There's a debate that is centered determine which option countries must make in relation to food: food security or food sovereignty. Both concepts have in common the goal of the entire population of a country is well nourished, to which must be accessible at all times to enough food. But disagree on the how. The first concept [1] not necessarily imply support for domestic food production, as these could be imported, and food security would be achieved if everyone can access them. In principle, then, following the theory of comparative advantage, a country could have and export resources abundantly available (eg oil or other natural resource) and mind changing all the nutrients it needs, without having to produce them. The market is here in charge (and international trade agreements!).
The second claim, especially the right of states to define autonomy food and agricultural policy, secondly, the need to ensure the satisfaction of domestic food demand with domestic production, and thirdly, the role protagonist of farmers in food production. Since this is a proposal that runs counter to trade agreements in vogue, and is sponsored by Via Campesina, an organization considered too radical for the times the proposed food sovereignty is rejected more or less veiled by intergovernmental organizations, multilateral financial organizations, and most governments.
However, the specific ways that will adopt the process of globalization and its impact on food, especially the poorest, are giving strong arguments in favor of food sovereignty. The international opening of markets and bilateral and multilateral agreements severely restrict the options of governments to define policies to protect its citizens from threats that affect food security. By contrast, those who raise the need food sovereignty suggest the need for countries to exercise their right "to define autonomy food and agricultural policy." In fact, what is happening now is that:
The international food prices are rising and pushing up domestic prices. Has adverse effects on poor countries and within them, the low-income population sectors.
Economic incentives for biofuel production are pushing the use of land for the industry-oriented crops, rather than for the production of food.
Spurred by the rise in international commodity prices agriculture, the opening of agricultural markets allows purchases of agricultural land globally by financial institutions for speculative purposes. According to Reuters (13/03/08), "investment banks and hedge funds (hedge funds) are sweeping large areas of farmland in the world."
The oil-based agriculture (urea, motor fuel and transporting produce long distances, etc..) Is increasingly expensive and inefficient (in terms of energy balance) should be gradually replaced by agriculture based on sources renewable energy, and an approach from production to consumption (Replacement of domestic production for imports) [2] , the latter point defended by the proponents of food sovereignty.
To counter these four trends is necessary for governments to have greater autonomy to define their agricultural and food policies, that domestic production is in the ca-pacity to provide the substance of the food needs of the entire population and that hence to support small and medium agricultural producers, who are the main pro-food providers in the country. This does not mean autarky or isolation from markets, but market management according to national interests (of all people). It is almost the same as Europeans have done in the last sixty years.
[1] According to FAO, "Food security exists when all people at all times have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences in order to lead active and healthy" . View http://www.rlc.fao.org/prior/segalim/
[2] See John Earls , Andean agriculture to globalization in the crash. PUCP / CISEPA. Lima, 2007.
The second claim, especially the right of states to define autonomy food and agricultural policy, secondly, the need to ensure the satisfaction of domestic food demand with domestic production, and thirdly, the role protagonist of farmers in food production. Since this is a proposal that runs counter to trade agreements in vogue, and is sponsored by Via Campesina, an organization considered too radical for the times the proposed food sovereignty is rejected more or less veiled by intergovernmental organizations, multilateral financial organizations, and most governments.
However, the specific ways that will adopt the process of globalization and its impact on food, especially the poorest, are giving strong arguments in favor of food sovereignty. The international opening of markets and bilateral and multilateral agreements severely restrict the options of governments to define policies to protect its citizens from threats that affect food security. By contrast, those who raise the need food sovereignty suggest the need for countries to exercise their right "to define autonomy food and agricultural policy." In fact, what is happening now is that:
The international food prices are rising and pushing up domestic prices. Has adverse effects on poor countries and within them, the low-income population sectors.
Economic incentives for biofuel production are pushing the use of land for the industry-oriented crops, rather than for the production of food.
Spurred by the rise in international commodity prices agriculture, the opening of agricultural markets allows purchases of agricultural land globally by financial institutions for speculative purposes. According to Reuters (13/03/08), "investment banks and hedge funds (hedge funds) are sweeping large areas of farmland in the world."
The oil-based agriculture (urea, motor fuel and transporting produce long distances, etc..) Is increasingly expensive and inefficient (in terms of energy balance) should be gradually replaced by agriculture based on sources renewable energy, and an approach from production to consumption (Replacement of domestic production for imports) [2] , the latter point defended by the proponents of food sovereignty.
To counter these four trends is necessary for governments to have greater autonomy to define their agricultural and food policies, that domestic production is in the ca-pacity to provide the substance of the food needs of the entire population and that hence to support small and medium agricultural producers, who are the main pro-food providers in the country. This does not mean autarky or isolation from markets, but market management according to national interests (of all people). It is almost the same as Europeans have done in the last sixty years.
[1] According to FAO, "Food security exists when all people at all times have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences in order to lead active and healthy" . View http://www.rlc.fao.org/prior/segalim/
[2] See John Earls , Andean agriculture to globalization in the crash. PUCP / CISEPA. Lima, 2007.
