently, section 2.3 will focus on experiences implicating industrial detox through local food economies and the promotion of self-sufficiency. The latter being the opposite of export-and-import driven food markets, realised through trade. Given that food sovereignty is a relatively new concept, true experiences from the past are scarce, apart from Latin America. Yet, Chaifetz, & Jagger, (2014; P.85) argue that food sovereignty, or at least aspects of it, exist since the ending of the Second World War. Therefore, section 2.3 will provide examples from which positive and negative experiences can be extracted to further conceptualize food sovereignty.

These positive and negative experiences, together with section 2.1 and 2.2, form the parameters for food sovereignty in this thesis, that will be used in the analyses to determine whether some form or aspects of food sovereignty are present. In this respect, section 2.3.1 provides early examples of self-sufficiency by highlighting Iran and China. Logically, one does not have food sovereignty when someone else determines ones access to food via trade (Kerr, 2011, p. 5). As autonomy and self-control are major components of food sovereignty, self-sufficiency is also one of the criteria to become food sovereign. China and Iran provide early insights in this process. Furthermore, a silent form of food sovereignty in the case of Russia is displayed that shows that different forms of food sovereignty already exist, but are initiated differently. From this example we can also extract essential parameters in applying food sovereignty. Also, a case study in the Philippines provides practical examples on agroecology as an essential part of food sovereignty. The case study allows for in depth examples and comparative outcomes to conventional farming. This case study was selected to give more substance and practical examples in light of section 2.1.2. This is complemented by a West-African experience in relation to trade agreements. This example is selected because it functions as a precursor for further analyses and provides an introduction to the relation between food sovereignty and trade. Within these examples there are lessons to be learned which will be summarized in section 2.3.2. Subsequently, these are mirrored to the development of food sovereignty within the case studies presented in chapter 4.

(24)

23

2.3.1 Historical examples that address (aspects of) food sovereignty

As touched upon, one should take into account that self-sufficiency is only a small part of the total concept of food sovereignty. As Kerr (2011, p. 5) argues, one cannot speak of food sovereignty, when self-sufficiency is created through controversial technologies like genetic modification. Additionally, food being produced locally as a matter of self-sufficiency does not exclude the possibility of control of the food system by multinational corporations. As Kerr (2011, p. 4) argues, “to gain a facet of food sovereignty also requires local communities to obtain the right to autonomy from their national (or subnational) governments. Yet, Holt-Giménez & Altieri (2013, p. 93) acknowledge the importance of self-sufficiency as one does not have food sovereignty when someone else determines ones access to food via trade.

Moving into experiences of pursuing self-sufficiency, Amid (2007, p. 545) states that Iran can be viewed as one of the most striking examples in attaining a nationally-driven food self-sufficiency policy. From 1979, after the Iranian Revolution, to 2002, the country aimed at becoming self-sufficient in wheat by installing a bread subsidy reform. All in all, the cheap-bread program in Iran is perceived as an unnecessarily expensive social safety net (Amid, 2007, p. 545) In addition, achieving self-sufficiency in wheat and providing cheap bread have evolved into important national goals in Iran. According to Amid (2007, 548), abandoning such goals will harm the political legitimacy and political stability of the country. In turn, this will create a hesitant attitude towards changing such ineffective and costly policies, harming country-level development. Conclusively, self-sufficiency comes with a cost.

The latter is also true in the case of China. Yet different motives drove China away from self-sufficiency. Therefore Yang & Tyers (1989, p. 237) highlight China and the process of self-sufficiency in a more international context. When China implemented a rural economic reform in the late 1970s, agriculture production grew at a rapid pace. With this rapid growth in rural production and output, grain imports heavily declined during the 1980s, making total food self-sufficiency an attainable goal for China. According to Chaifetz, & Jagger (2014, p. 86) it consciously failed to reach this full potential. Yang & Tyers (1989, p. 249) described the dilemma that China’s policy makers faced. It being a choice between overall self- sufficiency, which would result in large economic costs due to extra protectionist measures on the one hand, and a more liberal agricultural trade policy, which would substantially increase China’s economic welfare but would lead to dependence on foreign food exporters, on the other hand. In this respect, Chaifetz, & Jagger (2014, p. 86) display the economic temptation of trade in the agricultural sector in the case of China.

Although the term food sovereignty rarely appears in Russian debates, the concept is certainly not irrelevant. Visser, Mamonova, Spoor & Nikulin (2015, p. 514) argue that a kind of food sovereignty does exist in Russia, but in a less pronounced form and under different circumstances. This is because

(25)

24

food sovereignty is not enforced through social movements or outspoken discourses that coordinate actions through the state. Yet, ideas and actions surrounding the concept of food sovereignty emerge bottom-up and are widespread among the population of Russia. Consequently, Visser, Mamonova, Spoor & Nikulin (2015, p. 514) argue that food sovereignty in practice plays an unknowingly significant role in Russia. Here smallholding farmers produce a large share of the food consumed, locally, in a largely ecologically friendly traditional way. Their arguments are based upon statistics that show that rural households are currently nearly as productive (in terms of yields) as large farm enterprises, without using state support, which is the case with large farm enterprises (Visser, Mamonova, Spoor & Nikulin, 2015, p. 519). At the very least, these communities show the capability to become self-sufficient.

Moving from self-sufficiency to organic farming, the largest study undertaken on sustainable agriculture in Asia focusses on 280 small-scale organic farmers in the Philippines and was published by Bachmann, Cruzada & Wright (2009). They compared small-scale organic farmers to conventional farmers in respect to rice-based farming systems. Their analyses focused on food security; income and livelihood; yields and productivity; environmental outcomes; and farmer knowledge and empowerment (Bachmann, Cruzada & Wright, 2009, p. 4) According to Altieri, Funes-Monzote, & Petersen (2012, p. 9) the results turned out very positive for the organic based sustainable-led agriculture approaches. The results showed that food security was significantly higher for organic farms, their diet more secure resulting in substantially better health outcomes. From the practical side of production, organic farmers have a higher diversity of crops, and grow 50% more than conventional farmers. Complemented by better farm management skills, better soil fertility, less soil erosion and increased tolerance of crops on pests and diseases logically resulted in better incomes for organic farmers (Altieri, Funes-Monzote, & Petersen, 2012, p. 9). In this respect, agricultural experiments in the Philippines show the potential of agroecological and organic farming in relation to conventional methods.

As the food sovereignty movement promotes the stance that long-term food security with future challenges ahead, cannot solely rely on food imports, agriculture must be built upon the development of domestic production, especially in the case of developing countries. Dupraz & Postolle (2013) looked into whether the West African nations could achieve food sovereignty through boosting domestic production in light of various trade commitments and other external constraints. Using an historical economic and political approach, the result suggests that external influence on the development of food sovereignty policies is marginal, as West African countries seem unable to use the room for manoeuvre to protect the smallholder agriculture (Dupraz & Postolle, 2013, p. 115) Rather so, the international environment seems to be instrumented by West African states, those who do not manage to secure a national political consensus, to drive structural reforms deemed vital to further the food security of the urban populations, more so than over the marginalized rural populations (Dupraz, & Postolle, 2013, p. 123).