Abstract
The food sovereignty movement proposes a localist approach to meeting food security while delivering broader social, economic and environmental benefits. The movement is spawning multiple local projects of food sovereignty, whereby people are empowered to define their own culturally and environmentally appropriate food systems. As the number of enacted examples increases, the movement is also affecting change at national (and international) levels, with a number of countries creating national strategies or legislation for food sovereignty. We reflect on the challenges created by such scaling up within the existing food system. We propose a focus on issues of institutional interplay in order to identify and critique challenges. We highlight three interplay situations between multiple, diverse enactments of food sovereignty at multiple levels, and between food sovereignty and the broader institutional contexts within which they are embedded.
Generated Summary
This critical review examines the challenges of scaling up food sovereignty within the existing food system. It focuses on the interplay of institutions, proposing a framework to identify and critique these challenges. The review highlights three key interplay situations: multiple enactments of food sovereignty at different levels, and the relationship between food sovereignty and the broader institutional contexts in which they are embedded. The study uses a qualitative approach, analyzing existing literature and examples of food sovereignty initiatives to understand the complexities of its implementation and the potential for both positive and negative interactions between different actors and institutions. The research aims to provide insights into how food sovereignty can deliver broader food security and sustainability outcomes. The methodology involves a critical analysis of the literature, focusing on the interplay between different levels of governance and the various actors involved. The scope encompasses the challenges that arise when scaling up local food sovereignty initiatives to national and international levels, considering the broader institutional context of the food system.
Key Findings & Statistics
- The number of chronically food insecure people remains high at 795 million worldwide (FAO, 2015), and this number is higher when micronutrient deficiency is also considered.
- 40% of Earth’s terrestrial surface is already being used for agriculture (Foley et al., 2005).
- The most common sovereignty definition, according to Beuchelt and Virchow (2012), was established in 2007 in Nyéléni, Mali, at the Forum for Food Sovereignty by La Vía Campesina: “Food sovereignty is the right of peoples to healthy and culturally appropriate food produced through ecologically sound and sustainable methods, and their right to define their own food and agriculture systems.” (La Vía Campesina, 2007).
Other Important Findings
- Food sovereignty is presented as an alternative approach to achieve food security while protecting biodiversity and the environment, using non-industrial farming methods.
- The study highlights the scaling up of food sovereignty projects, with examples from the MASIPAG network in the Philippines and governmental strategies in countries like Venezuela, Bolivia, and Ecuador.
- Food sovereignty emphasizes the positive synergies between agriculture, social justice, dignity, and nature conservation (La Vía Campesina, 2011).
- The study identifies three interplay situations: interplay between food sovereignty institutions in one country, between food sovereignty and the broader institutional context in one country, and between food sovereignty institutions in multiple countries.
- The diversity in food sovereignty is traced to its origins in ‘diálogo de saberes,’ a collective construction of meaning based on reflective dialogue between people with different experiences and ways of knowing.
- The study suggests that achieving food sovereignty requires food sovereignty movements to work together with state institutions rather than against them (Bernstein, 2014; Iles and Montenegro, 2013).
- The article underscores the potential for negative interplay between different food sovereignty approaches, which can hinder broader sustainability and food security outcomes.
Limitations Noted in the Document
- The study focuses on the interplay of institutions, which are complex and can be influenced by a multitude of factors not fully captured in the analysis.
- The research relies on existing literature and examples, potentially limiting the scope and depth of primary data collection and analysis.
- The study does not provide an empirical analysis of the challenges, relying instead on a conceptual framework.
- The study’s focus on institutional interplay may not fully account for the agency of individuals and communities in shaping the outcomes of food sovereignty.
- The article acknowledges the potential for tensions and contradictions within food sovereignty itself, as well as between the aims of the movement and individual choices.
Conclusion
The review concludes that scaling up food sovereignty does not automatically guarantee broader sustainability and food security outcomes. The interplay between different enactments, national strategies, and institutional contexts can lead to both positive synergies and negative outcomes. The study emphasizes the importance of considering the horizontal and vertical interplay between different food sovereignty initiatives and the broader institutional context in one or multiple countries. The article suggests the need to address the challenges that arise from the diversity of food sovereignty approaches and the varying interpretations and operational definitions. The authors advocate for collaboration between food sovereignty movements and state institutions. They highlight the need for actors in existing systems to change their actions and regulations to reflect a shift in the food production system. The study underscores that achieving sovereignty policies and practices needs food sovereignty movements to work together with state institutions rather than against them. The study concludes with a call for further research to integrate local, national, and international levels and consider the broader political economy of food systems to facilitate more effective implementation of food sovereignty. The review highlights that the potential for negative interplay between different food sovereignty approaches can hinder broader sustainability and food security outcomes.