Candidate Number: 89328
Question 3. With reference to the Sustainable Development Goals, and using examples, critically discuss how actors are responding to discourses of "food sovereignty" and "food security".
Word Count: 1993
The 17 Sustainable Development Goals set by the United Nations in 2015 cover a broad spectrum of issues, striving towards a more sustainable planet through over 160 different targets. The goals were conceived as a more ambitious and more inclusive version of the Millennium Development Goals from 2000, but the SDGs are far from perfect. The attempt at inclusivity, resulted in ambiguity, and while the goals are well meaning in principle, their broadness leaves so much open to interpretation that the practical pursuit of them can be tainted by other motives. Goal 2: Zero Hunger, is a perfect example of where actors fighting for food security have vastly different objectives than those defending food sovereignty, but both can fly under the banner of striving towards the Sustainable Development Goals. This essay will assess this particular weakness of the 2015 SDGs by firstly, analysing the actors that operate under the discourse of food security and the hidden, perhaps harmful, motives they have. Secondly, these instances will be compared to the actions of the actors who advocate food sovereignty, attempting to highlight the critical differences. Lastly, both discourses will be evaluated on the criteria of not only achieving Goal 2: Zero Hunger, but on their overall effect on the SDGs as a whole.
In pursuit of clarity throughout the essay some definitions will be set for use throughout this essay. At first glance food security and food sovereignty may seem like freely interchangeable terms, but they have vastly different definitions. Food security will here be defined as, 'availability at all times of adequate world supplies of basic food-stuffs . . . to sustain steady expansion of food consumption . . and to offset fluctuations in production and prices.' (Jarosz, 2015, p. 170). Food sovereignty will be used in reference to 'The right of each nation to maintain and develop its own capacity to produce its basic foods respecting cultural and productive diversity. [Having] the right to produce [y]our own food in [y]our own territory. Food sovereignty is a precondition to genuine food security.' (Jarosz, 2015, p. 173). These definitions set clear framework for discussion throughout the essay and will allow both terms to be evaluated against the Sustainable Development Goals without linguistic ambiguity.
Intuitively, the concept of food security sounds like a positive one, an idea that strives to give all people access to sufficient food, and while that is a part of the concept, the key factor is how food security advocators plan to create food stability. As pointed out by Jaroz (2015), in 1986 the World Bank defined food security as the ability to purchase food, emphasizing the lack of correlation between self-sufficiency and food security. This discourse places economic capital at the centre of the problem, pointing to lack of purchasing power as the key issue for those who lack access to food. Such a discourse surrounding food justifies the implementation and expansion of existing neoliberal systems, in which individuals are encouraged to work so that they can buy food from those already producing. The core assumption within this discourse is that the western system works as it is and must only be slightly reformed through technology in order to work globally. The actors involved in pushing this particular discourse are those who are also actively involved in the neoliberal world order, namely international organizations, like the United Nations and the World Bank, notably western-led organizations, as well as actors from the private sector. The intrinsic motivation for these actors is not the desire to alleviate global hunger, but rather economic and market driven factors. The Rockefeller Foundation is a central example of such, promoting food security by supporting initiatives like the Green Revolution in Africa despite the local and environmental failures seen with the movement in India. Additionally, they have their own projects, like YieldWise Food Loss, wherein the four main strategic points are: 1) fixing the market in African communities, 2) creating better access to technology, 3) investing in financing models to drive economic growth and 4) engaging global businesses (The Rockefeller Foundation, 2016). Strikingly, the root of each of these strategies lies in some aspect of the market, with little focus on food and locals.
While food security discourses identify the root of the problem in market mechanisms, food sovereignty advocators prefer to look at the roots of the social problems that lead to hunger and malnutrition. In contrast to the food security discourse, the food sovereignty discourse operates under the assumption that the existing system is inherently problematic and must be changed to create a lasting solution to the problem of world hunger. The specific focus on the context of a problem means that the understanding of hunger becomes much more nuanced, which is important as the obstacle of malnutrition is not a uniform one and varies massively between each case. Hunger and food scarcity in the developing world, for example, are rooted in global inequality, as well as the systematic exploitation of people by capitalist systems. The Green Revolution in India for example, was meant to help decrease food scarcity in India, but the local contexts of the problem were ignored, and while the overall production of agriculture has gone up in the country, most areas are still vulnerable to hunger (Chakravarti, 1973). These problems require specific attention, and food sovereignty discourses target the involvement of local organizations, non-governmental organizations and civil society organizations (Windfuhr & Jonsén, 2005). Movements like VÃa Campesina are supportive of and supported by food security discourses, and operate as a social movement, where they encourage and enable local people to become self-sufficient (MartÃnez-Torres & Rosset, 2010). Instead of focusing on adjusting existing market mechanisms, VÃa Campesina advocates for changing them by breaking up monopolies and creating trade agreements that are beneficial to people not just the bottom line of a multinational corporation (Rosset, 2003). Focus on social injustices and structural issues not only in developing countries, but in the West as well (Alkon & Agyeman, 2011) is central for food sovereignty approaches, meaning that solutions to different problems are more nuanced and specified to the existing challenge.
With both discourses and their actors clarified, it is possible to critically evaluate them in terms of their fulfilment of the SDGs. Firstly, both discourses must be discussed in the isolated context of Goal 2: Zero Hunger. As outlined by the United Nations the first part of Goal 2 is to 'by 2030 end hunger and ensure access by all people, in particular the poor and people in vulnerable situations including infants, to safe, nutritious and sufficient food all year round' (UN-DESA/DSD, 2014), and in the specifications of the goal, food security is directly mentioned. In terms of Goal 2 specifically, the discourse of food security may actually prove a successful solution to food scarcity. Because of the neoliberal implications and possible benefits, financial or brand-wise, for private actors, such as the Rockefellers, it incites involvement on a broader scale, and may create solutions quickly. While these actors may have hidden motivations, it is arguably still better that they show some kind of interest in places struggling with food scarcity rather than none at all. Moreover, some of the criticism against the solutions proposed by this discourse have been recently refuted, specifically the criticism that GMOs are harmful to people have been proven groundless (Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources, 2016). This creates huge opportunities to improve crops to the benefits of malnourished people, similarly to what has been done with the creation of golden rice to reduce Vitamin A deficiencies. However, a number of problems remain unsolved regarding this approach, including the long-term implications of technology, the ability of producers and the environment to keep up with demand, and private investors continued interest in specific areas. For these reason, while actions stemming from food security discourses may provide some viable solutions to achieving Goal 2, they are rather short term. In contrast, approaches within the food sovereignty discourses have more long-term solutions, but face obstacles in terms of fostering large scale change. Because of the focus on local areas and specific solutions, as well as non-market driven factors, there is significantly less traction from big investors, making the process more difficult to scale, as well as more time consuming. The benefit of more localized and time-consuming solutions however, is the long-term sustainability of the projects. If projects are focused on local areas and empowering individuals to provide for themselves, the risks of large scale technology and fickle investors disappears, and there is no longer sole reliance on large scale producers to feed massive amounts of people, also reducing the risk of environmental failure. These approaches do take longer to implement and are therefore slower to achieve the Zero Hunger Goal but do provide long-term solutions by creating self-sufficient systems. In the long-term context, it can be argued that food sovereignty is a precondition for food security, as it guarantees zero hunger not just for this generation, but for all future generations as well, especially because of the environmental aspects. Nonetheless, neoliberal approaches could solve global hunger in isolation from the other SDGs.
When discussing the viability of solutions to Goal 2 it is not sufficient to evaluate the goal in isolation, and it is necessary to evaluate the different approaches in the context of the SDGs as a whole, including concerns about climate, water resources, and overall sustainability. In this context, the question changes from, 'how to eliminate hunger?' to 'how to create a sustainable food system?'. Some would argue that the technological approaches taken by food security advocates allow us to reduce hunger, while also meeting the other SDGs. Waldron et al. (2017) argue such in regards to their research on agroforestry and the effects it has on the enviornment, claiming that some technology actually improves conditions and also reduces hunger. However, this approach still grounds in neoliberal ideals, which prioritize economics over sustainability, meaning it encourages consumption over preservation and growth over sustainability, leading in the long run to the depletion of natural resources, and perhaps an even greater food scarcity epidemic. In the context of the SDGs as a whole, food sovereignty discourses provide a much more viable solution, because by targeting local people and creating local solutions, you also create sustainable ones. People growing food in their own communities know more about the land, are likely to have deeper respect for their surroundings, and only grow what they need, eliminating waste. Moreover, by teaching them how to do it themselves, they are given the ability to adapt as well to any particular changes that may happen. Overall, because food sovereignty is less focused on economic aspects, and more centered on changing markets to create local communities and self-sufficiency, there is more room for enviornmental concern. Under food sovereignty approaches, investments are made in people not in corporations, meaning we create sustainable communities, who are personally invested in protecting the enviornment around them, rather than spreading the neoliberal monopoly further.
The 2015 Sustainable Development Goals face many challenges because of their aim of inclusivity. The broadness of each goal, as well as the lack of an interconnected persepective leads to different discourses with different actors working under the same goal. When it comes to achieving Zero Hunger, the best solution, is food sovereignty, because it approaches the problem as a complex whole, rather than a single isolate goal. However, in a non-utopian world, the most plausible solution is a combination of food security and food sovereignty approaches, perhaps giving technology to local farmers, or other mixes of ideas containing market and sustainability. While an ideal world would be one run by food sovereignty discourses, the reality of starvation and malnutrition is one that requires quick attention, and the benefits of private actors cannot be underestimated in feeding people.
Bibliography
Alkon, A. & Agyeman, J., 2011. Cultivating Food Justice. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources, 2016. Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects, s.l.: s.n.
Chakravarti, A., 1973. Green Revolution in India. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 63(3), pp. 319-330.
Clay, E. & Stokke, O., 200. Food Aid and Security. London: Frank Cass.
Jarosz, L., 2015. Comparing food security and food sovereignty discourses. Dialogues in Human Geography, 4(2), pp. 161-181.
MartÃnez-Torres, M. E. & Rosset, P., 2010. La VÃa Campesina: the birth and evolution of a transnational social movement. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 37(1), pp. 149-175.
Paddock, J., 2017. Changing consumption, changing tastes?. Journal of Rural Studies, July, Volume 53, pp. 102-110.
Rosset, P., 2003. Food Sovereignty: Global Rallying Cry of Farmer Movements. Food First, 9(4).
The Rockefeller Foundation, 2016. YieldWise Food Loss. [Online]
Available at: https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/our-work/initiatives/yieldwise/
[Accessed 21 February 2018].
UN-DESA/DSD, 2014. SDG 2: End hunger, achieve food secrity and improved nutrition, and promote sustainable agriclture. [Online]
Available at: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/?nr=164&page=view&type=230
[Accessed 23 February 2018].
Waldron, A. et al., 2017. Agroforestry Can Enhance Food Security While Meeting Other Sustrainable Development Goals. Trocial Conservation Science, Volume 10, pp. 1-6.
Windfuhr, M. & Jonsén, J., 2005. Food Sovereignty: Towards democracy in localized food systems. s.l.:ITDG Publishing.