Tracing the terrain of Indigenous food sovereignties

Food sovereignty scholars are increasingly re-conceptualizing sovereignty by accounting for its diverse expressions across space according to specific histories, identities, and local socio-ecological realities and dynamics. In grappling with the multiple bases of sovereignty, attention has been directed toward Indigenous food sovereignty in North America. Specifically, food scholars are examining how the regeneration of Indigenous food harvesting and sharing practices shapes movements for decolonization and self-determination. While this is a crucial and much-welcomed intervention, much more is needed to understand the diverse Indigenous political and legal orders and authorities that shape how multiple Indigenous food sovereignties are lived every day across diverse landscapes. In this contribution, I examine how Anishinaabe people in and beyond the Treaty 3 territory in Ontario, Canada, protect and renew their food harvesting grounds, waters and foodways through everyday acts of resurgence that are rooted in their law of mino bimaadiziwin.     

La Vía Campesina: the birth and evolution of a transnational social movement

The origin and evolution of the transnational peasant movement La Vía Campesina is analysed through five evolutionary stages. In the 1980s the withdrawal of the state from rural areas simultaneously weakened corporativist and clientelist control over rural organisations, even as conditions worsened in the countryside. This gave rise to a new generation of more autonomous peasant organisations, who saw the origins of their similar problems as largely coming from beyond the national borders of weakened nation-states. A transnational social movement defending peasant life, La Vía Campesina emerged out of these autonomous organisations, first in Latin America, and then at a global scale, during the 1980s and early 1990s (phase 1). Subsequent stages saw leaders of peasant organisations take their place at the table in international debates (1992–1999, phase 2), muscling aside other actors who sought to speak on their behalf; take on a leadership role in global struggles (2000–2003, phase 3); and engage in internal strengthening (2004–2008, phase 4). More recently (late 2008–present, phase 5) the movement has taken on gender issues more squarely and defined itself more clearly in opposition to transnational corporations. Particular emphasis is given to La Vía Campesina's fight to gain legitimacy for the food sovereignty paradigm, to its internal structure, and to the ways in which the (re)construction of a shared peasant identity is a key glue that holds the struggle together despite widely different internal cultures, creating a true peasant internationalism.     

Flexible for whom? Flex crops,crises, fixes and the politics of exchanging use values in US corn production

Flexible allocation of crops among food and non-food uses is a key driver of global agri-food system change. Focusing on United States corn production, I explore the dynamics of flex crops, scrutinizing agri-industrial relationships and the distribution of agri-food system value and control. I situate crop flexing as exchanging use value, as opposed to converting use into exchange value without altering the commodity's use. Asking ‘Flexible for whom?' in the context of agri-food system crises, I find: (1) flex crops exacerbate contradictory food security and over supply crises, and that the distribution of flexibility and benefit in the agri-food system they provide depends on the organization of labor; (2) crises of accumulation tie flex crops to agri-food system financialization, which subordinates use to exchange value, obfuscating their relationship and distancing agricultural products and uses from their basis in nature and labor; and (3) debates over US corn flexing illustrate the utility of focusing on power and politics in crop flexing decisions and demonstrate US corn flexing to be a fix for climate and accumulation crises. Findings suggest that examining the distribution of value and control and the positions of labor and nature in the agri-food system may be productive for global flex crop research and advocacy in the future.     

Commentary: Food regime analysis and agrarian questions: widening the conversation

The central disagreement between McMichael and Bernstein boils down to how each of them analyses food and agriculture in relation to capitalist dynamics. McMichael thinks the main contradictions of capitalism now stem from agriculture, and any positive future will be guided by farmers. Bernstein thinks capitalism has fully absorbed agriculture (including farmers not expelled from the land) into circuits of capital, turning agriculture into simply one of many sectors of accumulation and a major font of surplus labor. They have arrived by different paths to the same deeper question: Granted its illumination of the past, does the food regime approach remain useful for interpreting present contradictions, and if so, how? To invite a wider exploration of this very real and important question, I have tried to shift the debate towards a conversation about the complexity of the current transition. I start by widening the frame of the debate to include other writings by McMichael (his method of incorporated comparison) and Bernstein (his distinction between farming and agriculture). I conclude that food regimes and agrarian changes must be located in a wider set of analyses of agrarian and capitalist transitions, each of which misses something important. Older agrarian thought about urban society has much to offer but misses larger food regime dynamics; socio-technical transitions and new commons literatures offer critical analysis of technics, but lack appreciation of the centrality of food and farming; recent works recovering Marxist thought about human nature in a possible transition to a society of abundance and collaboration also ignore food and farming. Connecting with literatures outside the frame of food regimes and agrarian questions offers a way forward for those literatures and for ours.     

Commentary: Food regime for thought

This essay engages with Henry Bernstein's critical survey of food regime analysis, focusing on the claim that my interpretation of the food regime takes a misguided ‘peasant turn’. I argue Henry's representation loses sight of my reformulation of the ‘agrarian question’, as more than analysis of the uneven process by which capital subordinates landed property, and therefore of the class fate of the peasantry, as such. Rather it is about social and ecological fate on a global scale, involving questions of ecosystem survival, precarious labor circuits, urban slum proliferation, privatization of states, financialization, intellectual (property) rights, climate change mitigation and so on. Significantly, global recognition of these connections to processes of agro-industrialization and enclosure was informed by a ‘peasant’ mobilization that would be unthinkable within the terms of the classical agrarian question. Peasant organizations catalyzed challenge to the neoliberal food order institutionalized in the World Trade Organization (WTO) regime, in a time of massive dispossession. Politicizing neoliberal ‘food security’ as an agribusiness project, the ‘food sovereignty’ counter-movement used a politics of strategic essentialism to unmask the undemocratic and impoverishing architecture of the ‘free trade’ regime privileging corporate rights over state and citizen rights. In effect, this counter-movement performed a food regime analysis from within, importantly reaching beyond a peasant project. This essay revisits the comparative-historical method by which the food regime trajectory can be understood, as a contradictory set of interacting forces and relations that complicate and shape and reshape its politics, and yet allow identification of emergent possibilities.     

Reformulation,fortification and functionalization: Big Food corporations’ nutritional engineering and marketing strategies

In response to health concerns arising from the consumption of highly processed foods, the world's largest food and beverage manufacturing corporations (i.e. ‘Big Food’) have responded by modifying their existing products and introducing new products with ‘improved’ nutrient profiles. Three distinct strategies used by food corporations to nutritionally engineer and market their products will be identified: the reformulation of foods to reduce levels of harmful food components, the micronutrient fortification of products to address micronutrient deficiencies, and the functionalization of products that claim to provide optimal nutrition and health benefits. These nutritional strategies gain scientific legitimacy by drawing upon the dominant nutritional ideology of ‘nutritionism’, which is characterized by a reductive focus on nutrients as a way of understanding a food's effects on dietary health. Food and beverage corporations promote these nutritional strategies as an important part of their corporate social responsibility agendas, and as evidence that they are addressing the health issues associated with both over-nutrition and under-nutrition. However, these corporations are also using these nutritional strategies to legitimize and grow the markets for their products in the global North and South.     

Social Impact Bonds: Blockbuster or Flash in a Pan?

Despite the general hype, Social Impact Bonds’ (SIB) rate of adoption is still modest. The mismatch between widespread interest and actual adoption raises interesting questions as to whether we are still in the early adoption phase of SIBs and massive diffusion is yet to come, or we are observing a marginal phenomenon. In order to shed some light on this issue, the paper provides a review of the cases in which the SIB model has been already applied, exploring the specific configuration employed, with the purpose to identify regular configuration patterns and their deviation from a prototypical structure.     

Moral economy in a global era: the politics of provisions during contemporary food price spikes

The wave of food riots since 2007 revived interest in why people protest in periods of dearth, yet research has to date failed to make sense of the political cultures of food protests. The concept of the moral economy in European history is explored here to make sense of contemporary political perspectives on how food markets should work in Bangladesh, Indonesia, Kenya and Zambia. The concrete expressions of these moral economies are localized and politically contingent, yet there are broad areas of common ground across settings. As with the moral economies of seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Europe, there is strong popular feeling against speculation and collusion in food markets in times of dearth, and an emphasis on the responsibilities of public authorities to act. But whereas the moral economy in European histories focused on customary paternalistic obligations, the contemporary emphasis is on formal and electoral accountabilities as a means of triggering public action. The paper concludes with a discussion of a research agenda on the moral economy and the politics of provisions in globalised present-day food markets.     

Making Decentralization Work: A Cross-national Examination of Local Governments and Natural Resource Governance in Latin America

There has been increased emphasis in the last three decades on the decentralization of natural resource governance decisions to local government in developing countries as a means of improving environmental quality, public service delivery, and the accountability of local officials. We examine the performance of decentralization of natural resource management services in a large sample of municipal governments in four Latin American countries. Our analysis includes a variety of factors discussed in the literature as important in influencing the responsiveness of government officials to local needs. We provide a nested institutional model in which local officials respond to incentives created by the structure of formal political institutions at both the local and national level. The results provide support for the importance of considering local and national institutional arrangements as these co-determine the political incentives within decentralized systems.

Applying rapid results approach to local service delivery: issues,lessons and challenges from Nairobi City Council

Over the years, the Kenyan Government has pursued wide‐ranging public sector reforms to improve local service delivery, but little has been achieved due to lack of a wide‐ranging decentralisation policy and institutional framework. To precipitate the reform process, the rapid results approach (RRA), commonly applied in private sector organisations, was recently introduced thorough out the public sector, including local authorities (LAs). This article assesses the efficacy of the rapid results approach (RRA) methodology in local service delivery using Nairobi City Council as a prototype; highlighting the success stories, pitfalls and challenges. The analyses are based on the findings obtained using current literature on the subject matter and the author's interactions with the council staff, councillors and other stakeholders. On the basis of the analysis, the article draws the main conclusions and policy advice on what could be considered critical for further debate, highlighting issues, lessons and challenges that could be raised to improve the practice of RRI. The key messages presented here will help policy makers, scholars and practitioners of reform to re‐think the envisaged countrywide replication of RRI to the rest of LAs. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.