Food security, food sovereignty: understanding everything
With the global COVID-19 pandemic and Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the concepts of food security and food sovereignty are on display across the globe. Amid political, geopolitical, legal, and socioeconomic issues, it is essential to understand these terms and differentiate between them.
How to define food security?
The concept of food security, used very widely, refers to a goal that is achieved when the entire population of a territory has access to food. There is in its very definition a strong disconnect with the agricultural sector and the way in which food is produced. This definition is the result of an international consensus resulting from the World Food Summit in 1996 at the FAO.
“Food security exists when all people, at all times, have the physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life.”
Each word in this definition is important and helps to characterize the full complexity of hunger. It is not just a question of the quantity available on the planet or of production levels (the proof is that we produce enough calories worldwide to feed the entire population) but rather a multidimensional phenomenon that calls upon the economic, physical and logistical capacities as well as the cultural determinants of individuals. Another essential dimension of food security relates to the nutritional quality of what we eat. We must have access to a diet composed of nutritious and healthy foods. We can have access to enough food every day, but this food can be of poor quality and lead to health risks (cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, etc.). Thus, in the world, More than 2 billion people are overweight, 700 million of whom are obese.
Food insecurity has been growing since 2019
Antonio Guterres – the Secretary-General of the United Nations – said that the war in Ukraine threatens to unleash an unprecedented wave of hunger and misery. The difficulties millions of people face in accessing healthy food on a daily basis are nothing new. They have been exacerbated by the effects of war and, before that, those of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has shaken the pillars of an already precarious global food system. We must be vigilant and clearly separate the dramatic, cyclical effects of the conflict in Ukraine from the structural characteristics of food insecurity. The latter is a daily challenge for millions of people and is a constant issue, whether or not we use a Russian food weapon.
Indeed, since 2019, 150 million more people have joined the number of individuals affected by hunger, bringing it to nearly 830 million in 2021.[1], even before the war in Ukraine. In 2021, according to the FAO, on the African continent, 1 in 5 people were affected by hunger (278 million people). Asia is also a continent where the number of people experiencing food insecurity is high (425 million people, 9.1% of the population) as well as South America and the Caribbean (56 million, 8.6% of the population). Finally, 80% of people suffering from hunger live in rural areas and the phenomenon mainly affects small family farms which nevertheless provide the largest part of the world's food. The link between food security, agricultural development and prosperity in rural areas is therefore particularly strong, as recalled by the recent study published by the FARM Foundation[2].
Food producers are the first victims of hunger ? This seems counterintuitive in every way and requires us to go even further in analyzing food security. Indeed, this concept, in its original, already complex definition, ignores a number of essential questions: who produces food and for whom? How is it produced? With what economic and redistribution models? This is a major difference between food security and food sovereignty.
Understanding the concept of food sovereignty
Although it is on everyone's lips today, this concept emerged in the 1980s and was developed in a specific context in response to the development of a global and market-oriented vision of food security. Indeed, in Africa, before the 1980s, the objective of newly independent countries was to produce to feed their populations and achieve food self-sufficiency. At the turn of the 1980s, with the liberalization of trade and the growing indebtedness of African countries that led to structural adjustment programs, the objective changed: production had to be available to generate foreign currency to import the food or products lacking on international markets. Food security was then a matter of the market, the free movement of products and the specialization of production systems.
In 1996, at the World Food Summit in Rome, La Via Campesina (international peasant movement) introduced a definition of food sovereignty:
“Food sovereignty is the right of each country to maintain and develop its own capacity to produce its own food, an essential factor in food security at the national and community level, while respecting cultural and agricultural diversity.”
Then, social movements set out a set of principles and levers on which action must be taken to guarantee food sovereignty.[3] : the rights-based approach[4], agrarian reform and access to finance, protection of natural resources, sustainable production methods, reorganization of food trade, challenging the "globalization of hunger", control of the actions of multinational firms, social peace, "democratic control", etc.
Today, as in the 1990s, the use of the notion of "sovereignty" constitutes a reinterpretation of the agricultural and food issue. It questions the normative and commercial frameworks that had led to the depoliticization of the food issue through the predominant role given to the market. Its reappropriation, today all-out, testifies to a feeling of loss of control (dependence on the outside for human/animal food or for inputs, etc.) and of capacity to choose production and consumption models (standards and mirror clauses, management of natural resources, etc.). It also marks a strong opposition to the current functioning of globalization and free trade agreements as well as a desire to break with agricultural and commercial policies deemed harmful to producers' income, food security and the environment. Moreover, in its very definition, the term sovereignty refers to the role of the State[5] and its power. The use of the term, for multiple sectors of the economy, appears today as a criticism of a State that has disinvested too much from these essential subjects of food, energy or health security (masks and medicines). This reflects a demand for State intervention, even regulation, but also a form of concerted public action that involves producers, in this case agricultural producers, and citizens in the development of public policies.
Food sovereignty and self-sufficiency: what’s the difference?
In the debate on food sovereignty, some people wonder if we can achieve food autonomy. Beware of pitfalls. Sovereignty should not be confused with autonomy or self-sufficiency. Sovereignty implies a strategic capacity of actors to understand and manage their dependence by implementing appropriate policies. Autonomy refers to the ability to not depend on others, to evolve independently of others, which, in an era of shared problems such as global warming, makes very little sense. Self-sufficiency, or autarky, is a situation in which a country or individual finds itself whose own resources are sufficient to meet its needs. In an era of globalized trade, food autonomy or self-sufficiency seem utopian, short of a Copernican revolution in our lifestyles. A very limited number of countries or territories are capable of producing everything, all the time, as food systems have become highly standardized, deterritorialized, and detemporalized over the past few decades. Are we ready to do without morning coffee, chocolate in pastries, or avocados in guacamole?
Let's not be mistaken, food sovereignty does not exclude trade or exchange. They can be a tool for achieving food security. Food sovereignty would also be, for its advocates, largely compatible with globalization, provided that it is guided above all by the well-being of people (producers and consumers) and the protection of natural resources. A food sovereignty policy therefore implies a three-pronged strategy: for what can be produced and consumed locally, what cannot (by securing flows and diversifying sources of supply), and what others may depend on for their food security (exports).
The mirage of everything local
Furthermore, local consumption, in the face of globalized food chains, is often presented as a means of achieving food sovereignty and limiting the individual carbon footprint. Here too, we must not confuse everything. Encouraging local consumption is entirely virtuous and helps support producers, the development and resilience of territories, and a fairer distribution of added value by limiting intermediaries. Eating local, however, is only marginally linked to the ecological sustainability of food. At the global level, food transport represents only 5% of all greenhouse gas emissions from the global food system, according to an article published in Nature Food[6].
In France, the transport of food accounts for 13.5% of greenhouse gas emissions from our food.[7]While it is important, it is rather the production method that weighs the most on the carbon footprint of our plates. The solution lies in redefining our eating habits with the consumption of seasonal, local foodstuffs produced using sustainable methods that provide remuneration for producers. Faced with food insecurity and inflation, the equation is not simple, but that is another debate.
Food sovereignty: a politics of the stomach[8] ?
Confusing food sovereignty with autonomy, self-sufficiency or localism presents the risk of political instrumentalization of notions linked to food. The mobilization of the concept sometimes serves as an ideological basis for withdrawal into oneself, one's plate or one's territory, to the satisfaction of one's needs or those of one's community. This withdrawal, however, would be to the detriment of cooperation and a collective understanding of the interdependencies between peoples. The challenges of hunger, climate change and prosperity are indeed common issues that call for concerted, co-constructed and systemic responses at multiple scales.
Food security and food sovereignty are two concepts that must be differentiated. Broadly speaking, food security is a state of affairs—having enough quality food—and food sovereignty questions the means to achieve it and, more specifically, the policies implemented. The current debate shows one thing: these two concepts, and the fear of scarcity they underlie, are global and are no longer, in popular perceptions, the preserve of so-called developing countries. After the pandemic and the war in Ukraine, it is now heatwaves and drought that are pushing mainstream media and social networks to question our ability to feed ourselves. Will we run out of milk, vegetables, or fruit this winter in France and Europe? And at a global level? How far will the sociopolitical and geopolitical destabilization caused by worsening food insecurity go?
[1] FAO, IFAD, WFP, UNICEF and WHO, The state of food security and nutrition in the world: Repurposing food and agricultural policies to make healthy diets more affordable, 2022.
[2] See on this subject the study coordinated by the FARM Foundation and the AVRIL Foundation, STUDY – Public policies in favor of agricultural sectors in Africa – FARM Foundation (fondation-farm.org)
[3] See the successive developments in the definition and in particular the declaration of the Forum for Food Sovereignty in Nyeleni in February 2007 in Mali.
[4] The rights-based approach is essential in defining food sovereignty. It is also a legal element in the constitution of certain countries, such as in the Nepalese constitutional text of 2015 which enshrines the dimension of social justice attached to food security ("every citizen has the right to be protected against a possible food shortage that could threaten his or her existence (...) every citizen has the right to food sovereignty provided for by law").
[5] Jean Bodin in the 16th centuryth century defines sovereignty as "the power to command and coerce without being commanded or coerced by anyone on Earth."
[6] Crippa Monica, et al. “Food systems are responsible for a third of global anthropogenic GHG emissions”, Nature Food (2021). https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-021-00225-9
[7] Barbier Carine, Couturier Christian, Pourouchottamin Prabodh, Cayla Jean-Michel, Sylvestre Marie, Pharabod Ivan, 2019, Energy and carbon footprint of food in France / From production to consumption, Prospective Energy and Environment Engineering Club, IDDRI, ADEME, Expertise Collection, p. 22.
[8] Concept defined by Jean-François Bayart in 1990 in The State in Africa, the politics of the belly.
9 commentaires sur “Sécurité alimentaire, souveraineté alimentaire : tout comprendre”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Thank you for this very informative article which would benefit from being expanded to take into account the objectives of sustainable development.
Thus, the definition of food security is no longer limited to the four pillars indicated in the box. The CFS has very significantly broadened the concept to include qualitative, cultural, environmental and contextual dimensions. According to the CFS (Committee on World Food Security, which brings together States, intergovernmental organizations and associations) and which is today the leading international institution: "Food and nutrition security exists when all human beings, at all times, have physical, social and economic access to safe food of sufficient quantity and quality to meet people's dietary needs and food preferences, and whose benefits are enhanced by an environment in which sanitation, health services and care practices are adequate, all of which allow for an active and healthy life." (provisional definition, CFS, 2012).
Regarding food sovereignty, the above-mentioned dimensions, which constitute criteria for sustainable development, are now also taken into account. Cf. https://www.academie-agriculture.fr/sites/default/files/publications/encyclopedie/final_10.02.q03_def_souverainete_alim.pdf
Good morning,
I read with great interest this article which deals with food security and food sovereignty. The development made of it is worthy of interest. However, I find that the contents given to the concepts seem a little too extreme to me. This is what led to asserting for example that "In the era of globalized trade, food autonomy or self-sufficiency seem utopian." Food self-sufficiency is not a utopia, just like food sovereignty. For my part, I think that these concepts remain important for the sustainable development of nations (developed and underdeveloped nations), even in the current context of globalization. Food self-sufficiency does not imply autarky. Because, this has already been rejected by the classical economist David Ricardo for centuries. Trade between countries is obligatory, regardless of the type of country. Moreover, globalization requires all nations to cooperate. This cooperation can be done voluntarily or it can be imposed due to the evolution of information and communication technologies in particular. That said, it is a question of taking the concepts "food security" and "food sovereignty" in the sense of their necessity for an acceptable and if possible decent life of the populations of a nation. Thus, we cannot speak of food security when we depend entirely on exports for our food. Food security necessarily assumes that the nation produces a majority share of its (basic) food needs. This can be measured for example by the export dependency rate, which must be higher than 50%. The other question that arises for this desire to produce to last over time is who owns the resources (inputs) that are used for this production? This is where the question of food sovereignty finds its place. Since, if the nation produces on the basis of resources entirely coming from other nations, it is not sovereign. Because it cannot voluntarily decide to produce a quantity of its basic foods at a desired time. This is why sovereignty should refer to the dependency rate of the factors of production (inputs). Here too, the dependency rate must be greater than 50%. If these two conditions are met, the nation is protected from a sudden drop in food availability linked, for example, to problems from other nations that supply it with raw materials. The current problem of the supply of domestic gas in Africa clearly illustrates this need for food sovereignty with the current Russo-Ukrainian war.
In short, the concepts of "food security" and "food sovereignty" remain relevant, except that they must be operationalized so as not to confuse them with the simple availability of food, for example coming entirely from export for food security, nor with autarky for food sovereignty.
THANKS.
Dear All,
Please read in my comment above "Thus, one cannot speak of food security when one depends entirely on imports for one's food" instead of "Thus, one cannot speak of food security when one depends entirely on exports for one's food".
I can summarize the article as follows:
– food security = food availability (sufficient quantity and quality of food, at national and local level) + food accessibility (physical, economic);
– food sovereignty = capacity of a State to direct its food policy (production, conservation, distribution, etc.);
– food self-sufficiency = capacity to produce the food we need.
Apologies for any typos. I wanted to comment while I was in an office meeting. Please read "external dependency ratio" instead of "export dependency ratio."
Thank you for the conceptual reminders. Let us note, however, that food sovereignty does not necessarily imply food and nutritional security. These are two things that must be reconciled in the current context, especially for our countries in the South. The fundamental question is "how to do it" in a context of recurring crises? In any case, it is certain that the various issues noted in the article show that there is still a long way to go for a global and even African response.
I really want to take back the comment I made above, because it contains too many mistakes, due to the fact that I was busy with a meeting, while I wanted to contribute. Here is exactly what I meant:
[I read with great interest this article which deals with food security and food sovereignty. The development made of it is worthy of interest. However, I find that the contents given to the concepts seem a little too extreme to me. This is what led to asserting for example that “In the era of globalized trade, food autonomy or self-sufficiency seem utopian”. Food self-sufficiency is not a utopia, just like food sovereignty. For my part, these concepts remain important for the sustainable development of nations (developed and underdeveloped nations), even in the current context of globalization. Food self-sufficiency does not imply autarky. Because, this has already been rejected by the classical economist David RICARDO for centuries. Trade between countries is obligatory, regardless of the type of country. Moreover, globalization requires all nations to cooperate. This cooperation can be done voluntarily, just as it can be imposed due to the evolution of information and communication technologies in particular. That said, it is a question of taking the concepts “food security” and “food sovereignty” in the sense of their necessity for an acceptable and, if possible, decent life for the populations of a nation. Thus, we cannot speak of food security when we depend entirely on imports for our food. Food security necessarily assumes that the nation produces a significant part of its (basic) food needs. This can be measured, for example, by the import dependency ratio (IDR), that is to say, imports of consumer goods, which must be less than 50%. The other question that arises for this desire to produce to last over time is to know who owns the resources (inputs) that are used for this production? This is where the question of food sovereignty finds its place. Since, if the nation produces on the basis of resources coming entirely from other nations, it is not sovereign. Because, it cannot voluntarily decide to produce a quantity of its basic foods at a desired time. This is why sovereignty should refer to the rate of dependence on imports of production factors (inputs). Here too, the rate of dependence must also be lower than 50%. If these two conditions are met, the nation is protected from a sudden drop in food availability linked, for example, to problems coming from other nations that supply it with raw materials. The current problem of shortage of domestic gas supply in Africa illustrates this need for food sovereignty well with the current Russo-Ukrainian war.
In short, the concepts of “food security” and “food sovereignty” remain relevant, except that they must be operationalized so as not to confuse them with the simple availability of food, for example entirely from imports, to ensure food security, nor with autarky to ensure food sovereignty.
Thank you so much. ]
The concept of food security has been championed by laissez-faire advocates convinced by the theory of comparative advantage. This has devastated the development efforts of poor countries, which nevertheless accept its application, particularly in the Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) between the European Union and Africa.
Laissez-faire favors the stronger partner and opposes the economic development of the weaker, particularly during periods of recession (see JM Keynes "The End of Laissez-faire," Payot 2017). There is no known example of economic "takeoff" without protectionism. It is therefore fortunate—and worth emphasizing—that the notion of sovereignty prevails over that of food security.
During the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) negotiations sixty years ago, the European Union itself was forced to adhere to the principles of free trade by the United States, which was keen to export its soybeans. The resulting dependence (now on Brazil) has now become a priority concern for European leaders. Unfortunately, the obstacles to reform are no longer found only among international trading partners but also in the industry that this trade has spawned within the Union (see André Pochon's column in the newspaper Le Télégramme, September 13, 2022, on European protein dependence).
https://lenational.org/post_article.php?tri=478
In Zambia, for example, according to Ziegler's writings, on October 12, 2002, the Zambian president cried foul after the World Food Program (WFP) distributed tens of thousands of tons of corn to disaster areas. Much of this food was donated by the U.S. government. It was practically genetically modified grain. The Zambian president even referred to it as "poisoned food." However, the WFP was forced to abandon the distribution of surplus American products and was forced to have the corn ground before distribution. What was the problem?