Abstract
Food security, a long-established item on the international agenda, raises many issues including production, consumption, poverty, inequalities, healthcare and conflicts. However, in 2007/2008 the global food security debate was relaunched with a single dominant focus which continues to the present day: increasing agricultural production. This paper explains this productionist bias – which may translate into inadequate policies – by combining insights from institutionalist and cognitive analyses. We show that, despite recent reforms, the global food security field remains dominated by macro- and micro- institutions that put food availability and agricultural production at the heart of the problem and solutions. The political and discursive strategies developed by transnational corporations and private foundations to promote their productivist interests are also key, along with the demands of dominant farmers’ unions in exporting countries. Although advocating opposite development patterns, civil society actors implicitly reinforce the productionist perspective through their focus on family agriculture.
Generated Summary
This research article employs a case-centric, process-tracing methodology to examine the dominance of productionist solutions in the global food security debate. The study investigates this bias by analyzing the roles of organizations and institutions, particularly in the context of the 2008 global food crisis. It combines insights from institutionalist and cognitive analyses to understand how the interplay of existing organizations and institutions, along with the power dynamics within the network of actors, shapes the debate. The research explores the influence of macro- and micro-institutions, the strategies of non-institutional actors, and the impact of measurement tools on the framing of food security issues. The study draws on a variety of data sources, including policy documents, interviews, and participation in international forums, to provide a comprehensive analysis of the complex forces at play.
Key Findings & Statistics
- The article notes that since 2008, global food prices soared, leading to ‘food riots’ around the world, which resulted in food security regaining priority on the global agenda.
- The study highlights that the 2007/2008 price spike had multiple causes, including increased demand for biofuels and declining stocks.
- The paper mentions that the World Bank (WB) released its annual report entirely devoted to agriculture in 2007, acknowledging the mistake of having abandoned this key sector for poverty reduction (WB 2007).
- It is noted that the WB focused on promoting its report, although its content appeared at odds with reality.
- The analysis indicates that agricultural representatives increased from 65 per cent to 74 per cent. Self-acclaimed ‘food security’ actors represented less than 10 per cent, while the share of representatives from other sectors (health, nutrition, employment, poverty alleviation) decreased from 27 per cent to 17 per cent.
- The study points out that family farms account for around 70–80 per cent of global food production and 98 per cent of all farms.
Other Important Findings
- The global food security debate has been relaunched with a single dominant focus: increasing agricultural production.
- The global food security field remains dominated by macro- and micro-institutions that prioritize food availability and agricultural production.
- Political and discursive strategies by transnational corporations and private foundations promote productivist interests.
- Civil society actors implicitly reinforce the productionist perspective through their focus on family agriculture.
- The study identifies a shift in focus towards the 2050 horizon, emphasizing the challenge of feeding a growing global population.
- The article emphasizes the dominance of neoliberal ideas in the global food security field.
- The research suggests that the 2008 crisis provided an opportunity for states and organizations advocating productionist stances to regain a central position.
- Food security/insecurity measurement tools have historically focused on food availability and production.
- Transnational corporations (TNCs) are actively involved in public debates and shape the definition of political problems and solutions.
- The High Level Task Force on the Global Food Security Crisis (HLTF) recognized the multi-faceted nature of the crisis and advocated for an inter-sectoral approach.
- The G20 has focused on initiatives that increase food production and encourage information flows.
- The study suggests that the CFS reform aimed to make the global debate on food security more pluralistic.
- Private sector actors and TNCs are increasingly active in promoting productionist and productivist visions.
- The New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition (NAFSN) links with the Gates Foundation and specific multinationals.
- The article notes that the logic of consumerism and production, aimed at increasing the population, is in reality aimed solely at profit.
Limitations Noted in the Document
- The study acknowledges that it is based on a case-centric methodology, which may limit the generalizability of the findings.
- The reliance on specific case studies and the focus on the global food security debate may not fully capture the diversity of local situations and nuances.
- The research primarily focuses on the role of organizations and institutions, potentially overlooking other influential factors.
- The study’s conclusions are based on an analysis of the agendas of the CFS plenary sessions and side events, which may not fully reflect the diversity of views.
- The article does not explicitly detail the methods used to analyze the data.
Conclusion
The study underscores that the global food security debate is heavily biased towards productionist solutions, driven by a complex interplay of institutional, political, and economic forces. The dominance of this productionist paradigm, the research suggests, is reinforced by the historical focus on food availability, the influence of powerful actors like TNCs, and the framing of food security through measurement tools that prioritize production. The article emphasizes the need for a shift towards a more holistic approach that considers the diverse dimensions of food security, including poverty, nutrition, and local contexts. Key findings include the observation that despite efforts to broaden the scope of discussions, the global food security field remains dominated by actors and institutions that prioritize agricultural production, often at the expense of other important factors. The article reveals that the focus on production is amplified by the involvement of TNCs and private foundations, which promote their interests through various channels, including public-private partnerships and lobbying efforts. The study suggests that despite the limitations of current measurement tools, and the need for more comprehensive indicators, these tools continue to shape debates and negotiations. The conclusion calls for a re-evaluation of the productionist mantra and advocates for a more nuanced understanding of food security that acknowledges the diversity of local contexts. The authors suggest that re-politicizing the debate by considering power dynamics within food systems is an urgent matter. The research highlights the need for a shift towards a more inclusive, multifaceted approach to food security that considers the complex interactions between social, environmental, and economic factors.