Author Archives: foodgovernance

About foodgovernance

I am a PhD Candidate at the Centre for Food Policy, City University, London. My dissertation considers both discursive and actual shifts in food security policy at the global level, especially in the wake of the 2007-8 food price spikes. Within this, I am particularly interested in the role of civil society and pastoralists and assure you that these interests are not as random as they may appear to be. The project is being supervised by Dr. David Barling and Dr. Tim Lang with financial support from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) of Canada and City University, London. I also teach in, and used to coordinate, the Master’s programme in Food, Society and International Food Governance in the Department of Food Systems, Culture and Society at the Universitat Oberta de Catalunya (UOC). I have published on participation in global agri-food governance and on the politics of food and presented papers on everything from the Atkin's Diet and the Performance of Masculinity to Supply Management and Canada's egg policy. When I am not working on my dissertation, teaching or volunteering for various food social movements and NGOs, I am likely to be cooking, eating, practising yoga, riding my bike or climbing rocks. I currently split my time between Spain and the UK but call Canada home. I work in English, French and Spanish... and hopefully Catalan soon!

Global Land Forum forges international agreement on territorial development

Posted on by
Reply

From the International Land Coalition:

Antigua Declaration outlines strong international commitment to land rights for indigenous peoples, human rights defenders and women
ROME, ITALY (17 May 2013)— As the global population continues to grow and the demand for food and the land to produce it on increase in lock step, the International Land Coalition brought together 273 people from 47 countries in Antigua, Guatemala from April 23-27 to discuss territorial governance and food security in the context of rapid urbanisation and shifting patterns of land use throughout the developing world.

This global event included extensive participation of the government of Guatemala, including a speech by President Otto Pérez Molina during the opening ceremony, in which he expressed a renewed commitment to the Integrated Rural Development Law.

The 36-year civil war suffered by Guatemala led to both the fragmentation and concentration of land. In response to these disturbing developments, the forum aimed to create a new platform for dialogue and consultation in Guatemala and to forge a more just and inclusive process for this country.

“Given the extent of commoditisation of farmland, transnational land transactions, severe land degradation, and the profound transformation of rural landscapes as a consequence, we have reached a critical period in which states must make genuine efforts to protect the rights of impoverished and vulnerable groups, in particular small-scale farmers and indigenous peoples, or increased conflict and instability may jeopardise the economic stability of countries, including Guatemala”, said Madiodio Niasse, Director of the International Land Coalition, based in Rome, which works for secure and equitable access to and control over land.  “We hope that the discussion we have started will open a new era of dialogue and consultation to have better equity in the way this country addresses land issues.”
Continue reading →

New publications on managing food price instability

Posted on by
Reply

A new article and a book on managing food price instability has been published. The article “Managing Food Price Instability: Critical Assessment of the Dominant Doctrine” is forthcoming in Global Food Security. By examining the degree to which its underlying assumptions are confirmed, and the effects generated if they are not, it shows that the doctrine  that has dominated both in academic and political circles since the late 1980s substantially underestimates (i) the magnitude of price instability generated by food markets, (ii) the degree to which farmers and consumers in developing countries are exposed to this instability, and (iii) the resulting effects on welfare (including macroeconomic and long-term consequences). Shifts from doctrine recommendations are therefore justified.

Download the article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2013.02.001(apparently available on line for free, for now)

The book “Managing Food Price Instability in Developing Countries. Critical Analysis of Strategies and Instruments” is published by AFD.  Based on a comprehensive review of the theoretical and empirical literature, this book provides a critical evaluation of the different possible strategies for managing food price instability and calls into question the dominant doctrine. The second part of the book provides a detailed analysis of the different instruments that can be employed to implement the strategies.This book builds on the results of a study conducted by a European network of researchers. It benefited from the comments of international experts (a previous version of the first chapter was widely circulated in the form of a Working Paper) and it includes a preface by Peter Timmer and boxes written by Jonathan Coulter, Paul Dorosh, Johny Egg, Thom Jayne, Gerdien Meijerink, Gideon Onumah, Peter Timmer and many others.

Download the book:

http://www.afd.fr/webdav/site/afd/shared/PUBLICATIONS/RECHERCHE/Scientifiques/A-savoir/17-VA-A-Savoir.pdf

 

Food (In)Security Research Network: International and trans-disciplinary perspectives

Posted on by
Reply

I am sure many of you students out there will be  keen on attending this one-day conference which will be the starting point for a new multi-disciplinary postgraduate community where members come together to discuss important issues and ideas related to their research on food security.

WHAT: Food (In)Security Research Network: International and trans-disciplinary perspectives
WHEN: 16th October 2013, UN World Food Day
WHERE:University of Warwick, Coventry

Continue reading →

FAO Strategises for Partnerships

Posted on by
Reply

I have been meaning to post my analysis of the FAO’s new strategies for partnership with civil society organizations and  for partnerships with the private sector.

I have not had time to write it up but I think it is important to share the document. I am particularly interested in the definitions forwarded in the Strategy for Partnership with Civil Society Organizations (spoiler alert: the Civil Society Mechanism is defined as a social movement!?!)

I was also intrigued to find out that the IPC was consulting on this issue and received 50 submissions. Unfortunately, none of them seem to be available online and there is no record of consultation on the IPC website. I’ll give it a better look when I get more time.

In the mean time, here are the strategies for your reading pleasure.

FAO 2013 FAO Strategy for CSO Partnership fAO 2013 FAO Strategy for Private Partnership

FAO 2013 FAO Strategy for Private Partnership

Also, I think that its worth recalling the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food’s FAO mission while reading these: http://foodgovernance.com/2013/03/04/special-rapporteur-on-the-right-to-food-takes-stock-of-the-fao/ 

Whose Alliance? The G8 and the Emergence of a Global Corporate Regime for Agriculture

Posted on by
2

A new report by CIDSE and EAA has been released.

CIDSE and EAA are deeply concerned about the vision and approach of the G8 New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition in Africa which enshrines food security in a market orientation, rather than as a human right. We believe the initiative falls short of what is needed to eradicate hunger and could potentially undermine progress towards that end. This briefing outlines what we consider to be some of the major problems and risks with the New Alliance, as well as key recommendations. The analysis and recommendations are structured around three central themes: 1) Coherence, 2) Vision, and 3) Process.

You can download the report here.

Also, and related, Sophia Murphy recently published a good report on what sort of role the G20 should be playing around food security and agriculture and analysis translates quite well over to the G8.

In the report — “The G-20 and Food Security: What Is the Right Agenda? ” – Sophia  outline the positive ways that the  G-20 could address food security: by reforming certain problematic domestic policies (for instance, US and European biofuels mandates); by accepting greater transparency in the level and use of grain stocks; by improving the regulation of speculation on commodity futures markets; through progress shifting their agricultural production systems toward less-polluting models; and by accepting disciplines on the use of export restrictions and working with net-food importing developing countries to restore confidence in international trade.

You can download that report here.

Finally, a list of critiques about the New Alliance has been circulating on various listservs. I am not sure who to attribute it to but I am sending out a thank you to the person/people who have put it together.

================

Critiques of the New Alliance on Food Security and Nutrition

‘Letter from African Civil Society Critical of Foreign Investment in African Agriculture at G8 Summit’ (May 2012)
www.foodfirst.org/en/Challenge+to+Green+Revolution+for+Africa

‘The New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition: Nothing New About Ignoring Africa’s Farmers’ (Eric Holt-Gimenez, May 2012)
www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-holt-gimenez/africa-food-security_b_1537279.html

‘G8 punts on food security… to private sector’ (Sophia Murphy, IATP, May 2012)
www.iatp.org/blog/201205/g-8-punts-on-food-security-%E2%80%A6-to-the-private-sector

‘G8 food security alliance answers question hungry people have not asked’ (Oxfam, May 2012)
www.oxfam.org/en/grow/pressroom/pressrelease/2012-05-18/g8-food-security-alliance-answers-question-hungry-people-have-not-

Privatizing the Governance of ‘Green Growth’ (Heinrich Böll Foundation, Nov 2012), especially pp. XV-XVI
www.boell.org/downloads/Alexander_Privatizing_Governance_of_Green_Growth_Version_2.pdf

The Hunger Games: How DFID support for agribusiness is fuelling poverty in Africa (War on Want, Dec 2012)
www.waronwant.org/attachments/The%20Hunger%20Games%202012.pdf

Structural Adjustment 2.0: G8 Initiative New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition in Africa (Forum on Environment & Development working group on food and agriculture, Jan 2013)
www.forumue.de/fileadmin/userupload/AG_Landwirtschaft_Ernaehrung/Message_G8-Initiative_New_Alliance_16012013_Englisch.pdf

‘Tanzanian Civil Society Statement on Farmers’ Rights’ (March 2013) – pursuant to Tanzania’s accession to the UPOV 1991 intellectual property regime as part of its New Alliance cooperation framework
www.ip-watch.org/weblog/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/UPOV-Tanzania-CSO-Statement-1.pdf

The G8 and Land Grabs in Africa (GRAIN, March 2013)
www.grain.org/article/entries/4663-the-g8-and-land-grabs-in-africa.pdf

Whose Alliance? The G8 and the Emergence of a Global Corporate Regime for Agriculture (CIDSE, April 2013)
www.cidse.org/index.php?option=com_k2&Itemid=195&id=266_7ebace07392a17595c1f53c276f42b24&lang=en&task=download&view=item

Who is in and who is out of the Committee on World Food Security?

Posted on by
Reply

Well, this is not the most exciting of posts but I have just reviewed the list of member Nations in the Committee on World Food Security from 2009 (when the CFS underwent its reform), 2010 (first year post-reform) and today.

Today there are 121 member Nations, down from 123 in 2009.

Between 2009 and 2010, Latvia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and Togo left the CFS but many countries joined, bringing the number of member Nations up to 126.

New countries were:

  • Central African Republic
  • Democratic Republic of the Condo
  • Djibouti
  • Oman
  • The former Yugoslav
  • Republic of Macedonia

Other Countries that were involved in the reform but has since left the Committee:

  • Azerbaijan
  • Croatia
  • Libyan Arab Jamahiriya
  • Lithuania
  • Mauritius
  • Namibia
  • Niger
  • Republic of Moldova
  • Serbia
  • Tunisia

However, many countries, notably from across Africa, have joined or re-joined the CFS since 2009. These countries are:

  • Burundi
  • Chad
  • Israel
  • Lyberia
  • Lybia
  • Mauritania
  • Togo
  • Syrian Arab Republic

Research Process

Posted on by
Reply

Over the last couple of weeks this blog has received a mini-explosion of followers. I want to thank everyone who reads and follows these musings. I really appreciate the support and it does motivate me to keep posting.

I am currently reviewing the latest FAO strategies on Civil Society and Private Sector Partnerships and will share my analysis in the next few days. In the mean time, I though I would post an “organogram” that I made up to help explain the research process.

Every week at least two students out these in cyberspace contact me (on top of the students I supervise at the UOC) to request help and guidance on their research projects. I try, to the best of my ability, to provide quick, honest and encouraging feedback. It takes up a lot of time and energy but I think that this type of engagement is central to how I approach to teaching and learning and it’s always great to connect with other people who are interested in researching food security.

One of the biggest challenges students seem to face relates to research design, and no wonder, because it can be tricky.

I have tried to illustrate my own research design process and am posting it here for feedback and in the hopes that it helps others struggling through this process: you are not alone!

Research Design Organogram April 2013 research process

And in more bad news…Land concentration and land grabbing are occurring and reaching blatant levels in Europe

Posted on by
1

La Via Campesina has issued a new report on land concentration and grabbing in Europe.

Land concentration and land grabbing do not occur only in developing countries in the South ; in fact, both are underway in Europe today. A new report by European Coordination Via Campesina and Hands off the Land network shows that land grabbing and access to land are a critical issues today in Europe, and also reveals that the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) subsidy scheme and other policies is implicated in a variety of ways.

The report, involving 25 authors from 11 countries and titled Land concentration, land grabbing and people’s struggles in Europe, reveals the hidden scandal of how just three per cent of landowners have come to control half of all farmed land. This massive concentration of land ownership and wealth is on a par with Brazil, Colombia and Philippines.

 

Download the executive summary of the report and/or the whole report.

Politics of the Commons: “I don’t need it, but you can’t have it”

Posted on by
1

I am working on some edits for a paper I have written on the need for pastoralist-appropriate policies wherein I examine India’s dairy policy and consider some of the implications on pastoralist communities from data gathered through interviews I did this summer.

I was just reading a paper by Arun Agrawal called “I don’t need it, but you can’t have it: Politics on the Commons”  which is contained in a collection of papers from Gujarat and Rajasthan. I was really intrigued by the analysis and thought I would post it here so that

  1.  I will remember it; and,
  2.  others can chime in as there are some clear links to current debates on land grab, etc. 

In the paper, Agrawal accepts the main arguments advanced by scholars of common property but goes on to point out an oversight that permeates  much of their work:

Except for some notable exceptions, these theorists ignore local politics. The community institutions they describe seem to be harmonious ideals, untouched by such human frailties as are embodied in hierarchical structures, political machinations, and jealous behaviour. In ignoring the politics inherent in the formation and functioning of all institutions that allocate resources, and in championing the cause of community institutions, common property theorists have fallen prey to the same mistake committed by early neo-institutional writers… These early writers argued that more efficient (read private) property rights will come about as the value of a resource increases. They thus ignored the role of politics in creating institutions as well as in deterring the creation of new institutions. Many theorists of the commons similarly valorise the “little community” to the point wherein seems that life in these communities is untouched by political manoeuvres; that local populations know best; and that there would be no victims if only the state stopped intervening into local contexts. Such a view simplifies the complexity of interactions among different groups at the local level. By implication it pots the state against the local community, investing the state with a monolithic rationality, intentionality and structure. Worse, it sees the actions of local resource users as occurring primarily in reaction to external influences.