Box 1-2. continued
consumers, workshops, cooking classes and more. These activities promote citizen ownership of the basic human right to
food security (guaranteed under the UN Charter, among other
international agreements) and to teach fundamental principles
of nutrition to those who might not otherwise have received it.
This is an especially important component in a world climate
where increasing wealth is leading to obesity and nutrientpoor,
high calorie diets in not just the global North, but also
in other countries that are simultaneously dealing with persistent
under- and mal-nutrition among their populations.
It’s important to note that these are only some of the most
prominent programs, and that all of the food security secretariat’s
programs in Belo Horizonte comprise less than 2%
of the city’s annual budget, at approximately US$7 million
dollars per year—and even given the current level of success,
there is ample opportunity to expand the omprehensiveness
and size of the programs. Although SMAAB’s uccesses are
not to be taken as a direct blueprint for cities the world over, one can draw at the very least cautious hope from their example:
a municipal government program cooperating across
traditional health/nutrition and city/countryside boundaries,
while supporting local and organic food, small-scale farmers,
addressing childhood and adult malnutrition and hunger,
access to food, and nutritional education, under a modest
budget in a large city in the global South. From this example,
we must be open to the wondrous idea that food security
and small, family-farmer based rural sustainability may be
mutually reinforcing, given sufficient and appropriate efforts
across the many traditional borders we find between the two
principles. |
equitably and sustainably (Vía Campesina, 2003). The concept
of food sovereignty has come about as a reaction to
the definition of food security, which promotes the notion
that everyone should have food, but doesn’t specify where it
will come from, or who will produce it, allowing control of
food by large multinational companies, which may contribute
to creating more dependency, poverty and marginalization.
Vía Campesina also supports the concept of food as a
right (see Box 1-3). The concept of food sovereignty places
emphasis on local autonomy, local markets and community
action. It is a process of popular resistance in the context of
social movements (Grain, 2005; Niéleny, 2007).
The local space is accorded first priority because it is
there that sovereignty takes on its essential meaning. It is
in the spaces where the local communities create autonomy
based on their own needs, beliefs and time frames. They are
the custodians of thousands of years of research and creation,
as a result of which their agriculture is based on biodiversity,
in contrast to industrial agriculture, which fosters
monoculture and only develops certain species, which are
often not those grown and consumed by the local popula
| |
tions (Grain, 2005). Food sovereignty has a broader dimension,
since it incorporates issues such as agrarian reform,
territorial control, local markets, biodiversity, autonomy,
cooperation, debt and health, all of which have to do with
local food production. Advocates of the concept of food
sovereignty argue that to attain a world without hunger one
must place the communities center stage (Grain, 2005).
The Pesticide Action Network-Latin America (RAP-AL,
2007) adds that food sovereignty also has to do with the agricultural
production system, since agriculture that depends
on imported seed and chemical inputs does not allow for
food sovereignty. This is why they support agroecological
alternatives.
For civil society, food sovereignty, as a different paradigm,
is needed to ensure that the developing countries can
attain food security, rural employment and the goals of sustainable
development. For the developing countries, food
sovereignty encompasses the demand that the World Trade
Organization (WTO) put an end to its control over food and
agriculture. Food sovereignty basically recognizes that small
farmers and landless peasants will never be able to compete
in the entrepreneurial agricultural paradigm (Desmarais,
2002; Glipo, 2003; Rosset, 2006).
To the extent that food sovereignty incorporates fundamental
aspects of economic equity, agrarian reform, women’s
rights and the rights of small farmers, it has become
a broader platform for those seeking fundamental changes
in the national and world order (Glipo, 2003) and represents
the paradigm that is an alternative to market fundamentalism.
1.5.3 Economic context
It is generally accepted that economic growth can contribute
to fighting poverty (Adelman and Morris, 1973; Dollar
and Kraay, 2000). World Bank reports (2006a) indicate
that for every 1% of economic growth, poverty declines by
1.25%. Nonetheless, in Latin America and the Caribbean,
economic growth has not been accompanied by a significant
and lasting reduction in poverty and inequality (Fajnzylber,
1990; Korzeniewicz and Smith, 2000). At the same
time, poverty has a negative and very significant effect on
economic growth. On average, a 10% increase in poverty
reduces annual growth 1% (World Bank, 2006a).
As mentioned above, Latin America and the Caribbean
is the region with the highest levels of inequality in
the world (Ferranti et al., 2004). The wealthiest 10% of the
population receives 48% of total income, while the poorest
10% receives only 1.6%. In the industrialized countries,
the wealthiest 10% receives 29.1% of the income, while the
poorest 10% receives 2.5%.
A comparison among regions within countries reveals
stark differences in levels of prosperity. In 2000, the per
capita income of the poorest district in Brazil was only 10%
that of the wealthiest district; in the case of Mexico, per
capita income in Chiapas was only 18% of per capita income
in Mexico City. Regional differences account for more
than 20% of inequality in Paraguay and Peru and more than
10% in the Dominican Republic and the Bolivarian Republic
of Venezuela. In Bolivia, Honduras, Mexico, Paraguay
and Peru, the differences in the levels of poverty between
different regions is more than 40%. |