Search

When activists and academics think and implement the agroecological transition, attention shall be paid to re-thinking and re-defining the intellectual, distributive and historical premises behind the past, present and future food systems. Rather than being static and politically neutral, food systems are socio-ecological networks that are in continuous transformation and where interactions are defined by the activities of people and the planet as much as by the ideas that legitimize certain behaviours. In the specific case of the European conventional food systems – that includes both continental Europe and the United Kingdom - today’s picture is the outcome of a series of enclosures and appropriation of lives and nature underpinned by notions of patriarchy, colonialism and that food – like any other object – shall be considered as a commodity whose production and consumption are ruled by the encounter of demand and offer and that is only valued for its market price (exchange value). In this chapter, five research-activists joined together to discuss concrete examples that show that the agroecological transition could be strengthened by the adoption of a political understanding of commons and commoning as intersectional antidotes for a just agroecological transition that rejects the colonial, patriarchal, unjust and anti-ecological premises of the mainstream food systems. Through a combination of theory and practice, history and imagination, empowerment and de-commodification, the chapter brings to the forefront those dimensions of food that cannot be monetised and valued in market terms, showing that political, imaginative and organisational power of commons and commoning can bridge the urban-rural divide, and contribute to the convergence of various movements, including agroecological urbanism and food sovereignty

The objective of this chapter is to contribute to the development of a multipronged approach to food systems’ transformation in Europe, one that resists the capitalist model, recognises the colonial, patriarchal, and capitalist roots of feeding Europe, and promotes alternative forms of getting together, sharing, and co-producing with nature. Indeed, a redefinition of the contemporary European city must go hand in hand with the de-commodification and de-colonisation of its past and present. In our view, a historical, political, and ecological understanding of European cities as the beneficiaries of uneven development provides epistemological and methodological tools to bridge the gap between cities and the countryside. This understanding supports agroecological urbanism as a technical and political reaction to the food-disabling urban landscapes that have separated urban dwellers from the food they eat, from the nature that they exploit, and from the living condition of the people that make food possible everywhere in the world.

[No Abstract]

This book was motivated by the need to approach with a fresh look what we regard as perhaps the most embarrassing predicament of the Anthropocene/Capitalocene (Capra and Mattei, 2015, Altvater et al., 2016, Moore, 2017). We live in an era with roughly the same number (about one billion) of over-fed people and of people lacking access to nutritious food (which means that do not know in the morning if they will be able to feed themselves and their children during the day). Our era also stands out by the remarkable amount of food that is wasted in some parts of the world and by the unprecedented number of livestock that populates this planet (Patel and Moore, 2017). Moreover, in the current phase of neoliberal capitalism that dominates in the Anthropocene/Capitalocene, the ecological footprint is out of control; some rich people (the majority in the Global North and the elite in the Global South) can enjoy every day food shipped from thousands of miles away on gas gulping aircrafts and boats that pollute the environment beyond imagination. Such luxury, the result of the worldwide colonization of diets, would be impossible without a very significant environmental subsidy; if all the externalities had to be internalized, eating Nile Perch would be unaffordable to most people everywhere. The subsidy is ultimately paid by the poor in the South and, in general, will certainly be paid by future generations. Unless we deal with and avoid the hidden social and environmental costs that are so far unaccounted for in the hegemonic food system (TEEB, 2018)

Food, a life enabler and a cultural cornerstone, is a natural product with multiple meanings and different valuations for societies and individuals. Throughout history and geographies, food has shaped morals and norms, triggered enjoyment and social life, substantiated art and culture, justify commons-based systems and affected traditions and identity. More importantly, food has been closely related to power and the interaction between society and nature. From the industrial revolution to present days, food has been increasingly valued for its commodity dimension: food as a mono-dimensional commodity produced and distributed in a global market of mass consumption. In this research, the progressive commodification of food as a vital resource is presented as a social construction, informed by an academic theoretical background, which shapes specific food policy options and blocks or discard other policies grounded in different valuations of food. As such, the value of food cannot be fully expressed by application of a value-in-exchange approach, since this value derives less from the market price than from its multiple dimensions relevant to humans and therefore cannot be either quantified (E.g. essentialness for human survival) or sold (E.g. food as a right). In opposition to the dominant paradigm, an alternative valuation of “food as a commons” is discussed, which has been barely explored in academic and political circles. This is based on the innovative idea of the six dimensions of food that is introduced in the present work: food as an essential life enabler, a natural resource, a human right, a cultural determinant, a tradeable good and a public good, cannot be reduced to the mono-dimensional valuation of food as a commodity. Those dimensions seem to align better with the multiple values-in-use food enjoys across the world. In light of this, the objective of this thesis is to trace the genealogy of the meaning making and policy implications of the two conflicting narratives of “food as a commodity” and “food as a commons”. In order to achieve this result, it focuses on the “Food Narratives of Agents in Transition” using two theoretical frames (Discourse Analysis and Transition Theory) and adopting three methodological approaches, including the combination of quantitative and qualitative tools. The work is divided into three sections, that correspond to the three approaches undertaken (systematic, heuristic and governance), and eight chapters (two per section plus the introduction and the conclusions). In the first part, the work presents a genealogy of meanings of commons and food by using a systematic approach to schools of thought plus a research on academic literature where food is discussed either as a commons or as commodity. Notwithstanding the different interpretations, the economists’ framing as private good and commodity prevailed. This framing was rather ontological (“food is a commodity”) thus preventing other phenomenological meanings (“food as…”) to unfold and become politically relevant. The second part adopts a heuristic approach and contains two case studies that investigate the relevance that the two narratives had in influencing individual and relational agency in food systems in transition. That includes a case study with food-related professionals working in the food system at different levels and another one with members of the food buying groups in Belgium as innovative niches of transition that nurture shared transformational narratives through conviviality, networking and social learning. Part three introduces the central issue of governance and navigates the policy arena with the use of a case study on how the absolute dominance of the tradeable dimension of food in the political stance of some important players (the US and EU) obscures other non-economic dimensions such as the consideration of food as a human need or human right. In response to the monolithic approach of governments, this part also contains a prospective chapter where different governing arrangements based on the narrative of food as a commons are proposed, with specific policy measures suggested. Finally, the conclusion chapter is structured as a synthesis of those approaches, and formulates a normative theory of food as a commons, with particular attention to different policy and legal options that should inform and justify institutional arrangements radically different from the business-as-usual proposals to reform the industrial food system. As discussed through the thesis, the consideration of food as a commons rests upon its essentialness as human life enabler, the multiple-dimensions of food that are relevant to individuals and societies, and the multiplicity of governing arrangements that have been set up across the world, now and before, to produce and consume food outside market mechanisms. As a social construct based on the “instituting power of commoning”, food can be valued and governed as a commons. Once the narrative is shifted, the governing mechanisms and legal frameworks will gradually be molded to implement that vision. A regime based on food as a commons would construct an essentially democratic food system (food democracy) based on the proper valuation of the multiple dimensions of food, sustainable agricultural practices (agro-ecology) and emancipatory politics (food sovereignty). That regime would also support the consideration of open-source knowledge (E.g. cuisine recipes, traditional agricultural knowledge or public research), food-producing resources (E.g. seeds, fish stocks, land, forests or water) and services (E.g. transboundary food safety regulations, public nutrition) as commons. (AGRO - Sciences agronomiques et ingénierie biologique) -- UCL, 2017

International audience

Although the recently approved Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) explicitly mention access to water, health and education as universally guaranteed human rights, access to affordable and sufficient food is not given such recognition. The SDGs road map assumes that market mechanisms will suffice to secure nutritious and safe food for all. We question how and why the right to food has disappeared from such an international agreement and we will provide insights on the likely causes of this and the options to make good on such a regrettable omission. Analysis of political stances of relevant western stakeholders, such as the United States (US) and the European Union (EU), is also included.

Chapitre de l’ouvrage collectif Penser une démocratie alimentaire Volume II – Proposition Lascaux entre ressources naturelles et besoins fondamentaux, F. Collart Dutilleul et T. Bréger (dir), Inida, San José, 2014, pp. 177-206.; International audience; Food as a purely private good prevents millions to get such a basic resource, since the purchasing power determines access and the price of food does not reflect its multiple dimensions and the value to society. With the dominant no money-no food rationality, hunger still prevails in a world of abundance. Hunger is needlessly killing millions of our fellow humans, including 3.1 million young children every year, condemning many others to life-long exposure to illness and social exclusion. This paper argues this narrative has to be re-conceived and a binding Food Treaty, based on a commons approach to food, will create a more appropriate framework to work together towards a fairer and more sustainable world. The eradication of hunger no later than 2025 would be the main objective within a broader framework whereby food and nutrition security shall be understood as a Global Public Good. Within the treaty framework, those governments that are genuinely determined to end hunger (a coalition of the willing) could commit themselves to mutually-agreed binding goals, strategies and predictable funding. The paper presents the rationale to substantiate the treaty, as well as objectives, provisions and a possible route map for the process.

This comprehensive Handbook serves as a unique synthesis and resource for understanding how analytical frameworks developed within the literature assist in understanding the nature and management of commons resources. Such frameworks include those related to Institutional Analysis and Development, Social-Ecological Systems, and Polycentricity, among others. The book aggregates and analyses these frameworks to lay a foundation for exploring how they apply according to scholars across a wide range of disciplines. It includes an exploration of the unique problems arising in different disciplines of commons study, including natural resources (forests, oceans, water, energy, ecosystems, etc), economics, law, governance, the humanities, and intellectual property. It shows how the analytical frameworks discussed early in the book facilitate interdisciplinarity within commons scholarship. This interdisciplinary approach within the context of analytical frameworks helps facilitate a more complete understanding of the similarities and differences faced by commons resource users and managers, the usefulness of the commons lens as an analytical tool for studying resource management problems, and the best mechanisms by which to formulate policies aimed at addressing such problems.

In dealing with land as a commons for a commons-based food system, this chapter focuses on contemporary forms of mobilization that applies the paradigm of the commons to land and soil as key components in the creation of an ecological and democratic food system. We start constructing a framework which acknowledges this diverse field of action, from the regimeoriented (or ‘dominant’), through the reformist, to the most radical of proponents. Secondly, we engage with some examples that we know best to present the reality on the ground in the United Kingdom and in Italy. Those examples combine the struggles for land as a commons with some of the most important struggles for democratic, just and ecological food systems. As we discuss, civil-society-led processes may thus provide important connective tissue between the radical outliers of food commoning and broad-based support for food systems which nourish the collective, rather than enriching the few. The pattern of commoning is long, but it has to begin from the very beginning: with land and soil.

This comprehensive Handbook serves as a unique synthesis and resource for understanding how analytical frameworks developed within the literature assist in understanding the nature and management of commons resources. Such frameworks include those related to Institutional Analysis and Development, Social-Ecological Systems, and Polycentricity, among others. The book aggregates and analyses these frameworks to lay a foundation for exploring how they apply according to scholars across a wide range of disciplines. It includes an exploration of the unique problems arising in different disciplines of commons study, including natural resources (forests, oceans, water, energy, ecosystems, etc), economics, law, governance, the humanities, and intellectual property. It shows how the analytical frameworks discussed early in the book facilitate interdisciplinarity within commons scholarship. This interdisciplinary approach within the context of analytical frameworks helps facilitate a more complete understanding of the similarities and differences faced by commons resource users and managers, the usefulness of the commons lens as an analytical tool for studying resource management problems, and the best mechanisms by which to formulate policies aimed at addressing such problems.