Exploring Singapore’s Global Agricultural Restructuring to Determine Characteristics of the Third Food Regime
By: Carly Ellis (10684360) Supervisor: Robin Pistorius Second Reader – Julia Bader June 24th, 2014 Master Thesis Political Science – International Relations
Contents Page
Chapter One – Introduction
1.1 Introduction to Topic 1.2 Methodology
1.3 Research Structure
1.4 Motivation, Aim, and Gaps in the Research Chapter Two – Theoretical Framework
2.1 Historical Overview of Food Regime Theory 2.2 The First Food Regime
2.3 The Second Food Regime 2.4 A Third Regime?
2.5 Philip McMichael 2.6 Harriet Freidmann 2.7 Hugh Campbell
Chapter Three – Case Study (Singapore) 3.1 Broad Overview
3.2 Consumption 3.3 Production 3.4 Distribution
Chapter Four – Comparative Analysis 4.1 Making the Connections 4.2 Consumption
4.3 Production 4.4 Distribution
4.5 The Unforeseen Variables 4.6 Defining the Third Regime
Chapter Five – Secondary Case Study (Hong Kong) 5.1 Introduction
5.2 Consumption 5.3 Production 5.4 Distribution 5.5 Summation Chapter Six – Conclusion
6.1 Overview and Results Acknowledgements
The thesis process has been challenging. Between dealing with personal problems, and feeling frustrated with my lack of progress, I was feeling like I wasn’t going to make it through. To be honest, I’m not sure I would have without the support of my professor, Robin Pistorius. He not only gave me guidance on my work, but he helped me to stay focused and on track. Having a strong support system is the backbone to success. I was lucky enough to have a supervisor who was genuinely invested in my thesis, and family members to cheer me on through the low points. I had a wonderful experience completing my political science masters at the University of Amsterdam, and I walked away with a truly invaluable experience. Thank you to all of those who helped me through this journey!
Chapter One - Introduction 1.1
Introduction to the Topic
Agricultural development is constantly being shaped by a multitude of factors. Such as, new technologies, social developments, economic factors and political arrangements. Therefore, scholars have approached changes within the agro food order from different lenses in order to expose particular aspects of development. An example of a lens that is used to explore agricultural development is food regime theory. Friedmann and McMichael’s seminal article in Sociologia Ruralis, which is focused on food regime theory, has been one of the most influential pieces written within agrarian studies since the late 1980’s. Friedmann and McMichael, focused on understanding agrarian
structures, and state agricultural policies in the context of the development of the global agricultural network. (Buttel, 2002: 23-24) Developing a food regime theory allowed McMichael and Friedmann to characterize and
contextualize the restructuring of agriculture and food throughout history. In particular, they focused on a major shift within the world food trade during the 1980’s, referred to as “the global restructuring of food production,
consumption and distribution” (Magnan, 2012: 1).
Friedmann and McMichael started theorizing the conditions for global agriculture by breaking down the agrofood order into two initial food regimes. The food regimes approach is a framing concept which is used to “locate processes of global and local changes in historical narratives describing periods of stability and crisis in global agrofood relations” (Magan,2012:2). As such, while the agrofood order refers to the wider system, the delineation of food regimes is the method used to frame and portray specific economic, social, political and historic events within the agricultural spectrum. The first
regime, spanning the 1870’s to the early 1920’s, was characterized by imperial power, Third World agricultural expansion, and a food import system. The second regime lasting between the 1940’s and the early 1980’s was built around food aid, Green Revolution technologies, trade liberation, and the growth of agribusiness. (Magnan, 2012: 4-5) Friedmann and McMichael broke down food regime theory into two main regimes in order to understand the conditions for the rise of global agriculture. However, despite being unified about what initiated the rise of global agriculture, Friedmann and McMichael did not develop a consistent vision about what the future of global agriculture would be. The transition towards a global food regime was clearly an
important change in the agrofood order, and was leading both scholars to believe that a third regime may be emerging.
Friedmann predicated that a corporate environmental model would characterize the third regime. She believes that a new food regime will be associated with increasing supermarket power, a privatization of food standards, and more thrust from the consumer in dictating food politics (Magnan, 2012: 6). McMichael on the other hand sees the role of corporations as the most dominant factor in a third regime, labeling his model as a
‘corporate food regime’. He focuses on the ascension of the World Trade Organization (WTO) into the agricultural sector as a sign that agribusiness, rather than peasant agriculture, will be the main agent of the third food regime (Magnan, 2012: 6).
While McMichael and Friedmann are the two developers of food regime theory, they are not the only scholars who have analyzed what affect global agriculture will have on shaping a third regime. Scholars such as William Pritchard, Hugh Campbell, Gabriela Pechlaner and Gerardo Otero have also hypothesized what shape a third regime may take. William Prichard’s article
The Long Hangover from the Second Food Regime: a World-Historical
Interpretation of the Collapse of the WTO Doha Round, focuses on debunking
the theory that the third regime will be a global neoliberal regime, controlled by the power of the WTO. Rather, he suggests that the collapse of the Doha
Round negotiations should delegitimize the pull factor of the WTO, and open up a new focus for the rise of global agriculture (Pritchard, 2009:1).
Campbell’s most significant contribution to food regime theory is his article
Breaking New Ground in Food Regime Theory: Corporate Environmentalism, Ecological Feedbacks and the ‘Food from Somewhere’ Regime? The main
emphasis of his article is focused on how a third regime will usher in global scale mechanisms for food auditing, the growth of positive ecological dynamics in the food system, and overall more transparency within the food and
agricultural sector (Campbell, 2009:1). Lastly, Pechlaner and Otero worked together on the article, The Third Food Regime: Neoliberal Globalism and
Agricultural Biotechnology in North America, and their approach to exploring
the rise of a third regime is connected to the prevalence of new agricultural biotechnologies. They explore how new technology can increase the
inequalities between developing nations and the developed world, and that neoliberal globalism will only further encourage the divide between North and South (Pechlaner and Otero, 2008: 1). However, due to the limitations of this thesis, it is not possible to explore the arguments of all of the food regime theorists. Rather, it will explore the rise of a third regime according to the arguments of Harriet Friedmann, Philip McMichael and Hugh Campbell. Friedmann and McMichael have been selected because they have written the most extensively on food regime theory. Not only are they the founders of the theory, but they have also studied it and documented it the most thoroughly. Hugh Campbell has been selected because his critique is one of the more recent publications addressing food regime theory, which could provide a more current reflection of the state of a third regime. Additionally, he critiques and builds off of the work of both Friedmann and McMichael in his analysis, which helps to expose some of the flaws and shortcomings in the scholarship provided by the two founding members of food regime theory. His criticisms of their work may help to further develop the narrative of a third regime, because he has already illustrated some of the weak points of McMichael and
In order to see the impacts of the third regime, this thesis will rely on a case study to help illuminate the hypothesis of the three scholars in regards to how they foresee the rise of a third regime. Not only does this create a strong starting point for framing a third regime, but it also helps to shed light on the evolution from the second regime to the third. One of the key features of the rise of global agriculture is the restructuring of consumption, production and distribution to fit the international agrofood order. One nation that has recently engaged in these forms of restructuring is Singapore. There are multiple reasons why Singapore would provide an interesting case study for exploring the rise of a third regime, as follows are a few of these examples… Traditionally, Singapore has not been involved in agricultural politics. As a
relatively land scarce city-state, Singapore is not a nation one might associate with agricultural development. Despite this, since the 1980’s and 1990’s, Singapore has been rigorously restructuring its consumption, production and distribution capabilities in order to engage with the global agricultural
network.
Singapore can shed some light on the future of agricultural development and the shape of a third regime. The reason being, that since Singapore has not established an agricultural network in the past, their entire basis for a successful agricultural model has been built around the standards of the agricultural industry formed during the 1980’s and 1990’s. Rather than nations such as the United States and Canada who may still be engaged in policies developed during the first two regimes, such as a focus on the
development project which emphasized “industrialization and consumption of industrial commodities” (Friedmann, 2009: 337).
Singapore has based its agricultural developments within the realm of the global food regime, which is the most recent shift in the agrofood order. As
such, their global partnerships and processes could reflect new emerging power formations within the global agricultural network.
As one of the strongest economies amongst the Asian nations, Singapore's developments act as a catalyst for other nations trying to transition within the agricultural spectrum. As such, Singapore's agricultural remodeling must be cutting edge and sophisticated in order to provide a strong framework for other nations to follow. Thus, their restructuring would be indicative of both current and future trends within the spectrum of the agrofood order.
By focusing on Singapore, this thesis is hoping to determine what the main characteristics of a third food regime are, and by doing so, shed some light on its future evolution.
1.2
Methodology
In order to create a starting point for the analysis, this thesis will use the work of Friedmann, McMichael and Campbell to explore how they predict the rise of a third regime. Through exploring the literature of these three scholars, it not only illuminates the fact that there is no definitive model of a third regime, but it also highlights some of the different hypothesis’s about what shape a third regime could take. Then, the focus will shift towards Singapore’s engagement with the global agricultural network via reshaping of their consumption, production and distribution capabilities, and explore whether the developments in Singapore represent the shape of a third regime, or whether the developments are unique to the region. In order to determine whether the situation in Singapore is indicative of the future of a third regime, or whether it is a unique scenario, this thesis will follow up with a comparison against the agricultural developments within Hong Kong to see if there are
similarities between the two models. Therefore, the research question for this thesis is as follows:
To what extent and how, does the reshaping of consumption production and distribution within Singapore to engage in the global agricultural system, reflect the shape of a third agrofood regime
The primary method used to explore the research question will be qualitative. Qualitative methods vary depending on the chosen technique. In the case of this thesis, the technique that will be used is a case study, which will be applied towards exploring food regime theory. One of the criticisms of using a case study is that it can too narrowly define an experience and stretch the validity of the theory (Thomas, 2005:859). In order to help escape the pitfalls of too narrowly defining food regime theory, this thesis will also contrast the case study of Singapore against developments in Hong Kong. This will help reduce the risk of trying to find evidence within a singular case study to fit a theory, rather than using the case study to further explore and break down a theory.
Additionally, it is also critical to select reasonable parameters for extracting information about food regime theory. Through carefully selecting three notable food regime scholars, it is possible to explore diverse opinions about the rise of a third regime, without becoming lost in the wealth of scholarship that is written on food regime theory. The majority of sources used will be secondary documents, and the information will be extracted through scholarly articles, journals, books and magazines. The select primary sources that will be used are WTO documents. Overall, this thesis will attempt to answer the research question by laying down the framework of food regime theory and the conditions of a third regime according to McMichael,
Friedmann and Campbell. Then, explore the rise of global agriculture within Singapore to determine whether the model is reminiscent of the predictions made by the scholars, as well as how it varies. Followed by a comparison study
of Singapore and Hong Kong’s agricultural developments, in order to
determine whether Singapore is a unique situation or revealing trends more consistent with a new food regime. Finally, leading to the main conclusion and closing remarks.
1.3
Research Structure
Below is a visual representation of the research structure…
To further elaborate, the structure of this research will be conducted as follows. The introduction will serve as an entry point into where the topic came from, what the research question will be, and how the case study will help to respond to some of the gaps in the research. Then, food regime theory will be introduced. The first two regimes will be illustrated by the literature provided by scholar Philip McMichael. Since food regime theorists are all in agreement about the conditions of the first two regimes, it will not pose a conflict of interest or a bias approach by relying on only McMichael’s work to explore the first two regimes. From there, will be a brief explanation of some
Introduction
Theoretical Framework (Food Regime Theory)
Case Study (Singapore) Comparison Analysis Secondary Case (Hong Kong) Conclusions
of the general themes which underscore the rise of a third regime, as well as a thorough breakdown of a third regime according to the work of scholars Philip McMichael, Harriet Friedmann and Hugh Campbell.
The third chapter will be focused on Singapore’s restructuring of consumption, production and distribution within the spectrum of the global agricultural network. This will illustrate some potential new trends that could be connected to the shape of a third regime. After Singapore is explored, the fourth chapter will be used to contrast developments within Singapore, and the arguments of the three regime scholars. Through comparing the situation within Singapore, and the hypothesis’s made by the regime scholars, it is possible to narrow in on potential connections to a third regime. In order to determine if the connections are in fact related to the shape of a third regime, chapter five will be used to compare the agricultural model of Singapore and Hong Kong, to determine if there are any similar features. Lastly, the
conclusions will be drawn and the research question will be answered. 1.4
Motivation, Aim, and Gaps in the Research
Food regime theorists have dedicated a vast wealth of scholarship towards explaining the rise of global agriculture. Through framing specific historical, political, and economic points within the agrofood order, food regime theorists were able to clearly mark out what caused the rise of the first two regimes, and what affect it has had on creating the global agriculture regime that has been present since the late 1980s. A few significant factors that are referenced by food regime theorists in conjunction with setting the framework for a global agricultural regime are the rise of the world economy, diversified production regimes, and interlinked commodity chains (Buttel, 2001: 24-25). In order to frame the narrative of the global regime, food regime
scholars looked at how consumption, production and distribution had been refocused to create a global agricultural network.
Up until the 1980’s, the arguments about food regime theory were all very clear and concise. However, once the global regime began to surface, it became very evident that the future trajectory of the agrofood order was not a universal standard. Food regime scholars predicated that the transition
towards a global food regime could mean the rise of a third regime. However, their lack of consensus on what shape this third regime would take is the main motivation behind writing this thesis.
The aim of the thesis is to explore the current state of the global
agrofood order within Singapore, in order to determine whether it is possible to gain a greater understanding of the shape of a third regime. Firstly, it is critical to establish what some of the potential signs of a third regime are. In order to narrow in on some of the features of a third regime, this thesis will illustrate the arguments of scholars Philip McMichael, Harriet Friedmann, and Hugh Campbell. Through exploring their arguments about the shape of a third regime, it is possible to hone in on specific developments within Singapore’s restructuring of their agricultural model. Additionally, their expertise on food regime theory provides creditability and a focused direction. This will create a platform for exposing whether Singapore is demonstrating signs of a third regime, and it will act as a catalyst for comparison between what the scholars predict, and what is currently happening in Singapore.
The gaps in the research are the central feature of the research
question because it is the lack of a definitive structure of a third regime that is being analyzed. Firstly, this thesis will attempt to narrow the gaps in defining the shape of a third regime by exploring the scholarship of McMichael,
Friedmann and Campbell. Briefly to reiterate, Philip McMichael’s centers his research on the concept of a corporate food regime. His assumptions are focused on the role of the World Trade Organization, and their agenda to “commodify and privatize agricultural knowledge and resources, and
quite different from Harriet Friedmann’s analysis of a third food regime. Friedmann explores the role of the corporate-environmental food regime. She analyzes supermarket chains, assessing that “supermarket-led restructuring and international environmental and food politics- have combined to produce the ‘lineaments’ of a third food regime” (Magnan, 2012: 6). Her assumptions are routed within a different narrative than McMichael’s, but they relate more with Hugh Campbell’s scholarship, that builds off Friendmann’s concept of corporate-environmentalism. Campbell suggests, “with heightened cultural awareness of food issues and the ecological costs of cheap food, food
corporations have begun to develop complex standards and auditing procedures that incorporate ecological feedbacks”(Magnan, 2012: 6).
Campbell views an emerging third regime in a more positive light, seeing it as a rise in corporate responsibility and environmental awareness, and wants to see a fusion between local environmental programs and big businesses. These three scholars have each framed a third regime within a different context, and this helps to expose the significant factors to consider when exploring agricultural development within Singapore. More importantly, it exposes the main gap in the research, which is the fact that the third regime is lacking a central narrative. As it stands, food regime scholars have still failed to create a unified definition about the characteristics of the third regime. Through using Singapore as a case study, it will be possible to explore the scholarship of the three food regime theorists, and potentially help to define the structure of a third regime and understand what the key characteristics of the regime will be. Additionally, it is particularly important to then follow up with a comparison study in order to test out whether Singapore’s agricultural developments are related to the rise and form of a third regime, or if they are actually very inward policies that do not reflect a connection to the future shape of the agrofood order.
Through using Singapore as a case study, it will be possible to explore the scholarship of the three food regime theorists, and potentially help to define the structure of a third regime and understand what the key
characteristics of the regime will be. Additionally, it is particularly important to then follow up with a comparison study in order to test out whether Singapore’s agricultural developments are related to the rise and form of a third regime, or if they are actually very inward policies that do not reflect a connection to the future shape of the agrofood order.
Chapter Two – Theoretical Framework 2.1
Historical Overview of Food Regime Theory
The research focus of this thesis is dedicated to exploring the rise and shape of a third regime through the context of a case study analysis. However, as with any research that is based on a theoretical background, it is critical to first breakdown the theory that is being used its significance. Since this thesis will be relying on food regime theory as the theoretical lens, the first step will be to explain what food regime theory is, and how it began. Flourishing from the “political economy of agricultural tradition, food regimes analysis was originally developed as a means of contextualizing the restructuring of agriculture and food in the late twentieth century in world-historical terms” (Magnan, 2012: 1). During the 1980’s, coinciding with the rise of
neoliberalism, food and agricultural production began to shift. New means of production and expanding distribution capabilities gave way to a restructuring of the agrofood chain. One of the biggest focuses of the food and agricultural industry became reshaping consumption models. New research was being conducted that focused on the emergence “of counter-seasonal international commodity chains for fresh fruits and vegetables and their role in the agro-export strategies of countries in the global south” (Magnan, 2012: 1). The demand for foods from around the world had greatly expanded with the rise of globalization. Rather than being limited to the season of a particular fruit or
vegetable, consumers became focused on unlimited access to goods. With the rise of consumer demands came powerful industry giants that were looking to profit off of the developing shifts in agricultural consumption. While some food regime theorists focused on studying the growth of a new market, others were focused on who was going to control the market, and how.
Food regime theorists narrowed in on the “influence of transnational corporations in agrofood sectors upstream (e.g., seeds and chemicals) and downstream (processing, distribution, and retain) from farming” (Magnan, 2012: 1). Through doing so, McMichael and Frienmann were able to focus food regime theory on two main concepts, one being focused on the demands of the market, and another being focused on the subsequent response to this demand. In order to understand the current context of food regime theory, Friedmann and McMichael decided to take a historical approach, and trace back the role of capitalism and its affect on the food and agriculture sector since 1870. The results gave way to the distinction of two main food regimes. Briefly, they will be summarized below.
2.2
The First Food Regime
The growth of the first food regime, which took place between 1870-1930’s, arose as a result of the spread of British colonialism. The food and agricultural sector first began to change when the British began importing heavily from their colonized lands. The first food regime was strongly
influenced by “combined colonial tropical imports to Europe with basic grains and livestock imports from settler colonies, provisioning emerging European Industrial classes, and underwriting the British ‘workshop of the world’” (McMichael, 2009: 141). The colonies became a new site for agricultural production that was geared to satisfy the demands of British society. This signaled a shift from traditional food systems within the colonies, towards new
crops designed to satisfy the colonizers. In order to keep up with the high demands within Britain, and keep down the prices, the British began outsourcing “its staple food production to colonies of settlement (over-exploiting virgin soil frontiers in the New World)” (McMichael, 2009: 141). Food production sites being relocated within the new world signaled an even larger overall theme. It was clear that the food and agricultural sector was connected to the growing industrialization of the first world nations. The trend of outsourcing production to keep costs low and satisfy the demands of
growing populations within the first world was a trend that would continue straight through the twentieth century.
2.3
The Second Food Regime
By the 1950’s, a second Food Regime had begun. Interestingly, it still relied upon the relationship between developed and developing nations and the transfer of food. However, rather than it being a process of extraction from the developing world, it was a process of extending surplus food back to the postcolonial states of the cold war. The United States began to use food aid as a type of ideological weapon against communism. Essentially, “food aid
subsidized wages, encouraging selective third world industrialization, and securing loyalty against communism and to imperial markets” (McMichael, 2009: 141). Building up new alliances within the territory that surrounds the Soviet Union, was a tactic used by the US to encourage a remodeling of the economic systems within that region.
The semi-periphery states “internalized the model of national agro-industrialization, adopting Green Revolution technologies, and instituting land reform to dampen peasant unrest and extend market relations into the
countryside” (McMichael, 2009: 141). The most significant feature of
technologies. Just to briefly explain, green revolution technology focused on “breeding programs for staple cereals that produced early maturing…and high-yielding varieties. [And] distribution of packages of high pay-off inputs, such as fertilizers, pesticides and water regulation” (Conway and Barbier, 1990: 19). Rapid increases in agricultural yield, combined with access to new markets, signaled the growth of transnational farming. Rather than the colonial model, which was routed in oppression and slavery, the new food regime, was characterized by expanding economic development within the third world. Agriculture became a key site for economic expansion, and
increased the spread of capitalism around the world. In conclusion, the second food regime, which lasted between the 1950’s until the 1970’s, was largely characterized by the development of transnational commodity complexes. 2.4
A Third Regime?
The first food regime consolidated the role of food imports, agricultural raw materials gained through colonial rule, and the beginning stages of a global trade system between the Third World and the First. The second food regime witnessed the diffusion of American “agricultural institutions, technologies and foods to the South”, the growth of social Keynesianism, and global institutions such as GATT/WTO. (Buttel, 2001:25) Overall, the first two food regimes show the roots of global agriculture. It is the rise of the global agricultural model that has led food regime scholars to
consider that a third regime may be underway. However, the question that still needs answering is, what are the characteristics of this ‘third regime’? Scholars Philip McMichael, Harriet Friedmann, and Hugh Campbell, have all taken it upon themselves to try and answer this question. Each one has meticulously documented the shape of a third regime according to factors that they consider indicative of the new agrofood order. Starting with Philip McMichael, the next
segment will be dedicated to exploring the conditions that each scholar foresees as central to the shape of the third regime.
2.5
Philip McMichael
Philip McMichael’s approach to the rise of a third regime is centered on his philosophy of a corporate food regime. He argues that the development project is a key starting point for where a shift began towards a corporate model. Exploring how features of the development project such as, de-regulation of finances, privatization, and the corporatization of agriculture have encouraged the growth of this new corporate regime (McMichael, 2005: 270-271). He covers many aspects of analysis within his scholarship on a corporate food regime, however for the purpose of this thesis, the main focus will be on how he analyzes changes in consumption, distribution and
production within the rise of a third regime, the corporate food regime. McMichael argues that the first two food regimes were embedded within the power structure of the nation state, whereas the third regime is characterized by the rise of the World Trade Organization (McMichael, 2005: 285). Rather than power emanating from a singular source, the WTO exerts their power on a global level. He argues that the WTO consolidates the power of Northern states, and allows them to enact procedures and policies that disenfranchise the Southern state markets (McMichael, 2005: 285). Through creating a global platform such as the WTO, Northern states were able to cumulate an agenda for increasing market access. In order to increase access within the food and agricultural sector, the WTO created the Agreement on Agriculture, which came into effect in 1995, and sought to liberalize trade relations in order to create a global agriculture that relied on agro-exporting and food importing as its main features (McMichael, 2005: 285). The
in place of domestic farming that cannot rise to the demands of the global marketplace. Rather than supporting local farms, many of the developing nations began to withdraw their farming subsidies and channel their funding towards agribusinesses that were involved in export crops (McMichael, 2007: 220).
As local farms were pushed out of production, and agribusiness began to take over, McMichael observes a decrease in food security throughout the developing world. He focuses on the decline of food security within the global south as one of the major changes in consumption that arose as a result of the corporate food regime. By the 21st century, “Centralization of global food stocks – 60% in corporate hands, six of which control 80% of the global wheat and rice trade, while three countries produce 70% of exported corn, was matched by the displacement of millions of small farmers” (McMichael, 2009: 287). He argues that the global south is becoming virtually completely
dependent on food imports, and is being marginalized from their own food production processes. Noting that farmers still operating within the global south were being pushed away from staple foods, towards high-value food products for the Northern market.
McMichael explores that,
while the market is the designated vehicle and realm of social reproduction, its contradictory relations (cheap food for consumers vs. displacement of rural cultures) mean that a large portion of the world’s population is either reproducing the smaller, affluent proportion, or combining livelihood strategies on the margins of the market to reproduce [for] themselves and their families (2007: 225). The corporate food regime embodied a new approach to food security. Rather than the focus being about how much food people had, and whether social welfare programs were established to provide food aid, it became about the
market. If consumers had access to a market that could deliver goods and services, then they possessed food security. (McMichael, 2007: 226).
Encouraging an import dependency within the global south, and the increased focus on agro-exporting, created a new type of food insecurity. Although there was food available to purchase and eat, debt within the global south meant that the access to food was often limited. McMichael observes this change in the consumption model as an important factor for justifying the rise of a corporate food regime.
The adjustment towards a world agricultural system not only affected processes of consumption, but it also affected the way that food is produced. In regards to production, McMichael explores the “green revolution principle of ‘appropriation,’ the progressive removal of components of agricultural production from the control of the farmer via intervention in natural
processes, starting with bio-engineered seeds…” (2005: 285). He notes that developed nations are investing in new forms of agricultural technology in order to increase yields, decrease pest problems, and decrease cost of production. However, investments in bioengineering are being centralized from within a corporate standpoint with the introduction of giant agri-chemical corporations (Pistorius & van Wijk, 1999 cited in McMichael, 2005: 285). The agri-chemical corporations have already taken over a majority of the seed market, and are trying to make it even more exclusive through utilizing intellectual property rights. Through controlling gene patents, the
corporations will be able to regulate access to the knowledge they ascertain about biotechnology and increase their control of the agricultural industry. McMichael argues that “the privatization of knowledge [is] a principal feature of the corporate food regime” (2005: 186). Developed nations are not the only ones who are utilizing agricultural biotechnology, developing nations are also highly involved with genetically engineered crops. However, the growth of genetically engineered crops has also decreased food sovereignty in many nations. Many farmers used to harvest their own seeds and control the planting cycles on their lands. However, as seed stock is purchased and
patented by agri-chemical corporations, farmers are gradually shifting over as consumers of genetically modified seed (McMichael, 2009: 224). It appears that McMichael’s main concern is that the production cycle is quickly becoming replaced by agricultural chemical corporations, and in turn; it is marginalizing local farmers from their traditional farming practices.
Lastly, McMichael focuses on how distribution has been affected through the rise of a corporate food regime. In comparison to consumption and production changes, McMichael places less emphasis on how a corporate food regime will shape distribution practices. However, he does explore the rise of supermarket culture as a main way that corporations are controlling the distribution of food. Particularly within the global south, the dissolution of small farms has had the counter affect of reducing the amount of wet markets. As farming production shifted towards a more corporatized model, wet
markets began to be replaced by supermarkets (McMichael, 2009: 287). All across the world, transnational firms such as, Ahold, Carrefour, and Wal-Mart are taking control of food distribution. Aside from the fact that they pose huge competition to local farms, they also created unanticipated challenges for domestic producers. Brands such as Wal-Mart and Carrefour are extremely wealthy, and they set the quality standards very high while simultaneously keeping their costs low. Small farmers are simply unable to match the price per quality ratio that transnational firms are able to offer (McMichael, 2007: 222). Additionally, large commercial producers who work exclusively with supermarkets are alienating local farmers from the market. Rather than
sourcing products from small local farms, the big supermarkets will go directly to large corporations and secure their contracts through them (McMichael, 2007: 222). Overall, McMichael’s focus on distribution is concerned with how large transnational corporations are springing up all around the world in the form of supermarkets, and are challenging local food distributers.
McMichael clearly identifies what he believes to be a third regime characterized by corporate control. He notes how consumption, production and distribution have all changed as a result of the corporatization of the
agrofood order. More specifically, he associates the rise of the power of the WTO in agricultural policy, via the AoA, as one of the main reasons that a third regime has risen, in the form of a corporate food regime.
2.6
Harriett Friedmann
Harriett Friedmann analyzes the rise of a third regime from a different perspective than Philip McMichael. Although she also pinpoints the increasing corporatization of the food and agricultural sector as an important feature of a third regime, her approach also includes an environmental politics focus, and as such, she labels a potential third regime as a corporate-environmental regime. Friedmann establishes a few key characteristics of the potential emerging corporate-environmental regime; they are “the proliferation of private food standards, supermarket power, and consumer-led food politics” (Magnan, 2012: 6). In regards to the environmental focus, she highlights the introduction of green capitalism as a motivating factor for a new food regime. She explores how food and agriculture has slowly become more of a focus for Northern governments, and that has also spurred more interest in issues such as food additives and pesticides, food safety, and agro-ecosystems (Friedmann, 2005: 253-254). The question that needs to be asked is what affects the fusion of environmental politics and corporatization of the agrofood market has had on consumption, production and distribution?
One of the major transitions that Friedmann explores in her work is the growth of supermarket chains. She focuses on how consumption patterns have changed as a result of an increased presence of supermarkets. For instance, looking at how supermarket chains have focused on increasing access to healthy ready to eat meals, and natural and organic foods (Magnan, 2012: 6). Supermarket chains responded to the increased concerns of consumers
for consumption. By raising quality standards just slightly higher than
governments were capable of regulating, supermarkets were able to create a niche food market within the current food system (Magnan, 2012: 6). Through creating a niche food market, supermarket chains were able to cater to two distinct consumer classes. Private companies were responding to the divisions that were being made between consumers by investing in expensive new food technologies such as “functional foods”. Cargill for example, has begun
working with products such as Coro-Wise, which is a plant sterol that may help reduce cholesterol (Friedmann, 2005: 257). Through differentiating the types of foods that are available to different classes of consumers,
supermarkets and the corporations that provide the foods are deepening the inequalities between classes. Essentially, consumption of higher quality foods is becoming a privilege, rather than a right to all consumers.
According to Friedmann, production trends have also shifted as a result of a rising corporate-environmental food regime. As the general public became more focused in food safety, and focusing on where their food was coming from, there came a rise in the organic food market. When the organic market was surfacing as an income-generating trend, many corporations became interested in finding ways to incorporate organics into their repertoire. Beatrice Foods and General Foods achieved this by buying out small
alternative food producers in states such as California, in order to expand their market access for healthy food products (Friedmann, 2005: 252). However, it wasn’t only corporations that were investing in new production measures, governments were beginning to focus on topics such as industrial farming and weigh in on whether this type of production was safe. By the late 1990’s, “The European Union and Japan refused imports of products from livestock treated with hormones and genetically modified foods and seeds” (Friedmann, 2005: 252). Both corporations and governments were shifting towards an increased focus in production standards and regulating the access to better quality food. Supermarket chains sought to better regulate the production of their food goods by introducing “own brands”. Essentially, supermarkets invested in
controlling everything from food manufacturing to food branding in order to assure their consumers that their products are high quality (Magnan, 2012: 6). However, the EU was not capable of maintaining their ban against hormone treated meat. Pressure from the cow farmers in the United States that were treating their beef with hormones, gradually won over quality standards, and the EU dropped their ban. As governments were lowering their standards, private companies were increasing them. Supermarket chains took regulation one-step further by introducing EUREP-GAP (Euro-Retailer Produce Working Group-Good Agricultural Practice) EUREP-GAP operates in a similar way as the Codex Alimentarius, it was created to “ensure integrity, transparency and harmonization of global agricultural standards” (Friedmann, 2005: 257). The result of EUREP-GAP was a blend between private and public regulation
standards. Through reinforcing a divide between public and private standards, supermarkets were able to clarify a distinction between rich and poor
consumer access. Poor consumers would have access to the quality standards offered by the government at the public level, including GMO foods and hormone treated beef. Rich consumers on the other hand, would support a market for higher quality goods, and would pay a premium to access them. The result is two separate production sectors, one dedicated to maintaining
government standards, and one catering to the private market which “creates conditions for distinct “rich” and “poor” supply chains…” (Friedmann, 2005: 257). What is evident is that production changes ensued as a result of changing quality standards. However, the end result was a blending of public and
private production regulation standards that reinforce a divide between rich and poor consumers.
The last focus of Friedmann’s corporate-environmental regime is distribution changes. As has been previously mentioned, the corporate-environmental regime has encouraged a separation between consumer classes, at the distributional level this can be seen within the United States through the growth of Whole Foods and Walmart. These two chains epitomize the distinction between consumer classes. Whole foods is an upscale
supermarket that caters to high end quality products, and Walmart is all about easy access and low costs (no matter the means). Through distinguishing between two distribution centers, it is possible for private supply chains to regulate where food is designated. For instance, regulating the flow of “standardized, lower-end commodities destined for poorer
consumers,”(Magnan, 2012:6) directly to Walmart. Essentially, the distinction of two separate food retailers, carrying different qualities of food, is
reinforcing new class relations, and increasing inequalities.
Overall, Harriet Friedmann is focused on how environmental concerns have become taken on by both private and public enterprises, and what the subsequent affect this has had on consumption, production and distribution. Her analysis points to an increase in supermarket chains, consumer class divisions and new regulatory bodies within the private sphere, leading to the rise of what she views as a corporate-environmental regime.
2.7
Hugh Campbell
Hugh Campbell approaches the subject of a rising food regime from a similar stance as Harriet Friedmann. However, he has been critical of the fact that both Friedmann and McMichael have concluded such negative trends in the global agrofood sector, and tries to approach his theory with a more optimistic mind set. Similar to Friedmann, Campbell focuses on the “global-scale governance mechanism of environmental food auditing…as an important new dynamic in our understanding of the politics and potentials of food
regimes” (Campbell, 2009: 309). Through elaborating on some of the basic principals of Friedmann’s corporate-environmental regime, such as the ecological dynamic of food, Campbell tries to reevaluate the ‘Food from Somewhere’ debate. The ‘Food from Somewhere’ concept is “characterized as having denser ecological feedbacks and a more complex information flow in
comparison to the invisibility of and distanciation characterizing earlier regimes as well as contemporary ‘Food from Nowhere’” (Campbell, 2009: 309). Campbell anchors his concept of a rising food regime through the ‘Food from Somewhere’ narrative, exploring whether the new shift towards global agriculture can also mean a more ecologically connected food system.
For instance, when exploring consumption trends, Campbell points out how changing demands on behalf of consumers for safe, hormone-free,
pesticide conscious food, resulted in a de-legitimation of industrial farming techniques (Campbell, 2009: 314). Friedmann points out that this particular emergence resulted in high quality retailers abusing a consumer class divide, but Campbell focuses on a different aspect of this event. Rather, he explores how public discourse around consumption helped to provide a new form of eco-resilience. On a global scale, Campbell explores how consumer
preferences put pressure on industrial farms to pay more attention to how their techniques affect environmental externalities such as “biodiversity, air quality, water quality and soil” (Campbell, 2009: 314). In other words, as factory farming became associated with being toxic and potentially damaging to long-term health, so came a shift towards becoming more aware of where food was coming from. Campbell explores how the new focus on
understanding the origins of food not only increased environmental
awareness on a global scale, but also reintroduced the value of local produce. He explains that as auditing companies began to introduce a new standard for interpreting food safety and the importance of environmentally sound
production, came an increase in “the cultural re-valorising of taste, localness, history and safety as branded, profit generating drivers of new investment, [which] can all be argued to have created information flows and feedbacks between consumers and distant ecologies” (Campbell, 2009: 314). So although the elite consumption model also arose as consumers demanded to know where their food was coming from, Campbell does not want to disregard the increased standards in environmental and food safety structures at both the local and global level that were a result of consumer food awareness.
Consumer demands affected more than just consumption standards, but also affected the production of food. Campbell believes that Europe and North America are transitioning away from a system that views the
importance of productivity as the essential feature of agricultural policy, and towards a system that encourages multifunctionality (Almas and Campbell, 2012: 289). Campbell argues that global agricultural policy is reducing their emphasis on productivity goals that sideline environmental policy, towards a system that considers how the environment can affect the global agrofood order. For instance, he looks at how GlobalGAP was originally created in order to respond to rising fears about pesticides in fruits and vegetables, however the development of auditing systems like GlobalGAP actually ended up increasing awareness in environmental production standards. GlobalGap “gained a solid hegemony over fruit and vegetable supply chains into Europe and expanded its vision from ‘residue free’ produce to include a range of other ecological qualities in production” (Campbell, 2009: 316). Additionally, more auditing companies are putting pressure on producers to reduce their carbon footprint, and reduce their food miles. Encouraging new standards helps to shift the global agrofood order towards reducing the ecological burden of food production (Magnan, 2009: 6).
Lastly, Campbell explores how the ‘Food from Somewhere’ regime affects distribution standards. He looks at how neoliberal reform “opened up a space which became inhabited by a range of new actors: new relationship and supply chain configurations; dramatically new connections with powerful agents and alliances in the retails sphere; and a range of new agri-food governance arrangements” (Almas and Campbell, 2012: 293). The result has been distribution centers that move away from pushing quantity, towards a system that encourages different types of qualities of goods. He suggests that multifunctionality in agricultural policy has encouraged a separation within the food sector that supports differentiated quality rather than the ‘one size first all model’ (Almas and Campbell, 2012: 297). Campbell views the rise of quality differentiated distribution centers as a way to safeguard against future
environmental and social problems. For instance, if every distribution center sourced their products from farms that used GMO tomatoes, and then a drought occurred in the region of the world where those types of tomatoes were planted, every distribution center would be affected. Rather, encouraging local producers to specialize in high quality products, like organics, helps to create a safe guard against a complete loss of tomatoes in the event of an environmental catastrophe. Campbell views quality differentiated distributors, which are a byproduct of the ‘Food from Somewhere’ regime, as an important factor that “might help achieve future resilience for global agriculture” (Almas and Campbell, 2012: 299).
Overall, Campbell sees the ‘Food from Somewhere’ regime
characterizing a growth in corporate auditing that will encourage a renewed relationship between global agriculture and environmental policy. He fuses elements of Friedmann’s analysis with his own, but reevaluates them from a more positive perspective, and views the environment as an increasing point of awareness for corporations. Now this thesis will proceed to look at the case study Singapore, and analyze how consumption, production and distribution takes place there, and within the wider framework of the agrofood order. Chapter Three – Case Study (Singapore)
3.1
Broad Overview
Establishing a basic framework for exploring the shape of a third regime is an important introductory step to make before approaching the case study. Since this thesis has already broken down the central features of a third regime according to three highly knowledgeable food regime theorists, it is possible to attempt to locate some of these trends as to narrow in on more specific aspects of Singapore’s global agricultural restructuring of
Consumption, Production and Distribution. It is highly unlikely that
Singapore’s development will be entirely characteristic of the rise of a third regime according to only one of the scholars, which is why it is critical to have a few different suggestions of what shape a third regime will take. Through breaking down Singapore’s restructured agricultural model into consumption, production and distribution, it will be easier to locate the important trends. Before the breakdown of these three categories begins, it would be beneficiary to provide a bit of background information about the case study, Singapore.
Since Singapore’s independence from Malaysia in 1965, the nation has been fighting to become one of the world most prosperous countries, and has relied on international trade links to encourage their growth. Dependent primarily on exporting, Singapore is a highly developed free-market economy, and focuses predominantly on the export of electronics, information
technology, and pharmaceuticals; and increasingly on their financial services sector. (Cia.gov, 2014) Singapore’s commitment to maintaining a strong economy means that the nation is constantly trying to identify trends and become involved in sectors with the potential for growth. With the rise of the global agricultural sector in the 1980’s, Singapore quickly acknowledged the increased market potential of the food and agricultural industry. Through integrating into the global agricultural sector, Singapore would be able to engage in the newly reformed agrofood order market, and hopefully profit off of this engagement. The question is, how is Singapore transforming their consumption, production and distribution practices in order to engage with the global agricultural industry? And does this restructuring reflect the characteristics of a third agrofood regime? Firstly, the focus will be direct towards how Singapore has restructured their consumption practices in order to engage in the global agricultural model.
3.2
Singapore has demonstrated a few noticeable shifts in their consumption practice, such as, an increased focus on healthy eating, an increased desire for an organic market and Western food supplies, and the introduction of functional food products (Baud, 2007: 2.1-2.3). Healthy food has become an important focus for Singaporeans because of their rapidly aging population. By 2030, Singaporeans aged 65 and above are expected to make up at least 19% of the entire population (Wen, 2013: 81). In light of their ageing population, the government of Singapore, in tandem with the Health Promotion Board, encourages their population to eat healthier foods in order to reduce the risk of disease. As a result, Singapore imports large quantities of fresh fruits and vegetables in order to support the needs of their health
conscious society (Tey,Suryani, Emmy and Illisriyani, 2009: 125). However, Singapore’s heavy import dependency for fresh produce has encouraged the government to consider the question of food security. Although the nation is currently food secure, it is imperative to consider situations that could have a detrimental affect on their ability to secure food for the population, such as natural disasters, political conflicts or war. Singapore has responded to the question of food security through the development of the AIFS framework (The ASEAN Integrated Food Security Framework). Adopted in 2008, the AIFS came to be in response to rising global food prices and food supply
disruptions. The AIFS framework “lays out a series of components and strategic thrusts to secure the rights of ‘all people, at all times, [to] have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life’” (FAO 1996, Cited in Christ, 2013: 3). Through engaging with a global framework such as the AIFS, Singapore is able to address their food security needs, and assist with the needs of other ASEAN nations. Within the ASEAN, there is a lot of diversity between nations that are either food self-sufficient, or nations that are food self-reliant. However, as Christ (2013: 3) observes:
it is not an either/or situation – within ASEAN, each country sits somewhere along the continuum from food self-reliance to food availability, with primary agricultural producers and poorer nations relying more heavily on their own productive capabilities (e.g Thailand and Vietnam) and more wealthy
countries and/or those without a strong agricultural base tending to focus their policy on food self-reliance and assuring access to food through imports rather than assuring its domestic production (e.g. Singapore).
The ASEAN network uses the AIF framework to balance each other’s agricultural dependencies, and overall ensure food security between the ASEAN nations, rather than focusing exclusively on the needs of their own population. The AIF attempts to achieve food security within their ASEAN member states by encouraging sustainable food trade, and production, and an emergency relief program. As well as, through strengthening information systems that monitor staple food supply, greater investments in the argrofood industry and more agricultural innovation (Christ, 2013: 3-4). Working to achieve these initiatives within a global framework demonstrates one of the ways that Singapore has addressed changing consumption patterns through integration in the global agrofood order.
An increased desire for healthy food is not the only shift that has been demonstrated in Singapore’s consumption trends. There has also been a rising demand for organics and Western food supplies. Organic foods and Western foodstuffs have become increasingly predominant in Singapore as a result of the large expatriate community (Baud, 2007: 2.2). However with many Singaporeans possessing a disposable income, the overall increase in high quality food products (organics) and Western imports is on the rise within the general population. Currently, Singaporean food consumers are increasing their carbohydrate intake via a heightened desire for Western breakfast foods like bread and cereal. As well as, exploring the nutritional benefits of organic foods, via fresh produce and packaged ready to-go goods (Government of Canada, 2011). However, in the case of organic foods, the government of Singapore does not recognize any additional health benefits from consuming
them. As such, no emphasis is placed on organic farming in Singapore, and therefore organic produce is imported into the country (Organic Trade Association, 2006: 4). Despite a lack of emphasis on organic production in Singapore, the government is still aware of the market potential for organics. However, the government of Singapore does not mandate any form of
regulation about labeling organic foods, they rely on outside regulatory bodies and private corporations to ensure that the majority of the products they are importing are in fact organic.
An example of a private corporation that is taking up the lead for organic regulation in Singapore is FairPrice. FairPrice is the largest supermarket retailer in Singapore, and in 2008 they developed the NTUC (National Trade Union Congress) FairPrice Organic Assurance Programme. The programme sets a list of production standards, which are audited through a private subsidiary of the AVA board called Agrifood Technologies. The standards comply with the organic guidelines set by international food safety agency the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Lijie, 2008: 2). In order to secure a role in the developing organics market in Singapore, private organizations like FairPrice are relying on global frameworks such as Codex in order to help regulate production and labeling systems. Particularly in lieu of support from the government of Singapore, private corporations require global food
frameworks such as Codex to help supply them with a working definition so that they can maintain that their imports are in fact organic.
Not only did the expat community introduce an increased presence of organics, but they also helped to generate a demand for Western foods. Between a large expat population in Singapore, and more Singaporeans travelling abroad, Western food items have become more of a demand on the market (Baud, 2007: 2.5.2) In order to supplement the growing demand and facilitate more access, Singapore signed on to a free trade agreement with Australia, which came into force in 2003. The bilateral agreement has resulted in Singapore becoming Victoria’s seventh largest food and fiber export market (Baud, 2007: 1). Singapore’s response to changing consumption trends was to
encourage a free trade agreement with Australia that would expand their position within the global agricultural sector.
The last focus on changing consumption trends in Singapore is the introduction of functional food products. Singapore’s focus on their national desire to spread health and wellness, coupled with their vibrant scientific community, has created an increased focus on driving the food industry through research and development (Wee, 2011). Organizations such as A*STAR (Agency for Science, Technology and Research) have been heavily investigating the development of functional food products. The company is focused on transforming raw materials into ingredients with nutritional or functional benefits, which can then be sold as functional foods (Whitehead, 2014). The government of Singapore is hoping that functional foods can help reduce the rising trend of chronic and metabolic diseases, particularly in light of the fact that they have such an escalating aging population.
In order to increase funding for functional food research, A*STAR has paired up with Nestle for a three year project that will help to expand the company’s expertise in the are of biotransformation. Additionally, A*STAR is hoping that the blossoming business relationship between the organizations will set Singapore aside as the “preferred research collaborator in Asia for the global food and nutrition industry”. (Whitehead, 2014) Through securing a contract with Nestle, Singapore is expanding their R&D capabilities in the food industry, and they are incorporating their nation into the global network of the agro food order.
Singapore’s changing consumption trends have all shifted in correlation with the growth of global agriculture. Clearly, Singapore has demonstrated how their national interests have become further realized through integration into the global food order. However, consumption patterns are not the only changes that have been made in Singapore, the nation has also drastically shifter their modes of production.
Production
Singapore’s production sector has undergone a few key changes in the recent years; for example, the implementation of vertical farming, agrofood parks that specialize in agricultural biotechnology and lastly, reshaping production sites to become Halal certified in order to allow Singapore to compete in the global Halal market. Singapore has focused heavily on research and development for more than 20 years. However, as the economy has grown the focus has been pushed more specifically towards a knowledge-intensive and innovation-driven economy. (National Research Foundation, 2014) Within the agricultural sector, Singapore has focused on new innovative ways to incorporate local production facilities to help reduce their import
dependencies. An example of innovative agricultural production is vertical farming. After a Public-Private partnership was made between engineering firm D.J. and the AVA of Singapore, a successful prototype was designed for a vertical farming structure that produces tropical leafy vegetables at a
minimum of five times faster than traditional soil based farms (Hoe and Leng, 2011). In a space conscious city-state like Singapore, vertical farming is an excellent way to reduce wasted space and simultaneously increase production rates. The process uses an “A frame structure of 6 m high that is rotated by a unique water-pulley system using gravity-fed water which is recycled. The vegetables are irrigated by a precision nozzle system. The system uses very little electricity and water and can thus be considered ‘green’” (Hoe and Leng, 2011). This revolutionary technology is providing Singaporeans with access to locally grown produce and is helping to increase self-resilience. In order to facilitate vertical farming techniques at a global level, Singapore has begun to transfer agricultural knowledge to their ASEAN neighbors. Through sharing agricultural knowledge, Singapore is able to strengthen their regional ties, and create more access points for securing food (Agri-Food & Veterinary Authority of Singapore, 2012: 9). Additionally, in 2012 Singapore based company Sky
Farms, attended the World Cities Summit in order to make use of the platform to demonstrate the benefits of vertical farming for other nations. The summit “offers a platform for dialogue and learning through sharing of best practices, which offer new insights and perspectives to addressing cities’ unique
problems and challenges” (Experia Events Pte Ltd, 2012). During the summit, Sky Farms emphasized how vertical farming can increase food security, by providing more produce, and reducing food miles, by producing locally. Jack Ng, the developer at sky greens believes that his system could take off around the world, and particularly in Southeast Asia, and is hoping to expand
production sites to include over 2,000 towers in the next few years (CNN, 2012). So while vertical farming began at the local level, business
entrepreneurs within Singapore have exposed the technology globally in order to help other nations integrate vertical farming production sites into their own nations. However, innovative new technologies are not limited to vertical farming techniques. Singapore is also home to a flourishing agro biotechnology industry.
In order to encourage a vibrant agrotechnology sector in Singapore, the AVA has created a cluster of agri-bio parks in the Northwest of Singapore. Each bio-park is granted a 30-year lease and is focused on R&D in such subjects as, “fish vaccines, food safety and animal and plant health testing, and
post-harvest technology activities.” (Agri-Food & Veterinary Authority of Singapore, 2014) With over 200 farms focusing on staples foods such as meat, eggs, milk, fish and fruit, Agrotechnology Parks are helping Singapore to develop high quality products for export into the Asian market. CropLife Asia is a global federation that is based in Singapore and it focuses on shifting agricultural biotechnology onto the agenda of international development (CropLife Asia, 2014). The company advocates sustainable agriculture and looks at how governments interact with both local populations and the consumer market. Biotechnology can offer a few advantages compared with traditional breeding methods, for instance they can “improve the yield and quality of food and fiber crops…also [they] provide crops with built-in protection against insect pests,
disease-causing organisms and harsh environmental conditions” (CropLife Asia, 2009). Since Singapore has very limited land, they require advanced crop technology to secure a more dependable, and high quality yield. Not only does this help to provide food for the residents of Singapore, but it also has allowed Singapore to export to periphery Asian nations (JANUS Corporate Solutions, 2014). Additionally, agricultural biotechnology has given Singapore the ability to expand their exports to neighboring countries, but also it has encouraged a stronger role with MNC’s such as Sygenta. Sygenta launched an R&D facility in Singapore that will “be used to support the development of agriculture around the Asia Pacific and aid in attaining sustainable food security” (International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications, 2014). Partnering with Sygenta connects Singapore with the wider global agricultural network through access to research and better technology to help spur an even more sophisticated agri-biotech industry. Sygenta’s lab is dedicated to discovering better crop varieties that can grow in a shorter period of time (ISAAA, 2014). Singapore’s inclusion of agricultural biotechnology production sites has connected their nation to the wider global agrofood order through an increased export relationship with their neighboring nations; as well as, through increased knowledge and capabilities via their relationship with global MNC’s such as Sygenta. In addition to introducing agricultural
biotechnology into Singapore, is an increased focus on Halal production sites. 14 percent of Singapore’s population is Muslim, making it the second largest religious group in the country (Cia.gov, 2014). One of the practices of the religion is The Korban, which is a sacrificial slaughter ritual. The sacrificial slaughter requires a large number of animals, and the AVA works closely with the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore in order to ensure that any animal imports intended for ritual slaughter are up to code with international animal welfare standards. For instance, Singapore sources sheep from Australia for The Korban and requires that the animals are farmed in compliance with the ESCAS (Export Supply Chain Assurance System) as well as, approved by local mosques. (Agri-Food & Veterinary Authority of Singapore, 2012: 5) The
market for Islamic goods is clearly thriving in Singapore, and the AVA is beginning to focus on how to integrate this global market into their own production sites. Currently, the “global Muslim population is estimated to be 1.6 billion in 2010. Growing at an annual rate of 1.8%, the market is valued at about US$560 billion a year” (SPRING, 2011: 3). One of the key aspects of the Islamic market is the sale of Halal food…
SPRING Singapore (2011: 3) indicates that they have,
brought together key partners – IE Singapore, Majils Ugama Islam Singapore (MUIS), Singapore Food Manufactureres Association (SFMA) and Singapore Malay Chamber of Commerce and Industry (SMCCI) to help food companies tap on the growing Halal food market.
In order to comply with Muis’ Halal standards, companies have to source, store, produce and sell in compliance with a specific set of Halal guidelines. SPRING Singapore is encouraging companies to gain the proper certifications so that they may compete with the thriving Halal market (SPRING, 2011:29). Singapore’s Muis Halal certification is recognized worldwide, but more importantly the key Halal markets have verified it. Areas such as, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, are now open to exports of Halal products from Singapore (SPRING, 2011: 23). Although the Islamic market is a subsector of the global agricultural network, it is still an important global focus for nations to consider in the global agrofood order. Gaining the proper
certifications has allowed Singapore to access a new export market, and now the GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council) is “the 12th largest destination for
Singapore F&B exports globally and its largest export market for coffee and spices” (Gulfood, 2014). Singapore has capitalized off of the vibrant export market for Islamic goods, and has expanded their position in the global
