0

Challenges of Neoliberal Corporate Food Regime:

Food Sovereignty Alternative

Lund University

SIMP35 – Theories and Issues in Development

Final Course Paper- Autumn 2014

By Serdar YARDAK

1

Table of Contents

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 2

The Concept of Food Regime: First and Second Food Regimes ............................................................... 3

Neoliberal Corporate Food Regime and Its Shortcomings....................................................................... 4

Alternative Agri-Food Movements: Food Sovereignty ............................................................................ 8

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................ 11

List of References.................................................................................................................................. 13

2

Introduction

Almost half of the world’s total population, about 3.5 billion people, lives in the rural areas, and 3

billion of these live in less developed regions of the world (UN DESA, 2012). Agriculture is means

of livelihood for 40% of the world (IAASTD, 2009, p. 8). Therefore, agricultural development has

a crucial role in shaping the overall global development trend of the world. This means that food

production finds its place in the intersection point of economic, social and environmental

dimensions of agricultural development. For this reason, the answers that we give to the question

of what kind of agriculture/food system should be used to ‘feed the world’ are directly related to

what the existing agricultural development looks like.

When it comes to how this question should be answered, different development theories explain

and propose various development models. In this paper I will use the concept of neoliberal

corporate food regime presented by Friedmann and McMichael (1989). McMichael defines the

concept of food regimes as “stable periods of capital accumulation associated with particular

configurations of geopolitical power, conditioned by forms of agricultural production and

consumption relations within and across national spaces” (McMichael, 2009, p. 139). With this

definition in mind, the main aim of this paper is to critically analyse the current neoliberal

corporate food regime from the perspective of alternative agri-food movements particularly

focusing on the concept of food sovereignty (Scrinis, 2007; Holt Giménez and Shattuck, 2011). In

that sense, the research questions which this paper attempts to answer are: (1) What are the

shortcomings of the current neoliberal corporate food regime in addressing existing food crisis?

(2) What is the significance of food sovereignty movement as an alternative to neoliberal corporate

food regime? (3) How can the agroecologically based food production contribute to the solution

of existing food crises?

Considering these questions, the main claim of this paper is that the existing neoliberal corporate

food regime falls short of addressing current global challenges for feeding the world. Even though

the most advanced technological developments of human history coincides with the current food

regime, there are still important challenges for overcoming current and future food crises in the

world. The current report by the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and

Technology for Development (IAASTD) shows decreasing hunger and improving health,

decreasing poverty and improving rural livelihoods, increasing environmental sustainability, and

3

increasing social equity as the main global challenges (IAASTD, 2009, pp. 16-19). Moreover,

challenges created by the current regime itself, such as unsustainable agricultural techniques, food

dumping policies, and monopolies over agrochemicals and seeds bring new dimensions worsening

the existing challenges. In this context, the second argument of this paper is that the basic premises

advocated by these alternative agri-food movements, such as strengthening local agricultural

activities and applying agroecologically based food production techniques, suggest important

solutions to these challenges.

This paper consists of two main sections. In the first section, after discussing the concept of the

food regime and two preceding regimes, I will critically analyse the challenges created by the

neoliberal corporate food regime. In the second section I will elaborate on the alternative ways of

agricultural development advocated by agri-food movements mainly focusing on the food

sovereignty movement. In the conclusion I will summarise the main arguments and findings of the

paper.

The Concept of Food Regime: First and Second Food Regimes

The concept of food regime is a very convenient tool with which to understand and to critically

analyse the historical trajectory of the “global food system” (McMichael, 2009, p. 140). It is critical

tool because it questions the deterministic depictions of “agricultural modernisation”, and in doing

so, it facilitates understanding structural dynamics behind the role of agriculture and food in

gradual accumulation of capital (McMichael, 2009, p. 140).

Taking these features of the food regime concept into account, McMichael (2009) defines three

consecutive food regimes. The first food regime, between 1870 and the 1930s, was based on the

import of unprocessed agricultural products and livestock from the settler colonies to Europe

(McMichael, 2009, p. 141). The main consequences of the first regime were the emergence of

industrial classes in Europe and the initial international division of labour depending on forced

monoculture1 in occupied colonies (McMichael, 2009, p. 141).

The second food regime, between the 1950s and 1970s, was characterized with transfer of

agricultural surpluses of the North to the South, mainly consisting of US food. The main aims of

1 It is one type of industrial agriculture methods based on cultivation of a single crop by usually using extensive agricultural lands and variety of agrochemical inputs, such as fertilizers and pesticides.

4

this period were to strategically industrialise the Third World, to keep the South away from the

‘danger of communism’, and to assure the allegiance of these states to imperial markets

(McMichael, 2009, p.141). The dominant development path of this era was the modernization of

agricultural techniques in postcolonial states by promoting industrial farming, internalizing

techniques of Green Revolution, and popularizing reform for lands in order to ease insurrection of

peasants and to integrate countries into market system (McMichael, 2009, p.141) The second

regime also witnessed how the national agricultural productions were linked to “global supply

chains” by featuring the post-colonial states with a specific type of mono-culture agricultural

production, such as farming rice, soy bean, wheat, and maize (McMichael, 2009, p. 141). In the

next section I will elaborate on the current food regime and its shortcomings.

Neoliberal Corporate Food Regime and Its Shortcomings

The neoliberal corporate food regime comprises the period 1980s onwards. The political and

economic background of this period was mainly shaped by the unfolding of the neoliberal capitalist

era because of the effects of global economic recession during the 1970s and 1980s. (Holt Giménez

and Shattuck, 2011, p. 111). The most important tools of this neoliberal expansion were the

Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs) that are based on trade liberalization policies. These tools

were primarily used for reducing tariffs and derogating boards of national markets by removing

“price guarantees” and shattering “national agricultural research and extension systems in the

Global South” (Holt Giménez and Shattuck, 2011, p. 111).

The trade liberalization policies of the current regimes constituted the letter and spirit of treaties

of international organizations, such as World Trade Organisation (WTO), International Monetary

Fund (IMF) and the World Bank (WB) (Holt Giménez and Shattuck, 2011, p. 111). Together with

these international organizations, “major agrifood monopolies (e.g. Cargill, Monsanto, ADM,

Tyson, Carrefour, Tesco, Wal-Mart), agricultural policies of the G-8 (US Farm Bill, EU’s

Common Agricultural Policy), and big philanthropy capital (e.g. the Bill and Melinda Gates

Foundation)” comprise the main actors and institutions of the current food regime (Holt Giménez

and Shattuck, 2011, p. 119).

This market oriented structure of the neoliberal corporate food regime, unfortunately, does not

benefit the majority of the world comprising mainly rural population. One of the most striking

example of this argument is observed during the global food crisis of 2008, causing myriad of

5

hungers in the Global South which coincide very profitable fiscal year for the agricultural

monopolies of the world. As the IMF indicators show, the cost of one tonne of wheat raised from

$167 to $481 between 2006 and 2008 (IMF Primary Commodity Prices, 2008 cited in ODI, 2008,

p. 1). Millions of people face the danger of undernourishment as a result of fluctuations in prices

of staple foods within a very short term periods. For instance, only in the Asia Pacific region 642

million people exposed to chronic hunger by 2008 and according to FAO projections due to

fragility of global economic structure this number will grow by 11% in the following years (FAO,

2009). However, it is contradiction of the current neoliberal corporate food regime that while the

world’s global hunger statistics were indicating the extreme levels in 2008, we also witnessed the

highest amount of grain harvest (2287 million metric tons) in the same year (Holt Giménez and

Shattuck, 2011, p. 112). What these statistics infer is very clear: the problem of food crisis is not

only limited with the technical dimension. The genuine analysis requires the closer look to the

structural dynamics of the current food regime. Therefore, critically analysing challenges created

by the neoliberal corporate food regime, the rest of the section will focus on the shortcomings of

the current system in alleviating the food crisis.

One of the main challenges advanced by the current regime is that the global division of labour

became more apparent, as the new regions, such as Brazil and China, have been incorporated “into

animal protein chains” supporting transnational supermarket monopolies (McMichael, 2009, p.

142). However, this division has many times been operationalized at the expense of local

agricultural producers. The monoculture farming system advanced by the corporate food regime

created multiple disadvantages. The major crops of the monoculture farming, corn, wheat, rice,

and soybeans, are either “produced for export markets” or “to produce ethanol or biodiesel to feed

cars instead of human beings” (Rosset, 2009, p. 114). For instance, the soybean farming of only

three countries, United States, Brazil, and Argentina, comprises more than 80% of the world’s

total soy production (Baker, 2004, p. 46).These monoculture monopolies brought negative social,

economic, and environmental consequences for peasants and other rural producers.

Focusing on economic dimension, most of these monoculture industrial farming systems are

supported by World Bank, either by giving financial support the agrarian reforms, such as land

tenure and land market facilitation or by providing loans and technical assitance (Rosset, 2009, p.

117) However, those people benefiting from the loans of the World Bank, such as in Brazil and

6

Guatemala, now suffer from burden of debts rather than enjoying the profits of ‘reforms’ (Rosset,

2009, p. 117). In terms of social aspects, these policies create commodification of rural people’s

collective rights and make money “ the key access to land” (Rosset, 2009, p. 117) In Thailand

and Mexico, for instance, the programs of land titling degredated traditional way of collective land

rights and caused the internal conflict between the members of local communities, who used to

accept “peaceful coexistence” as norm (Rosset, 2009, p. 117).

This massive amount of production, intensfied in the particular countries, brings negative

environmental consequences as well. Because of this unsustainable and intensive industrial

agricultural methods, world annualy loses its around 10 million hectars of agricultural land (IFAD,

2008, p. 7). Degredations of lands accelerates the loss of biodiversity, as the world’s three fourth

of the agricultural crop genetic base has been destroyed since 1960s (IAASTD, 2009, p. 16).

Besides the loss of biodiversity, man-made industrial farming systems cause more than half of the

global emissions of CH4 and N20 that negatively affect global climate change trend of the world

(IAASTD, 2009, p. 16). Today, in terms of exploitation of freshwater resources, the biggest share

belongs to agricultural activities. If the current level and system of agricultural production does

not change, especially because of the increase in biomas energy, the water consumption is expected

to rise by 70-90% (IAASTD, 2009, p.17).

Lack of democratic participation is another challenge created by the current regime. The idea of

direct democratic participation is recently identified with the concept of “food democracy” in rura l

development literature (Hassanein, 2003; Patel, 2009; Renting, et al., 2012). As Hassanein states,

food democracy requires “that all members of an agro-food system have equal and effective

opportunities for participation in shaping that system, as well as knowledge about the relevant

alternative ways of designing and operating the system” (Hassanein, 2003, p. 83). However,

existing agricultural system of the world is far from providing necessary conditions for “equal and

effective opportunities for participation” as the “industry dominated by a small number of

transnational pharmaceutical/chemical corporations” (Howard, 2009, p. 1266).

One of the prominet examples of lack of democratic participation is the existence of agricultural

monopolies. Today, it is estimated that 40% of the seed market in the world is dominated by the

four companies and 59% of the global pesticide market is controlled by only four firms (Howard,

2009, pp. 1270). Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta, Bayer, Dow, Basf are the biggest pharmaceutical

7

and chemical corporations, holding most of the intellectual property rights of agricultural sector in

their hands (Howard, 2009, pp. 1274-1279). What is more, the 89% of the global agrochemical

markets is controlled by 10 companies (ETC, 2008, p. 15). These monopolies and cartels are not

only major impediments to democratic participation but also in conflict with sustaniable

agricultural techiques that are “barriers to large-scale capital accumulation, such as saving and

replanting seed” (ETC, 2008, p. 15).

Yet another systematic challenge, severely undermining food democracy, is the food dumping

policy. What’s worse is that these dumping policies are implemeted quite hypocritically. Food aids

have many times been used as means of dumping over production of commodities to recipient

country and supporting export of donory country (Oxfam, 2005). For instance between 1997/8 and

2004/5 the almost 20% of US rice exports were part of food aid programs and 90% of the global

food aid is supplied as commodity instead of cash (Oxfam, 2005, p. 2). Because of these food

dumping practices not competitiveness of local farmers in domestic market is diminished and but

also aid dependency and poverty rates are increased.

Among all other challenges created or advanced by the current neoliberal food regime, the last,

but not the least one that I will mention here is the dominance of supermarket chains. Hegemony

of grand scale transnational supermarket chains that are supported by refrigerated cool-chains and

transnational brand-name products damages local procuders, farmers, and fishers (Scrinis, 2007,

p. 118). Today, world’s top 10 food and bevrage chains generate 35% of packed food sold by top

100 global retailers (ETC, 2008, p. 22). Moreover, world’s top 10 food chains constitute 40% of

groceries sold by top 100 global retailers (ETC, 2008, p. 23). When we look at the country specific

statistics, for instance, three fourths of the whole grocery products in Austrialia is controlled by

only two grand chains: Woolworths and Coles (ETC, 2008, p. 23). In South Africa, four

supermarket chains, Shoprite Checkers, Pick n Pay, Spar, and Woolworths, monopolize the 97%

of the all food retailing market (GAIN, 2012, pp. 10-12). These chains severely damages “smaller,

independent and local food retailers and local shopping strips” (Scrinis, 2007, p. 120). Besides,

these global chains alianetes consumers from the “the location and conditions of production” that

limits people’s ability and right to know what they consume and how these products will affect

their eating habits and health condition (Scrinis, 2007, p. 122).

8

In this section, I attempted to shed light on the characteristics and shortcomings of the neoliberal

corporate food regime by analyzing the main social, economic as well as environmental challenges

created by the actors of the regime. As the overall picture drawn above shows, the priority of the

current regime is not to feed the world. Even if the main aim of the current agriculture system is

to solve the food crises and to create sustainable future, unless the means and methods of this goal

is changed, it will not be possible to mention about positive future projection. Because structural

dynamics of the system, such as policies of the World Bank or practices of the global monopolies,

benefit rather the wealthiest of the world comprising the few in number. In the following section,

I will try to discuss and analyse the basic premises advocated by the food sovereignty movement

against these shortcomings of the current system. I will mainly focus on the benefits of applying

agroecologically based production techniques and strengthening local agricultural activities.

Alternative Agri-Food Movements: Food Sovereignty

Before turning attention to the food sovereignty movement, I will briefly introduce the alternative

agri-food movements. Food movements have been differently classified in development literature.

Scrinis (2007), for instance, categorizes two different alternative agri-food movements:

oppositional and constructive. The main aim of the oppositional movements is to challenge

“existing institutions, structures and practices in an attempt to reform—or completely transform—

aspects of the dominant agri-food system” (Scrinis, 2007, p.123). Constructive movements, on the

other hand, are “primarily concerned with directly creating and supporting alternative practices,

structures and institutions” (Scrinis, 2007, p.124).

Among these two classifications, the concept of food sovereignty finds its place in the oppositional

category as the movement demands structural changes against the dominant agri-food system. The

term food sovereignty was initially brought into international development agenda by La Via

Campensina that is international peasant movement compromising 164 local and national

organizations in 73 countries and representing 200 million farmers (Via Campesina, 2011). Via

Campensina defines food sovereignty as “the right of peoples to define their own food and

agriculture; to protect and regulate domestic agricultural production and trade in order to achieve

sustainable development objectives; to determine the extent to which they want to be self-reliant;

to restrict the dumping of products in their markets; and to provide local fisheries-based

communities the priority in managing the use of and the rights to aquatic resources” (Via

9

Campesina, 2003). The broad definition of food sovereignty forms a basis for various a reactionary

movements against the predominance of neoliberal economic order that is established and

advanced by major economic and political powers as well as international institutions that are

WTO, IMF, and WB (Via Campesina, 2003). Therefore, one of the main claims of these

movements is that the existing system promotes export oriented production, fuels global hunger,

and makes local peasants, gatherers, farmers, fishers and others in agricultural sector deprived of

means of production (Via Campesina, 2003).

After briefly defining the concept of food sovereignty, now I will focus on the alternative way of

agricultural development promoted by the food sovereignty movement. Against all of these

shortcomings of the current food regime, food sovereignty movement advocates the necessity (1)

to abandon agrochemical farming and to develop agroecologically based production (2) depending

on indigenous and local cultivation. (War on Want, 2011, p. 27). Agroecologically based

production and local cultivation are interrelated. Because, as it is mentioned in the previous

section, today majority of the unsustainable industrial farming techniques are applied on large

agricultural lands where usually single crop is cultivated with a lot of agrochemical input.

I will firstly discuss the role of agroecologically based production. Today, urgency of applying

eco-friendly farming techniques is repeatedly emphasized in important international scientific

research reports (IAASTD, 2009; De Schutter, 2010). As Altieri, et al. (2012, p. 2) draws attention

to these two comprehensive international research reports, there is a urgent need “for a

fundamental shift towards agroecology as a way to boost food production and improve the

situation of the poorest” to be able to “to feed nine billion people in 2050”. Because, environmental

damages created by the unsustainable farming techniques are related to the social and economic

conditions of the local farmers who cannot resist the competitiveness of the system. Those farmers,

who are impoverished and alienated from their indigenous ways of cultivation by the economic

pressure of the extensive market economy conditions, usually find solution in further damaging

environment by, for instance, deforesting for new lands that creates “vicious cycle” (IAASTD,

2009, p. 5).

Taking these social and economic consequences of damaging environment, agroecology suggest

one of the strongest ways of reaching “equitable and sustainable development” (Altieri, et al.,

2012, p. 2). In that sense, it procures “the scientific, methodological, and technological” foundation

10

for the global alternative agricultural movements (Altieri, et al., 2012, p. 2). This foundation is

based on production that preserves biodiversity, decrease vulnerability, incresase energy

sustainabiliy, ensures social equality, and as a result supports food sovereignty (Altieri, et al., 2012,

p. 2). Therefore, the main goal of the advocates of agroecologically based production is to

reconstruct current industrial farming systems. The components of this reconstruction process are

to abondon production of “agroexport crops and biofuels” based on non-renewable energy

resources and to return to small-scale farming supported by “on local innovation, resources, and

solar energy” (Altieri, et al., 2012, p. 2).

Today we can see benefits of agroecologically based production in different countries. For

instance, with the support of Campesino a Campesino movemen in Cuba Agroecology is used as

method of agricultural production in 46-72% of total peasant cultivation that represents more than

70% of the food produced in the country (Varela Pérez, 2011 cited in Altieri, et al., 2012, p. 7).

Contrary to general perceptions about the productivity of agroecological production, this method

raises production 50-100% in average (Altieri, et al., 2012, p. 6). For example, In Brazil today

around 100,000 family, who used agroeceological methods, increased black bean and corn

production 100-300% (McKay, 2012, p.2). According to more extensive research made by Pretty

at al. (2006, p. 1114) comparasion of 286 agroecologically based production projects applied in

57 poor countries show that use of this method increases the crop yield 79% in average.

Considering the projection that the world population will be around 9 billion by 2050, these

statistics shows that widespread use of agroecologically based production is vital for preventing

future food crises. Moreover, in terms of increasing productivity this method is much more

economic and sustainable than using agrochemical inputs. Consequently agroecology benefits not

only envrionment but also peasants, small-scale farms, and local producers in general.

Secondly, I will stress the vital role of indigenous and local cultivation. First of all, as it is

emphasized above, while the continuity of industrial farming is based on the constant exploitation

and degradation of natural resources, small-scale farming systems depend on the preservation of

ecosystem and diversification of species. Besides, productivity and nourishment levels of the crops

in indigenous and local cultivation usually depend on biological diversity of the land rather than

the amount and ‘quality’ of the agrochemical inputs. For instance, in the United States while the

small-scale farms leave 17% of the total cultivated soil for the woodlands, monoculture types of

11

large-scale farms tolerate only 5% (Rosset, 2009, p. 126). Therefore, small-scale farming systems

are much more resilient to land degradations, such as soil erosions and landslips (Rosset, 2009, p.

126).

In addition to environmental benefits of the small scale farming, there are economic and social

benefits as well. Firstly, small scale farming creates more equal economic participation

opportunities for rural people that triggers sense of responsibility and control towards the land

which usually lack in the industrial type of farming (Rosset, 1999, p. 3). Besides, transfer

indigenous values and farming skills to the following generations contributes sustainability of the

social capital that benefits all members of families in rural areas (Rosset, 1999, p. 3). Furthermore,

in contrast to mechanism of supermarket chains, the local farming systems preserve the connection

of people to the food by creating markets for farmers (Rosset, 1999, p. 3). These local farmer

markets decrease number of intermediaries, therefore they create economic opportunities for both

sellers and buyers.

However, in order to achive the transition to agroecolgically based production and to stregnthen

indigenous and local cultivation the necessary conditions have to be provided. That is the reason

why the message of the food sovereignty movement is not limited with how the food should be

produced. Who should control the means of production, such as lands and fisheries, is also very

crucial to the food sovereignty movement. That is why peasants should have rights to “control

over their land” and to decide “what they will grow and how they will grow it” (War on Want,

2011, p.27). Consequently, one of the most important demand of food sovereignty movement is

the alteration of macroeconomic policies in a way that millions of farmers will have the freedom

to establish sustainable future of the world.

Conclusion

In this paper, I discussed the shortcomings of the neoliberal corporate food regime in addressing

the existing global food crisis and the main responses of the alternative agri-food movements to

the structural challenges created by the current regime, particularly focusing on the messages of

the food sovereignty movement. Benefiting from the concept of food regime, I critically discussed

the role and practices of the key actors of the current regime. In that sense, the first finding of the

paper is that the practices of market oriented structure of neoliberal corporate food regime, some

of which are the global division of labour based on monoculture industrial farming, lack of

12

democratic participation triggered by agrochemical and seed monopolies, food dumping policies

and finally dominance of the supermarket chains, do not benefit majority of the world. These

practices rather bring negative economic, social and environmental consequences that mostly

affects poorest people living in the rural areas of the world. Using the alternative agri-food

movement classification, I tried to discuss the positioning of these movements towards the current

food regime. In this connection, the second finding of the paper is that the food sovereignty

movement, suggesting to apply agroecologically based food production and to strengthen local

farming practices, may provide important sustainable agri-development alternative to the current

food regime.

Word Count: 4027

13

List of References

Altieri, M. A., Funes-Monzote, F. R. and Petersen, P., 2012. Agroecologically efficient

agricultural systems for smallholder farmers: contributions to food sovereignty. Agronomy for

Sustainable Development, [e-journal] 32(1), pp. 1-13. Available through Lund University

Library website < https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00930542/document> [Accessed 27

October 2014].

Baker, M. M., 2004. Soy Monoculture in the Americas: Globalization Ruins Food Economy.

Executive Intelligence Review, [e-journal] 31(45), pp. 46-48. Available at:

<http://276.hostserv.eu/a/soyconomics.pdf> [Accessed 27 October 2014].

De Schutter, O., (2010). Report submitted by the Special Rapporteur on the right to food. UN

General Assembly. [pdf] Human Rights Council Sixteenth Session, Agenda item 3

A/HRC/16/49. Available at: < http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/food/docs/A-HRC-16-

49.pdf> [Accessed 27 October 2014].

ETC (Action Group on Erosion, Technology, and Concentration), 2008. Who Owns Nature?

Corporate Power and the Final Frontier in the Commodification of Life. [pdf] Available at:

<http://www.etcgroup.org/files/publication/707/01/etc_won_report_final_color.pdf> [Accessed

26 October 2014].

FAO, 2009. 1.02 billion people hungry. [Online] Available at:

<http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/20568/icode/> [Accessed 28 October 2014].

Friedmann, H. and McMichael, P., 1989. Agriculture and the state system: the rise and fall of

national agricultures, 1870 to the present. Sociologia Ruralis, [e-journal] 29(2), pp. 93-117.

Available through Lund University Library website

<http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.ludwig.lub.lu.se/doi/10.1111/j.1467-

9523.1989.tb00360.x/abstract > [Accessed 27 October 2014].

GAIN (Global Agricultural Information Network), 2012. Republic of South Africa. Retail food

sector. Retail sector grows despite downturn. [pdf] Washington DC: USDA. Available at:

<https://s3.amazonaws.com/ProductionContentBucket/pdf/20121024164414806.pdf> [Accessed

27 October 2014].

Hassanein, N., 2003. Practicing food democracy: a pragmatic politics of transformation. Journal

of Rural Studies, [e-journal] 19(1), pp. 77-86. Available at:

<http://faculty.washington.edu/abassok/move/udp300/JRS_Hassanein_Food_Democracy.pdf>

[Accessed 27 October 2014].

Holt Giménez, E. and Shattuck, A., 2011. Food Crises, food regimes, and food movements:

rumblings of reform or tides of transformation?. The Journal of Peasant Studies, [e-journal]

38(1), pp. 109-144. Available through Lund University Library website <

http://ejournals.ebsco.com/Direct.asp?AccessToken=2931M9S8S9SLEYHYX23EZX2SSHS38

MSAM&Show=Object> [Accessed 27 October 2014].

Howard, P. H., 2009. Visualizing Consolidation in the Global Seed Industry: 1996–2008.

Sustainability, [e-journal] 1(4), pp. 1266-1287. Available at: < http://www.mdpi.com/2071-

1050/1/4/1266/pdf > [Accessed 27 October 2014].

14

IAASTD, 2009. Agriculture at a Crossroads. [pdf] Washington DC: Island Press, The Center for

Resource Economics. Available at:

<http://www.unep.org/dewa/agassessment/reports/IAASTD/EN/Agriculture%20at%20a%20Cro

ssroads_Global%20Report%20(English).pdf> [Accessed 27 October 2014].

IFAD, 2008. Improving access to land and tenure security. [e-book] Rome: Palombi e Lanci.

Availablet at: <http://www.ifad.org/pub/policy/land/e.pdf> [Accessed 27 October 2014].

Mckay B., 2012. A Socially Inclusive Pathway to Food Security: The Agroecological

Alternative’, [pdf] research brief no 23, International Policy Centre for Inclusive Growth.

Available at: <http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/agphome/scpi/Agroecology/Agroecology-

IPCPolicyResearchBrief23.pdf> [Accessed 29 October 2014].

McMichael, P., 2009. A food regime genealogy. The Journal of Peasant Studies, [e-journal]

36(1), pp. 139-169. Available through Lund University Library website

<http://ejournals.ebsco.com/Direct.asp?AccessToken=3XPMSX1810-

LLQX1LTTSLX1OTQNL8S1ZS&Show=Object> [Accessed 27 October 2014].

ODI (Overseas Development Institute), 2008. Rising Food Prices: A global crisis. [pdf] ODI

Briefing Paper, Volume 37. Available at: < http://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-

assets/publications-opinion-files/1630.pdf> [Accessed 28 October 2014].

Oxfam, 2005. Food Aid or hidden dumping? Separating wheat from chaff. [pdf] Oxfam Briefing

Paper, Volume 71, pp. 1-35. Available at:

<http://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/bp71_food_aid.pdf> [Accessed 27 October

2014].

Patel, R., 2009. What does food sovereignty look like?. The Journal of Peasant Studies, [e-

journal] 36(3), pp. 663-706. Available through Lund University Library website

<http://ejournals.ebsco.com/Direct.asp?AccessToken=6LVXKL989F9OFMIL2ZNIKOLZJVZN

8K92K&Show=Object> [Accessed 27 October 2014]. 1

Pretty J.N., Noble A.D., Bossio D., Dixon J., Hine R.E., Penning De Vries F.W.T. and Morison

J.I.L., 2006. Resource conserving agriculture increases yields in developing countries.

Environmental Science and Technology [e-journal] 40 (4), p. 1114 -1119. Available through

Lund University Library website < http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/es051670d> [Accessed

30 October 2014].

Renting, H., Schermer, M. and Rossi, A., 2012. Building Food Democracy: Exploring Civic

Food Networks and Newly Emerging Forms of Food Citizenship. International Journal of

Sociology of Agriculture & Food, [e-journal] 19(3), pp. 289-307. Available through Lund

University Library website

<http://eds.a.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=10&sid=bcf4b3ec-a6b4-4451-b472-

4468feedbc45%40sessionmgr4002&hid=4110> [Accessed 27 October 2014].

Rosset, P. M. (1999). The multiple functions and benefits of small farm agriculture. Policy Brief

Number Four. [pdf] Oakland, CA: Food First: The Institute for Food Development and Policy.

Available at: <http://foodfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/PB4-The-Multiple-Functions-

and-Benefits-of-Small-Farm-Agriculture_Rosset.pdf> [Accessed 30 October 2014].

15

Rosset, P., 2009. Fixing our Global Food System. Monthly Review: An Independent Socialist

Magazine, [e-journal] 61(3), pp. 114-128. Available through Lund University Library website

<http://eds.a.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=41f06d30-6d6a-4ea2-a396-

99d316637b0b%40sessionmgr4005&vid=5&hid=4103> [Accessed 28 October 2014].

Scrinis, G., 2007. From Techno-corporate Food to Alternative Agri-food Movements. Local-

Global: Identity, Security, Community, [e-journal] Volume 4, pp. 112-140. Available at:

http://gyorgyscrinis.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/GS-Techno-Corporate-Food-Local-

Global.pdf [Accessed 27 October 2014].

Via Campesina, 2003. Main Issues: Food Sovereignty and Trade. [Online] Available at:

http://viacampesina.org/en/index.php/main-issues-mainmenu-27/food-sovereignty-and-trade-

mainmenu-38/396-peoples-food-sovereignty-wto-out-of-agriculture [Accessed 18 October

2014].

Via Campesina, 2011. Organisation: What is La Via Campensina. [Online] Available at:

http://viacampesina.org/en/index.php/organisation-mainmenu-44/what-is-la-via-campesina-

mainmenu-45 [Accessed 18 October 2014].

War on Want, 2011. Food Sovereignty: Reclaiming the global food system. [pdf] Available at:

<http://www.waronwant.org/attachments/Food%20sovereignty%20report.pdf> [Accessed 26

October 2014]

UN DESA (United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division),

2012. World Urbanization Prospects: The 2011 Revision, CD-ROM edition. [Online] Available

at: <http://esa.un.org/unup/CD-ROM/Urban-Rural-Population.htm> [Accessed 27 October

2014].