By Evan Bowness and Dana James 

The Centre for Sustainable Food Systems (CSFS) has a number of projects looking at the fascinating world of agroecology in Brazil. One of these projects began last August, when we were awarded a SSHRC Partnership Engage Grant (PEG) to carry out a project called ‘Advancing Agroecological Transitions Through Visual Methodologies.”

The agroecology movement is big on sharing information across networks, valuing different kinds of knowledge, and finding ways to dialogue across knowledge systems and cultures. What’s new in our PEG is that we have recognized how important visuals can be in this process and have started to bring visual research methods into the fold. 

Visuals (photos, videos and graphics) are important to this kind of work for a few reasons, especially because:

1. They can bring research findings to life through rich and impactful stories;
2. They can convey emotions in a way that text alone cannot;
3. They can bridge knowledge systems and cultural differences; and
4. They can be co-produced in research-creation settings and then used by community partners to support their goals and objectives.

This is particularly promising for the study of agroecology in community-based settings. One of the meanings of agroecology is to apply ecological principles to produce healthy food in a way that supports decent work. In other words, we want to produce food that respects natural environments, worker livelihoods and local cultures. In Brazil, there is a strong social movement fighting to build support agroecology. This movement is made up of groups like our partner organization, CEPAGRO, which stands for the Centre for the Promotion and Study of Group Agriculture. CEPAGRO’s mandate includes supporting agroecological farmers, strengthening consumer networks and organic markets and partnering with the policy and research worlds to keep agroecology on the political agenda.

CSFS has been working with CEPAGRO on several projects, including my own dissertation project on urban agriculture and urban food politics, Dana James’s dissertation project on agroecological transitions, and this new SSHRC Partnership Engage Project. In this latest project, we are working to answer the following research questions: What alternative values do agroecological farmers and social movement actors like CEPAGRO advance to increase movement participation? And how do they use visuals to this end?

In researching agroecology together, we’re finding that movement participants often refer to what they call a process of “valorização,” which translates literally from Portuguese to English as “appreciation,” but it means much more than that. Through valorização, participants promote alternative values such as community, environment and health, which counter neoliberal values such as individual preference, convenience and price.

Through three visual storytelling activities, we are sharing narratives that construct an oppositional value frame. First, we worked with CEPAGRO to produce a video series that features agroecological farmers and centers on agroecological values. We also worked with CEPAGRO and their partners to host “popular communication” workshops, where participants used experiential learning techniques to develop an understanding of how to create their own visual media and messaging. Finally, we’re also working on a photo series that features diverse rural and urban agroecological spaces.

This type of work is more important now than ever as the context for agroecology in Brazil is changing. The new government has already implemented policy changes that may hinder the scaling out agroecology. As part of our work with CEPAGRO, we’re hoping to better understand how to advance the valorização of agroecological foods and farmers as part of the transition to sustainable food systems in Brazil and beyond. Keep an eye out for the results of this project, which we will share on our new website, www.VisualAgroecology.com. 

So what’s next? With support from RC40 (The Research Committee on Sociology of Agriculture and Food of the International Sociological Association), we’re hosting two conference events in Cairns, Australia this summer at the IRSA’s 2020 World Congress of Rural Sociology. We’ll be bringing together scholars, activists, educators, artists, and communicators who are using visuals in new and interesting ways to support community-based research partnerships that try to understand agroecological transformation. For more information, see our call for papers. 

Posted January 26, 2018 by Dana James

Resources that are collectively shared and managed for common use and benefit have always been important in socioecological systems, including agrifood systems, and communities in many parts of the world have successfully co-managed “commons” – such as fields, pastures, forests, and fisheries – over long periods. At the same time, many of us are familiar with Garrett Hardin’s influential essay “The Tragedy of the Commons,” published 50 years ago this year. In it, Hardin argues that tragedies of the commons occur when rational (in the economic sense) actors using a common-pool, open-access resource, such as a pasture or coral reef, each try to maximize their own individual profit. In such a system, the increased profits essentially all aggregate to the individual actor, but the associated costs (i.e. resource degradation) are shared by all persons using the resource, and thus remain overlooked at the level of the individual user (Hardin, 1968; Ostrom, Burger, Field, Norgaard, & Policansky, 1999).

By this logic, it follows that all persons try to maximize their individual profit until the resource itself surpasses an ecological threshold and becomes so degraded as to be rendered unusable for the same purpose, function, or service – in essence, losing its original structure or identity (Groffman et al., 2006). Scholars in ecology have termed this a “regime shift” (Andersen, Carstensen, Hernández-García, & Duarte, 2009; Folke et al., 2004). To continue with the pasture and reef examples: a regime shift might look like a pasture becoming so overgrazed that it transitions into a shrubby or woody state (Folke et al., 2004). In the case of a reef, an ecological threshold may be surpassed once higher trophic levels become scarce enough (due to overexploitation) that the reef’s stability is compromised, causing the system to flip to an algae-dominated state (Folke et al., 2004).

Ultimately, this leads Hardin to proclaim, “Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all” (1968, p. 1244), with the only potential solutions being socialism or privatization of the resource (Hardin, 1968; Ostrom et al., 1999). However, the eminent political economist Elinor Ostrom has more recently argued that “tragedies of the commons are real, but not inevitable.” So, what conditions (or lack thereof) lead to tragedies of the commons? How might we address these factors so that tragedies of the commons are not inevitable?

Students working together to construct and maintain a community garden in Manitoba. Photo credit: Evan Bowness.

I would argue that Hardin glosses over the complexity, resilience, and adaptive capacity (including the ability to learn and self-organize) of socioecological systems with his proposed solutions (Berkes, Colding, & Folke, 2003). However, through his simplified solutions, it is clear that Hardin acknowledges the critical role that actors, institutions, and governance play in socioecological systems (Berman, Quinn, & Paavola, 2012) – a point that Ostrom also certainly supports (Anderies, Janssen, & Ostrom, 2004). Where the two really differ, perhaps, is in their degree of conviction that a) individual actors can operate altruistically and/or can extend their thinking beyond individual gain to also consider the effects of their actions in relation to the collective whole (i.e. the system), and that b) actors and institutions can indeed learn from and adapt to changing circumstances in novel ways and with novel tools and skills (or, with novel combinations of existing tools and skills).

Ostrom would take the more optimistic view: that actors can learn and can take into account the impact of their behaviors on others and on the resource – and thus, can alter/modify their actions and institutions accordingly. In other words: actors and institutions are adaptive and can act in a responsive manner, and there are existing principles we can use to better design socioecological systems. In theory, I agree with her. But there are, of course, many caveats in practice.

Ostrom and other scholars would argue that managing a common-pool resource is possible if the system exhibits characteristics like the following: if the actors trust one another; if there is high social capital; if there are avenues for all affected stakeholders to participate in decision-making processes; if external actors acknowledge that the resource-users have the right to define their own management strategy; if monitoring and evaluation structures are in place; if enforcement and conflict-resolution strategies exist; if there is flexibility to innovate; if there is high access to information; and if system boundaries are well-defined, with the recognition that there needs to be coordination and integration across (governance and ecological) scales (Armitage, 2005). If these conditions are in place, then the potential exists for users to adaptively manage the defined socioecological system.

The problem, in my view, lies herein: beyond very localized scales – and in a very connected, yet heterogeneous, world – how are we to tackle and adaptively manage global common-pool resources? Are there many – or any – systems that exist today where the above conditions are met? These questions become even more challenging to answer when considering the dynamic, interconnected, and multiscalar nature of rules and institutions. As a timely example, consider the rapid flurry of changes in a wide array of formal rules and policies in the United States (which we may even deem to be a sociopolitical “regime shift”), and the effect that this has not only on actors at various levels within the U.S., but also across the world. Given the United States’ position as both a leading resource consumer and a geopolitical superpower within the international arena, many of the revisions to environmental rules in the US have major implications for collective management of global common-pool resources, like the atmosphere and the oceans. The resulting mismanagement of such global common-pool resources will invariably have effects on socioecological systems at other spatial scales due to the nested and interconnected nature of complex systems (although the effects may not be immediately apparent due to time lags).

Thus, in order to be effective, management of global common-pool resources requires long-term political and institutional commitment, coordination, and trust. Unfortunately, the shorter time scales at which political processes operate usually do not align with the long-term institutional arrangements necessary to build, or design, better governance systems. In addition, power imbalances between actors can often prevent vulnerable states and communities from participating in decision-making as well as monitoring and enforcement processes, which can lead to an erosion of trust and a lack of accountability.

Clearly, there are significant challenges to managing common-pool resources – particularly at larger spatial scales; when temporal scales do not match; and when the socioecological issue is “epistemologically distant,” as is the case with a phenomenon such as anthropogenic climate change (Carolan, 2004). However, as Ostrom indicates, these challenges are not inherently insurmountable; there are existing principles that can inform the design of better socioecological systems, and we should absolutely strive for improvement. (And in fact, we have some good examples to look to – the most frequently-cited being the development of the Montreal Protocol to phase out production of compounds damaging to the ozone layer.) It will take sustained effort, committed collaboration, and the renegotiation and revaluation of both social-social and social-environmental relationships on the part of many actors. It’s a tall order, but a necessary one.

References:

Anderies, J. M., Janssen, M. A., & Ostrom, E. (2004). A Framework to Analyze the Robustness of Social-ecological Systems from an Institutional Perspective. Ecology and Society, 9(1), 18.

Andersen, T., Carstensen, J., Hernández-García, E., & Duarte, C. M. (2009). Ecological thresholds and regime shifts: approaches to identification. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 24(1), 49–57.

Armitage, D. (2005). Adaptive Capacity and Community-Based Natural Resource Management. Environmental Management, 35(6), 703–715.

Berkes, F., Colding, J., & Folke, C. (2003). Introduction. In F. Berkes, J. Colding, & C. Folke (Eds.), Navigating social-ecological systems: Building resilience for complexity and change (p. 393). Cambridge University Press.

Berman, R., Quinn, C., & Paavola, J. (2012). The role of institutions in the transformation of coping capacity to sustainable adaptive capacity. Environmental Development, 2, 86–100.

Carolan, M. (2004). Ontological Politics: Mapping a Complex Environmental Problem. Environmental Values, 13, 497–522.

Folke, C., Carpenter, S., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Elmqvist, T., Gunderson, L., & Holling, C. S. (2004). Regime Shifts, Resilience, and Biodiversity in Ecosystem Management. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 35(1), 557–581.

Groffman, P. M., Baron, J. S., Blett, T., Gold, A. J., Goodman, I., Gunderson, L. H., … Wiens, J. (2006). Ecological Thresholds: The Key to Successful Environmental Management or an Important Concept with No Practical Application? Ecosystems, 9, 1–13.

Hardin, G. (1968). The Tragedy of the Commons. Science, 162(3859), 1243–1248.

Ostrom, E., Burger, J., Field, C. B., Norgaard, R. B., & Policansky, D. (1999). Revisiting the Commons: Local Lessons, Global Challenges. Science, 284(5412), 278–282.

“Food sovereignty is, if anything, over defined. There are so many versions of the concept, it is hard to know exactly what it means. The proliferation of overlapping definitions is, however, a symptom of food sovereignty itself, woven into the fabric of food sovereignty by necessity.” – Raj Patel

“You can be food secure in prison,” says a member of our lab group as we discuss food sovereignty. Referring to Arthur Manuel’s book Unsettling Canada, Manuel talks about his experience of being in jail and juxtaposing this experience to that of being incarcerated in residential school. He talks about how bad the food was in residential school and that this led to his first political act, a strike over the food where meat and vegetables were extremely rare.

In prison, and prison-like situations, access to food is likely a limited concern, the State will feed you. What remains uncertain is what say a prisoner might have and whether this food meets your cultural or spiritual needs, whether it is produced in ecological ways that sustain the planet, and whether the people working to grow and distribute this food are treated fairly. This quote by Manuel in some ways talks about power and the need to dissent in the face of injustice. For many people across the globe, your right to choose, to self-determination has been taken away. You, prisoner #103562, are powerless.

Our Food Sovereignty Lab, based in the Centre for Sustainable Food Systems at UBC, met for our year-end celebration and to share and discuss our ideas of what is meant by the term ‘food sovereignty’. As many people do, we had a strong impulse to define, to seek out the ways in which others have given voice to similar thoughts and concepts (side note: I am often amazed at the ability of others to put my thoughts and feelings into words).  We then took on the rigorous task of tweaking the most often-used definition of food sovereignty, so that it included the nuances and aspects most important to us and our fields of study.

As a group working on different aspects of food sovereignty, we felt that it was important to talk about the different meanings attributed to this concept. Although this discussion was not intended to create an agreed-upon definition of food sovereignty; it allowed our group to identify whatever elements they thought comprised the concept of ‘food sovereignty’ while also identifying the elements that are contrary to the idea[1]. While the approach of juxtaposing a term in this way may present a binary, or an exclusion, it is precisely this approach that serves to add richness to a concept by creating artificial (or semantic) boundaries that represent the edges where dialogue can occur.

1) What is Food Sovereignty?

Our lab members come from a wide variety of backgrounds and work all over the world. Each of us brought a different perspective, however, some common elements emerged — particularly around notions of self-determination, autonomy and democratic and collective approaches to foodlands and decision-making. These ideas were strongly linked to democracy, and to governments and states protecting the rights of individuals, communities, and the land.

For many, the discussion of democracy, rights, state responsibility, led to the identification of elements of resistance, anti-capitalism, empowerment, transformation, anti-dispossession, collective action, social struggle against injustices, decolonization, and calls for deep/radical changes to how we think and relate to the land and to each other. This change was seen as being achieved by resisting and reconciling current and historical oppression and violence, including more equitable and sustainable food production and trade. In addition, members identified a need to address the psycho-cultural domination inherent in neoliberal consumption and materialism. That is, the pervasive world views that legitimize and render invisible the oppressive and exploitative practices and structures of capitalist food systems.

We discussed a number of oppositional statements, framed as real or perceived tensions, such as: the individual vs the farmer, sovereignty vs self-determination, goal vs process, states/corporations vs citizens/peasants/(farm)workers, rural vs urban, and relationships/connectivity vs liberalism. While these discussions were left unresolved and many of these tensions weren’t seen as mutually exclusive, it served as a platform for a rich discussion around critical questions. For example, we saw food sovereignty as a precondition for food security to exist in that individuals, households, and communities should have the power and autonomy to determine how food is grown, shared and returned to the earth.

Throughout the conversation, we acknowledged the importance of identifying and recognizing the role of power in defining and describing food sovereignty. For many, power struggles and the shifting base of power is deeply related to – or even underpins – the achievement of food sovereignty. We shared a common notion that redressing unequal power relations was integral to food sovereignty discourse and practice.

2) What Isn’t Food Sovereignty?

For many, food sovereignty could not be achieved through capitalism or neoliberalism. It was not viewed as something that could easily be reduced or simplified (e.g. a minimum dietary intake of macro/micronutrients, access to food retail), ‘silver bullets’ or ‘one-size fits-all’ approaches fail to encompass the complexity inherent in food sovereignty.

Interestingly, while we all identified elements/indicators of food sovereignty, we generally agreed that it was not an ‘end-state.’ For many, it was seen to be dynamic, in flux, emergent — a process, rather than a goal.

Personal Reflections

Facilitating this activity with colleagues and friends opened my eyes and broadened my conceptual understanding of food sovereignty. In my own work, I’m curious about the push towards cosmopolitan/multicultural cities in the 21^st century and wonder how culturally and linguistically diverse farmers and citizens engage and think about food sovereignty. Being able to understand and discuss the application of food sovereignty in different places and times serves to enlighten and inspire my own work and, I think, the work of our team.

I encourage you, the reader, to engage your friends and colleagues in a similar activity. Feel free to get in touch and share your thoughts and your experience with trying to define food sovereignty. You can reach me at colind@mail.ubc.ca or through the comment section below.

We’ve also compiled a list of resources (articles, books, videos) for you to access and use. If you have any additional suggestions, please let us know and we will add them to the list.

Food Sovereignty Resources:  

Websites:

La Via Campesina – https://viacampesina.org/en/

Indigenous Food Systems Network – Indigenous Food Sovereignty http://www.indigenousfoodsystems.org/food-sovereignty

Food Secure Canada – What is Food Sovereignty? – https://foodsecurecanada.org/who-we-are/what-food-sovereignty

Women’s Declaration on Food Sovereignty – https://nyeleni.org/spip.php?article310

Papers from Hague Food Sovereignty Conference https://www.iss.nl/research/research_programmes/political_economy_of_resources_environment_and_population_per/networks/critical_agrarian_studies_icas/food_sovereignty_a_critical_dialogue/

Food First

Panel and presentations given at the 2013 Food Sovereignty: A Critical Dialogue.

Videos

La Via Campesina in Movement

Hands on the Land for Food Sovereignty and Climate Justice

Food sovereignty: Valerie Segrest at TEDxRainier

Books:

Desmarais, A. A., & Wiebe, N. (2010). Food sovereignty: Reconnecting food, nature & community (pp. 1-12). H. Wittman (Ed.). Oxford: Pambazuka.

Desmarais, A. A., & Wiebe, N. (2011). Food sovereignty in Canada: creating just and sustainable food systems. H. Wittman (Ed.). Fernwood Pub.

Peer Reviewed and Scholarly Articles:

Aerni, P. (2011). Food Sovereignty and its Discontents. ATDF Journal, 8(1–2), 23–40.

Akram-Lodhi, A.H., & Minkoff-Zern, L.A. (2013). How to Build Food Sovereignty. In Food Sovereignty: A Critical Dialogue. New Haven, CT: Yale University.

Alkon, A. H., & Mares, T. M. (2012). Food sovereignty in US food movements: radical visions and neoliberal constraints. Agriculture and Human Values, 29(3), 347–359. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-012-9356-z

Alonso-Fradejas, A., Borras, S. M., Jr, Holmes, T., Holt-Giménez, E., & Robbins, M. J. (2015). Food sovereignty: convergence and contradictions, conditions and challenges. Third World Quarterly, 36(3), 431–448. http://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2015.1023567

Altieri, M.A. (2009). Agroecology, Small Farms, and Food Sovereignty. Monthly Review 61(3). Retrieved November 15, 2015 from: http://monthlyreview.org/2009/07/01/agroecology-small-farms-and-food-sovereignty/

Andrée, P., Cobb, M., Moussa, L., & Norgang, E. (2011). Building Unlikely Alliances Around Food Sovereignty in Canada. Studies in Political Economy, 88, 133–159

Bartos, A. E. (2014). Discourses of food sovereignty from somewhere. Dialogues in Human Geography, 4(2), 190–194. http://doi.org/10.1177/2043820614537158

Borras, S. M., Jr, Franco, J. C., & Suárez, S. M. (2015). Land and food sovereignty. Third World Quarterly, 36(3), 600–617. http://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2015.1029225

Burnett, K., & Murphy, S. (2014). What place for international trade in food sovereignty? The Journal of Peasant Studies, 0(0), 1–20. http://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2013.876995

Carolan, M. (2014). Getting to the core of food security and food sovereignty: Relationality with limits? Dialogues in Human Geography, 4(2), 218–220. http://doi.org/10.1177/2043820614537164

Coté, C. (2014). Food Sovereignty, food hegemony, and the revitalization of indigenous whaling practices. The World of Indigenous North America, 239.

Edelman, M. (2014). The next stage of the food sovereignty debate. Dialogues in Human Geography, 4(2), 182–184. http://doi.org/10.1177/2043820614537153

Edelman, M. (2014). Food sovereignty: forgotten genealogies and future regulatory challenges. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 41(6), 959- 978. http://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2013.876998

Edelman, M., Weis, T., Baviskar, A., Borras Jr, S.M., Holt-Giménez, E., Kandiyoti, D., & Wolford, W. (2014). Introduction: critical perspectives on food sovereignty. Journal of Peasant Studies, 41(6), 911–931.

Holt-Giménez, E. (2009). From food crisis to food sovereignty. Monthly Review, 61(3), 142–156.

Jarosz, L. (2014). Comparing food security and food sovereignty discourses. Dialogues in Human Geography, 4(2), 168–181. http://doi.org/10.1177/2043820614537161

McMichael, P. (2009). A Food Regime Genealogy. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 36(1), 139–169.

McMichael, P. (2014). Historicizing Food Sovereignty. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 41, 6, 933–957

Martínez-Torres, M. E., & Rosset, P. M. (2010). La Vía Campesina: the birth and evolution of a transnational social movement. Journal of Peasant Studies, 37(1), 149–175. http://doi.org/10.1080/03066150903498804

Patel, R. (2009). Food sovereignty. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 36(3), 663-706.

Pimbert, M. (2006). Transforming Knowledge and Ways of Knowing for Food Sovereignty. London: United Kingdom: International Institute for Environment and Development.

Pimbert, M. (2009). Towards food sovereignty. London, United Kingdom: International Institute for Environment and Development.

Rocha, C. (2008). Food Insecurity as Market Failure: A Contribution from Economics. Journal of Hunger & Environmental Nutrition, 1(4), 5–22. http://doi.org/10.1300/J477v01n04_02

Rosset, P. (2008). Food sovereignty and the contemporary food crisis. Development, 51(4), 460–463.

Schiavoni, C. (January 24, 2014). Competing Sovereignties in the Political Construction of Food Sovereignty (Conference Paper #90). Conference paper for discussion at Food Sovereignty: A Critical Dialogue, The Hague, The Netherlands.

Weiler, A. M., Hergesheimer, C., Brisbois, B., Wittman, H., Yassi, A., & Spiegel, J. M. (2015). Food sovereignty, food security and health equity: a meta-narrative mapping exercise. Health Policy and Planning, 30(8), 1078–1092.

Windfuhr, M. & Jonsén, J. (2005). Food Sovereignty: Towards Democracy in Localized Food Systems. Bourton-on-Dunsmore, UK: FIAN-International; ITDG Publishing.

[1] In this Globe and Mail article the author suggests that a carbon tax, in his opinion, would disrupt the ability of the Canadian agricultural sector to remain competitive across international markets. He demonstrates a different usage of the term food sovereignty to indicate that Canadian food sovereignty is linked to corporate success.

A return to low commodity prices and U.S. dumping

Used under creative commons license from unitedsoybean.

As international trade diplomats contemplate the latest move in their world—a formal complaint by the United States about China’s use of price supports for its farmers, lodged at the WTO last week—I am in Delhi to present IATP’s most recent findings of U.S. agricultural commodity dumping in export markets. Dumping is the sale of goods for less than their cost of production. Dumping distorts markets, and especially in food markets, destroys livelihoods and opportunities for development.

In anticipation of the full report, here are some of the initial numbers. They show the return of dumping in 2015 for several major commodities. The dumping margin is: for wheat (33 percent), soybeans (11 percent), maize (14 percent), rice (2 percent) and cotton (49 percent). In IATP’s analysis, this renewal of relatively high levels of dumping for some commodities does not signal a simple return to the world before the price shocks of 2007-08. While production has responded well to higher prices, the risk of over-production—as well as environmental constraints as climate change takes effect—make high levels of volatility likely to persist in the medium to long term.

Dumping is usually raised by one government, which complains about another. The complaint focuses on the use of public support for sectors whose products are then exported at prices lower than cost.

IATP measures its dumping calculation a little differently.

These calculations do capture the role of government payments, which are especially high for cotton and historically have been high for rice. But the numbers also show that something else is going on. The level of government support just is not sufficient to account for the dumping margins we have measured. If the government is not paying the difference, or not all of it, who is?

The answers are speculative but suggest something about the structure of low value commodity markets, like soybeans and maize. If not the state, or not only, who else could be absorbing the cost of dumping? There are two other actors: the traders and the farmers. Is it the traders? It certainly is not the case that grain traders are operating at a loss. For instance, Cargill has more than doubled in size since I first looked at the company in 1999. Its gross turnover is now in the range of USD $1.1 billion. Commodity traders move in a financially risky world but they are not going bust by internalizing losses on underpriced U.S. agricultural commodity.

They may, however, be complicating the economic analysis. The traders are an oligopoly: just four companies between them trade more than 75 percent of grain that crosses an international market. This means there is scope for price distortion. Moreover, the traders do not just sell commodities to other processors. They are also processors themselves, producing feed for livestock, raising livestock, making food additives, and turning commodities into biofuels. This makes what economists call price discovery complicated: maybe the companies would take less than market value for raw commodities so as to keep their input costs low—making up the difference downstream—in their vertically integrated operations. The lack of transparency surrounding the operations of grain traders makes it difficult to know.

What about the farmers themselves? Clearly they rely on transfers from the government, but as we say above, those transfers are not enough to cover all the dumping cost. It is worth distinguishing between variable and full costs. Our dumping measure looks at full costs. The variable costs are those that the farmer has to face each year: the costs of buying seed, tractors, petrol, etc. The full cost adds a return to the farmer’s own labour and to the land. Of course, meeting variable costs is a lower bar. Agricultural economists tell us that as long as the variable costs are met, production will continue, even if full costs are not. Why? Because a farmer can choose not to pay him/herself (they own the business); because many farm operations in the United States have other sources of income to support the farm; because the U.S. has large areas of productive land for which there is little alternative use; because agriculture is very intensive in factors of production that do not readily move—deep knowledge; expensive equipment; geographically specific characteristics of water availability, soil composition; and weather patterns.

It is also the case that U.S. agriculture has seen an expansion of very (very) large farms that are managed by a company rather than independent operators. Their scale enables them to lower fixed costs significantly below the average numbers IATP uses from the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

An honest and productive discussion of dumping would start from this complex situation to consider new solutions that are fair to farmers and consumers in the South and North.

Here is some of my arguments for the conference opening:

• The U.S. dumps at least five major commodities in international markets.
• The numbers are clear evidence of market distortions that hurt other countries.
• The government spends a lot of public money on agriculture and a number of developing countries, including India, want to be able to do the same.
• It is painfully hypocritical for the U.S. to fail for decades to address its own dumping—a failure of both domestic policy design and the lack of courage to regulate competition—while at the same time attacking others for their farm programs.

But is the right to spend money on agriculture—and to downplay the effects of those programs on other countries—a sufficient objective for WTO negotiations? Can we instead imagine trade rules that do a better job of supporting states in their obligation to realize the right to food? Rules that respect environmental constraints, especially climate change?

Yes, we can.

The BC Medical Journal published a blog post this week on migrant farmworkers, health equity and structural violence written by an alumna of our group, Anelyse Weiler, and two of her colleagues. As noted by Anelyse, while it focuses mainly on doctors in BC, it may be of interest to anyone focused on food justice and following the Harvesting Freedom campaign for the 50th anniversary of Canada’s Seasonal Agricultural Worker Program.  The original post can be found here, and this is an excerpt from the post:

“Felipe (a pseudonym), a 28-year-old man from southern Mexico, is one of approximately 8600 migrant farmworkers living throughout BC. He and other migrant farmworkers are engaged in one of the province’s most dangerous, least regulated, and lowest paid occupations. The majority are men and most are from Mexico or Jamaica, but an increasing number come from other countries. Even though they make tremendous cultural, social, and economic contributions to Canadian society, migrant farmworkers often experience disproportionately adverse health outcomes because they are excluded from many of the rights and protections that citizens and permanent residents enjoy.

Migrant farmworkers are legally entitled to health care—they must be covered either by MSP or private insurance. But Felipe’s story shows how a fear of job termination and deportation generates unique barriers to health for migrant farmworkers. Furthermore, workers are often dependent on employers for transportation from remote rural areas and help to navigate the Canadian medical system.

BC physicians can play a critical role in reducing the gaps in health care for migrant members of our communities, both through everyday clinical practice and advocacy.”

Continue reading here.

Greetings!

In the coming weeks, members of the Food Sovereignty Research Team at the University of British Columbia will begin blogging at this site.  We will be addressing a range of topics related to food systems, through several formats including reports from field research, reviews and commentary on books and articles, recaps of events, introductions to keywords, and more.