Agric Hum Values (2012) 29:259–273
DOI 10.1007/s10460-012-9355-0
Food sovereignty or the human right to adequate food: which
concept serves better as international development policy
for global hunger and poverty reduction?
Tina D. Beuchelt • Detlef Virchow
Accepted: 2 January 2012 / Published online: 22 January 2012
Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012
Abstract The emerging concept of food sovereignty
refers to the right of communities, peoples, and states to
independently determine their own food and agricultural
policies. It raises the question of which type of food production, agriculture and rural development should be pursued to guarantee food security for the world population.
Social movements and non-governmental organizations
have readily integrated the concept into their terminology.
The concept is also beginning to find its way into the
debates and policies of UN organizations and national
governments in both developing and industrialized countries. Beyond its relation to civil society movements little
academic attention has been paid to the concept of food
sovereignty and its appropriateness for international
development policies aimed at reducing hunger and poverty, especially in comparison to the human right to adequate food (RtAF). We analyze, on the basis of an
extensive literature review, the concept of food sovereignty
with regard to its ability to contribute to hunger and poverty reduction worldwide as well as the challenges attached
to this concept. Then, we compare the concept of food
sovereignty with the RtAF and discuss the appropriateness
of both concepts for national public sector policy makers
and international development policies. We conclude that
the impact on global food security is likely to be much
greater if the RtAF approach predominated public policies.
T. D. Beuchelt (&)
International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center
(CIMMYT), Km. 45, Carretera México-Veracruz, El Batán,
CP 56130 Texcoco, Edo. de México, Mexico
e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]
D. Virchow
Food Security Center, University of Hohenheim, 70593
Stuttgart, Germany
While the concept of food sovereignty may be appropriate
for civil society movements, we recommend that the RtAF
should obtain highest priority in national and international
agricultural, trade and development policies.
Keywords Food sovereignty Hunger reduction International development policies Right to adequate food Smallholder agriculture
Introduction
The concept of food sovereignty refers to the right of
communities, peoples and states to independently determine their own food and agricultural policies. Through
strengthening smallholder agriculture, the concept is seen
by its proponents as an essential factor contributing to
hunger and poverty reduction world-wide. The increasing
popularity of the concept of food sovereignty is indeed
beginning to find its way into the debates and policies of
UN organizations and national governments in both
developing and industrialized countries (Desmarais 2008).
The first governments have already incorporated food
sovereignty into their policies and even into legislation. It
is therefore necessary to investigate the appropriateness of
the concept of food sovereignty for international public
development policies aimed at contributing to hunger and
poverty reduction. So far, this has not been done. Research
on food sovereignty is still scarce and focuses mainly on
discussing the concept of food sovereignty and its benefits
as such, how it might be implemented and its role for civil
society movements, including peasant movements
(McMichael 2008; Menezes 2001; Pimbert 2008; Rosset
2006; Rosset 2008; Windfuhr and Jonsén 2005). With the
exception of Boyer (2010) and Haugen (2009), the concept
123
260
of food sovereignty has not yet been specifically compared
to other concepts targeting food security, poverty reduction
and (rural) development.
Parallel to the development of the concept of food
sovereignty, the human right to adequate food became
more predominant in various UN organizations in the last
three decades (De Schutter 2010), yet it was already part of
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948.1 It
received a boost at the World Food Summit in 1996 when
civil society movements started to pressure for more progress regarding the eradication of hunger. This also led to
the elaboration and subsequent adoption of General Comment No. 12 on the right to adequate food by the UN
Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
Whether the concept of food sovereignty is able to contribute to worldwide food security and poverty reduction or
whether it will simply lead to a shift in the population groups
affected is unclear. This research therefore analyzes the
concept of food sovereignty with regard to its usefulness as
an international policy instrument in comparison to the
human right to adequate food. Based on an extensive literature review several research questions are addressed. First,
what is the current state of the concept of food sovereignty
among civil society movements, national governments and
at the international level? Second, what are unresolved issues
and challenges in the food sovereignty concept especially in
regard to food security? Third, is the concept of food sovereignty—in comparison to the right to adequate food—
useful for guiding international development policies of
national and international public policy makers?
While the concept of food sovereignty has become an
important element of civil society movement, we do not
evaluate the appropriateness of the concept of food sovereignty and the right to adequate food (RtAF) approaches
for civil society movements. We concentrate on the
description and analysis of the food sovereignty concept
rather than a detailed elaboration of the RtAF as more
research has focused on the latter.
The article is divided into four sections. The next section
defines and conceptualizes food sovereignty. It describes
the background of the concept and analyzes the different
actors, the current international debate and country experiences with food sovereignty. It finishes with unresolved
issues and challenges in the concept of food sovereignty.
The third section briefly introduces the reader to the human
right to adequate food. We then discuss the appropriateness
of the concept of food sovereignty versus the right to
adequate food as possible concepts guiding international
development policies. The last section provides recommendations for international development policies to fight
1
For a more detailed overview of the history of the human right to
adequate food please refer to section ‘‘The right to adequate food’’.
123
T. D. Beuchelt, D. Virchow
hunger and poverty in regard to the concepts of food
sovereignty and the right to adequate food.
Food sovereignty: definition, concepts and challenges
In this section we describe the background of the concept,
its definition and its development as well as its current state
among international organizations and in national legislation, before the unresolved issues and challenges in the
concept of food sovereignty are highlighted.
Definition and conceptualization of food sovereignty
The concept of food sovereignty stems from the international
farmers’ movement ‘‘La Via Campesina’’2 and was, as a
term, introduced in 1996 when La Via Campesina published
its manifesto ‘‘Food Sovereignty: A future without hunger’’
during the NGO/CSO forum held parallel to the World Food
Summit (see Table 2). It refers to the right of communities,
peoples and states to independently determine their own food
and agricultural policies. Social movements, civil society
organizations (CSOs) and non-governmental organizations
(NGOs) have readily integrated the concept into their terminology and have contributed to its further development.
The aim has been to strengthen peasants3 and their smallholder agriculture in order to enhance their political participation in national and international arenas and their
autonomy, and to contribute towards rural development,
poverty eradication and food security.
The concept of food sovereignty is a response to those
problems which, according to farmers’ organizations,
NGOs and CSOs, lead to the abandonment of smallholder
agriculture and to hunger and poverty in rural areas. The
majority of hungry people are food producers themselves.4
The proponents of food sovereignty see one reason for this
paradox in the structural adjustment measures imposed by
the World Bank and International Monetary Fund as well
as the international Agreement on Agriculture (AoA). The
origins of the concept date thus back to the decision to
include agriculture in the international trade rounds—
2
La Via Campesina was founded in 1993. It is an influential
international movement with 148 member organizations of small and
medium-size farmers, rural women and workers and indigenous
groups from 69 countries (La Via Campesina 2008).
3
While the term ‘peasant’ in everyday English usage is a rather
pejorative term, the national and international farmers’ movements
embrace the term ‘peasant’ with pride (Desmarais 2008). We use the
term in line with the understanding of these movements.
4
The majority of hungry people live in developing countries,
especially in rural areas, and are directly or indirectly dependent on
agriculture (UN-HRC 2010). 50% of hungry people are peasants, 20%
landless workers, 10% fisherfolk, pastoralists and forest dwellers,
while 20% live in urban areas (UN Millennium Project 2005).
Food sovereignty or the human right to adequate food
specifically the Uruguay Round (1986–1994) which led to
the establishment of the World Trade Organisation (WTO)
and the international AoA in 1994. The structural adjustment measures have led to privatization and to a reduction
in state support for the agricultural sector in developing
countries, without the private sector being willing to take
over what had previously been the state’s tasks, leaving
smallholders in a vulnerable situation (Bello 2008; Boyer
2010). The liberalization of the agricultural sector in
developing countries had as one consequence the flooding
of domestic markets with cheap, subsidized agricultural
imports from industrialized countries (Bello 2008). The
belief that global food security could be achieved through
private sector control of agriculture alone (Murphy 2008)
has led to the concentration of power in agricultural trade
and processing, to international oligopolies and, finally, to
market failure (IAASTD 2009). Structural adjustment
policies combined with economic liberalization have led to
worsening conditions of production for peasants in developing countries. It often became impossible for peasants to
compete with the low prices of imported subsidized agricultural products, and drove peasants into impoverishment
or the abandonment of their farms (Altieri and Nicholls
2008). The concept of food sovereignty thus has to be
understood as a counter movement to these kinds of policies (Bello 2008; Rosset 2006).
The concept of food sovereignty aims to ensure the
survival and well-being of smallholder food producers and
peasants, who have been largely neglected or excluded
from broader processes of development. La Via Campesina
argues that smallholder farmers should play a more dominant role in agricultural policies which can only be
achieved if local communities have better access to and
control over productive resources and more social as well
as political influence (Desmarais 2008). The concept of
food sovereignty raises the elementary question of which
type of food production, agriculture and rural development
should be pursued to guarantee food security for a national
and global population. By way of simplification, there are
two contrasting models of agriculture: the first is one
suggested by the concept of food sovereignty while the
second is the current neoliberal free trade model. Food
sovereignty upholds the model of a smallholder-dominated,
locally-based, environmentally friendly and sustainable
agriculture. This is in contrast to the neoliberal free trade
model of industrialized agriculture based on intensive
chemical inputs and agricultural exports, involving large
farm holdings and dominated by international corporations.
The basic principles of the concept of food sovereignty
are generally understood in the same way by the different
groups that predominately advocate and define it. This
coherence is intentional among the advocates of food
sovereignty to gain a stronger political voice. Yet, beyond
261
the statement of principles, there are many definitions of
food sovereignty in circulation as associations and organizations start to integrate the concept in their work and
provide their own definition and understanding of food
sovereignty (Patel 2009). The definition provided in the
Declaration of Nyéléni (2007) can be taken to be the most
representative, as more than 500 representatives of organizations of peasants/family farmers, artisanal fisherfolk,
indigenous peoples, landless peoples, rural workers,
migrants, pastoralists, forest communities, women, youth,
consumers, and environmental and urban movements from
more than 80 countries have agreed on this definition
(NGO/CSO Forum for Food Sovereignty 2007). The
Nyéléni definition enjoys strong support within civil society:
‘‘Food sovereignty is the right of peoples to healthy
and culturally appropriate food produced through
ecologically sound and sustainable methods, and their
right to define their own food and agriculture systems. It puts those who produce, distribute and consume food at the heart of food systems and policies
rather than the demands of markets and corporations.
It defends the interests and inclusion of the next
generation. It offers a strategy to resist and dismantle
the current corporate trade and food regime, and
directions for food, farming, pastoral and fisheries
systems determined by local producers. Food sovereignty prioritises local and national economies and
markets and empowers peasant and family farmerdriven agriculture, artisanal - fishing, pastoralist-led
grazing, and food production, distribution and consumption based on environmental, social and economic sustainability. Food sovereignty promotes
transparent trade that guarantees just income to all
peoples and the rights of consumers to control their
food and nutrition. It ensures that the rights to use and
manage our lands, territories, waters, seeds, livestock
and biodiversity are in the hands of those of us who
produce food. Food sovereignty implies new social
relations free of oppression and inequality between
men and women, peoples, racial groups, social classes and generations’’. (NGO/CSO Forum for Food
Sovereignty 2007: 1)
Based on the different definitions and concepts (Menezes 2001; NGO/CSO Forum for Food Sovereignty 2007;
NGO/CSO Forum for Food Sovereignty 2002; Pimbert
2008; Rosset 2008; Windfuhr and Jonsén 2005), the following key elements emerge regarding the conceptualization of food sovereignty:
•
The right to food and the right to produce food, but also
the recognition of food sovereignty as a basic human
right;
123
262
•
•
•
•
•
T. D. Beuchelt, D. Virchow
The right of peoples, communities, and states to define
and determine their own (national) food and agricultural system and policies including the prioritization of
domestic agricultural production for local and national
markets. This involves trade policies that give priority
to national food and production needs over export,
international trade and trade agreements;
‘‘Fair prices’’ that are adjusted to production costs—
this requires worldwide prohibition of export subsidies
and other subsidies which distort prices and trade flows;
and the option for a country to protect itself against
dumping and floods of cheap, imported agricultural
products which adversely affect the country’s own
agricultural sector;
Public support for smallholder producers and their
communities and elimination of subsidies which lead to
unsustainable agriculture or unfair land distribution. A
focus is on sustainable, agro-ecological production
methods. This includes a ‘‘no’’ to patents on seeds,
plants and animals, and the rejection of genetically
modified organisms (GMOs) in agriculture;
Improved access rights, access to as well as control
over productive resources (e.g. land, water, seeds) for
peasants/family farmers, pastoralists, artisanal fisherfolk, indigenous peoples, landless peoples, rural workers, and forest communities5; this includes reforms for
fair land distribution and the participation of smallholders, their organizations and communities in agricultural policy decision making. The concentration of
power with transnational corporations in agriculture,
controlling trade, processing and marketing, is
unwanted;
The rights of consumers to local healthy food and to
exercise control over their food and nutrition as well as
the recognition and respect for women’s roles and
rights in food production.
The concept of food sovereignty is supposed to be a
holistic concept which requires the full implementation of
all its elements (Beauregard 2009; Pimbert 2008). Policy
proposals aimed at implementing the concept of food
sovereignty at an international level are fairly straightforward and include, among others, the following: a ban on
food storage and ‘‘hoarding’’ on the part of transnational
corporations and the private sector; international treaties
and competition laws aimed at limiting the concentration
and market power of major agri-food corporations; the
introduction of minimum prices for each country, adjusted
to production (and living costs) and regulated by an
international institution; a legal ban on exporting food at
prices below the minimum price; the introduction of
5
For purposes of simplification, in the following these various
groups are gathered under the overarching term ‘peasants’.
123
improved national and international marketing boards and
of international commodity agreements which regulate the
total output on world markets as well as national and
international supply management, in order to avoid overproduction (Pimbert 2008; Rosset 2006; Rosset 2008).
The current state of the food sovereignty concept
among international organizations and in national
legislation
The concept of food sovereignty has been discussed not
only in the international NGO/CSO fora held parallel to
World Food Summits but also in regional and national fora.
At a regional non-governmental level, in addition to La Via
Campesina there is, for example, the European Platform for
Food Sovereignty, founded in 2003. At a national level,
there are many organizations all over the world that discuss
and incorporate the concept of food sovereignty into their
work. The concept is also being discussed increasingly in
the international political arena and by national governments (Desmarais 2008).
The International Labour Organization (ILO), the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) and the
World Bank have not worked further with the concept of
food sovereignty.6 The United Nations Conference on
Trade and Development (UNCTAD) also has no official
definition, but the concept of food sovereignty is at least
mentioned in some documents.7 The Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO) appears to deal more frequently with
the concept of food sovereignty but no official FAO document contains the concept either. What FAO does have is
a cooperation agreement with the International NGO/CSO
Planning Committee for Food Sovereignty (IPC),8 and it
included in its Glossary on Right to Food the definition of
food sovereignty from the 2007 Nyéléni declaration. The
6
Searching the UNEP and World Bank homepage, there are some
documents which indicate contacts to NGOs/CSOs favouring the
concept of food sovereignty (for examples, please see http://www.unep.
org/GC/GC23/documents/GC23-INF16-Add2.pdf; http://go.world
bank.org/O0JOO2HJC0; http://go.worldbank.org/SQWUA7UDH0;
http://go.worldbank.org/WLQOGIHCL0). The World Bank supports
the Economic Community Of West African States (ECOWAS) which
list food sovereignty as one of their main objectives for agriculture (see
below).
7
The documents, like their discussion series, do not necessarily
express the views of UNCTAD. Documents, where the concept of
food sovereignty at least appears, are for example UNCTAD, 2009,
Food security in Africa: learning lessons from the food crisis (http://
www.unctad.org/en/docs/tdbex47d3_en.pdf), or the Civil Society
Forum Declaration to UNCTAD XI in 2004 (http://www.unctad.org/
en/docs/td407_en.pdf).
8
The IPC is a global network of CSOs and social movements
concerned with food sovereignty issues. The IPC serves as a
facilitation mechanism for the dialogue between social movements/
CSOs and the UN agencies dealing with food and agriculture.
Food sovereignty or the human right to adequate food
FAO (2008) provided a presentation online which states
that food sovereignty is a laudable aim, that FAO agrees
that international trading rules should have a development
dimension, and that it shares the critique of the concept of
food sovereignty regarding the World Trade Organization’s
AoA and the agreement on Trade-related Intellectual
Property Rights (TRIPS). This FAO presentation notes
critically that food sovereignty remains an evolving concept which needs more thought. It states that the terminology is unclear, that the right to food of the landless and
urban poor is not adequately recognized, and emphasizes
that the FAO focuses on strengthening entitlements rather
than promoting food production (FAO 2008). The United
Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC)9 seems the only
UN body which intensively discussed within its documents
and meetings the concept of food sovereignty (for example
UNCHR 2004; UNHRC 2008, 2010).
At a regional governmental level, the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) has incorporated the concept of food sovereignty into its regional
agricultural policies (ECOWAS 2008).10 In addition,
twelve Latin American and Caribbean heads of state discussed the integration of food sovereignty into their
regional strategies at a summit in 2008.11
At the country level, seven developing countries have so
far integrated the concept of food sovereignty into their
legislation (Table 1). In most cases, this was combined
with the right to adequate food. The majority of initiatives
to legally implement the concept of food sovereignty have
occurred over the past 6 years. As a result, not all laws are
ratified yet or implemented in the form of specific strategies. While the Venezuelan constitution guaranteed food
security for the country’s people since 1999, a special law
on food sovereignty and food security was passed in 2008.
The government also adopted a law on land distribution
and agricultural development in 2001 which was revised in
2005. A range of measures were implemented in order to
embed the concept of food sovereignty in daily life
(Beauregard 2009). In Mali, a framework law on agricultural orientation (LOA) was adopted in 2006. It sets the
orientation of national agricultural development policy and
covers all rural activities and explicitly refers to the right to
9
The United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) replaced the
United Nations Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR) in 2006.
10
For its work, ECOWAS requested support from the World Bank. The
World Bank approved funding for the first phase of the West Africa
Agricultural Productivity Program (WAAPP) in 2007. (http://web.
worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/AFRICAEXT/
0,,contentMDK:22931606*menuPK:2246551*pagePK:2865106
*piPK:2865128*theSitePK:258644,00.html).
11
Participating countries were Nicaragua, Bolivia, Ecuador, Honduras, Venezuela, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Haiti, Panama,
Guatemala, Mexico, Belize and the Dominican Republic.
263
food, to food security and to food sovereignty. The law
constitutes an element of justiciability, particularly concerning access to resources. In 2010, the framework law
LOA was still not fully implemented. Senegal adopted a
framework law for agro-silvopastoral systems (Loi d’Orientation Agro-Silvopastorale) in 2004 which includes food
sovereignty principles, but it is not yet fully implemented.
In 2009, several country governments in Latin America
started to focus on food sovereignty. Nicaragua adopted a
framework law on the right to food and food sovereignty.
Since then, it has issued several new laws to support the
implementation and works on adjusting its policies and
programs accordingly. Bolivia integrated the right to food
sovereignty in its constitution, but did not yet fully
implement it. Ecuador developed a food sovereignty
framework law and is working towards its implementation.
In Asia, Nepal integrated the right to food sovereignty in its
interim constitution (Cotula et al. 2008; Beauregard 2009).
No industrialized country has integrated the concept of
food sovereignty into its governmental policies or discusses
the concept at a high level. The European Commission has
at least defined food sovereignty in one of its papers
(European Commission 2009); but no references to the
concept were found in governmental documents of, for
example, the USA or Switzerland. In 2009, the governing
parties in Germany integrated the concept into the part of
their coalition agreement dealing with development policy
(CDU et al. 2009), but have not yet defined their understanding of food sovereignty nor decided how to implement it. Indeed, the relevant chapter of the coalition
agreement contradicts several other parts of the coalition
agreement, especially the chapter on agriculture. Farmers’
organizations such as the German Association of Agricultural Producers, the German Association of Milk Producers, and the Catholic Rural People’s Movement support the
concept of food sovereignty and would like it to be the
guiding principle for agricultural policies in Germany and
Europe (BDM n.d.; DBV 2010). Thus it is not yet clear
how Germany’s policies on agricultural production, trade
and development will be oriented towards food sovereignty, either within Germany or at the international level.
Unresolved issues and challenges in the concept of food
sovereignty
The introduction of food sovereignty at a local level could
be highly positive for marginalized groups such as indigenous people. It can help them to achieve more economic
and political autonomy and contribute to local, self-determined agricultural production and development (Pimbert
2008). Despite this potential, there are unresolved issues
and challenges which we analyze from an international
policy perspective in the following.
123
264
T. D. Beuchelt, D. Virchow
Table 1 The legal status of the concept of food sovereignty in different countries
Year
Country and state of legislation
1999
Venezuela—Adoption of a new constitution, Art. 305, 306 and 307 address food sovereignty
2004
Senegal—Adoption of the framework law for agro-silvopastoral systems (Loi d’Orientation Agro-Silvopastorale) which includes food
sovereignty principles
2006
Mali—Adoption of its agricultural policy act/framework law on agricultural orientation (LOA) which explicitly refers to the right to food,
to food security and to food sovereignty
Venezuela—Integration of the right to food sovereignty and food security in the constitution
2008
2009
Nicaragua—Adoption of a framework law on the right to food and food sovereignty
Ecuador—Development of a food sovereignty framework law
Nepal—Integration of the right to food sovereignty in its interim constitution
Bolivia—Integration of the right to food sovereignty in its constitution, not yet implemented
Source: Adjusted from Cotula et al. (2008), Beauregard (2009)
The concept of food sovereignty is currently being further developed, and some elements are undergoing changes
(Germanwatch and AbL 2007; Patel 2009; Windfuhr and
Jonsén 2005). For example, La Via Campesina adjusted its
1996 definition of food sovereignty several times before
eventually deciding to use the Nyéléni definition, which
was elaborated together with other civil society movements
(La Via Campesina 2009). Therefore, some of the below
mentioned unresolved issues and challenges are likely to be
addressed in the future.
Until now, there is no universal agreement on who
exactly is the target group—individuals, communities,
peoples and/or nations (Haugen 2009)—or on whether
‘‘migrants’’, ‘‘consumers’’ and ‘‘urban movements’’ should
be integrated in the definitions, or indeed on what exactly
constitutes a peasant or a family farmer. Patel (2009) points
out that the theoretic unification of farm workers and farm
owners within one concept will not be easy in practice.
Further, the emphasis on ‘new social relations’ in the Nyéléni definition, focusing on gender equality, contradicts
the typical patriarchal patterns of farming families (Patel
2009). If the concept of food sovereignty is seen as a
unifying force for civil society, then this flexibility can be
an advantage to bring together social and peasant movements with different objectives. Yet, as Boyer (2010) stated, food sovereignty is a very complex concept and could
lead to a situation in which not all farmers’ movements—
which are the core target group of the concept—accept the
concept with its holistic approach in the long term. For
public policy directed toward international development,
the lack of specificity can be of disadvantage as without a
fixed (international) agreement about the concept, it is in
danger of being diluted by different interests (Haugen
2009; Pimbert 2008).
Conceptions of food sovereignty tend not to deal with
the issue of consumers in any great detail, but they do
advocate consumers’ rights to safe, healthy and locally
produced food which respects cultural preferences.
123
According to La Via Campesina (2009), food sovereignty
includes the right of consumers to decide what they want to
eat, and how and by whom it is produced. This results in an
inherent conflict between the right of consumers to freely
choose their food, including food not produced locally, and
the call to localize food production, trade and consumption.
If imported food could be readily replaced by local food,
this conflict would be lessened; yet for food consumed out
of season it can become complicated. Another unresolved
issue concerns the call for sustainable, agroecological food
production based on smallholder agriculture. An individual
consumer’s right to choose products from conventional,
industrialized agriculture, maybe coming along with different standards in food quality and appearance, could be
restricted. The abandonment or non-use of GMOs in agricultural and food production also limits consumers’ as well
as agricultural producers’ rights—be they small or large.
This would affect those countries in particular which currently utilize GMOs in their agricultural food production,
such as the USA, China, and India.
The concept does not consider comparative production
advantages based on favorable climatic and infrastructural
conditions as well as seasons. Yet, the latter increase the
efficiency of food production because they enable locally
adapted crops to be grown at an appropriate season
(Godfray et al. 2010). Despite possible efficiency gains in
smallholder agricultural production, it is not clear whether
each country in the world is able to produce sufficient food
for its own population based on smallholder agriculture
(Godfray et al. 2010, Meadows et al. 2009). Food sovereignty might reduce environmental impacts in agricultural
(export) production in some countries but might lead to an
increase in impacts in other countries with less suitable
land, despite the call that it needs to be sustainable. Taking
into consideration future climate change effects which
predominately affect developing countries (Cline 2007), it
is debatable whether local small-scale peasant agriculture
could produce sufficient food for a growing urban and
Food sovereignty or the human right to adequate food
world population without the current surpluses of industrialized agriculture—yet, industrialized agriculture must
become sustainable likewise to maintain their production
potential.12
Civil society movements increasingly push the concept
of food sovereignty to an international level; so far, there
seems a lack of clarity in how to implement global food
sovereignty as an international policy and the consequences of implementing such a policy. If the concept of
food sovereignty, as described in section ‘‘Definition and
conceptualization of food sovereignty’’, is to be applied
internationally, ex-ante models are necessary to predict the
policy effects. A lot of attention is required when designing
these models as the global impact of food sovereignty on
food security and poverty reduction is difficult to predict.13
The impacts depend (a) on how the concept of food sovereignty is implemented in individual countries and globally; (b) on the ratio of production factors (land, labor,
capital) to household income and on changes in the prices
of production factors due to factor substitution, factor
intensity and mobility; and (c) on other political measures
and policies which might be implemented in parallel. For
example, an international policy integrating the concept of
food sovereignty needs to consider especially the effects on
national and international food prices. In the following we
try to highlight some possible relative effects on food
prices that a global introduction of the concept of food
sovereignty would have on peasant producers versus nonproducers. If food sovereignty became the dominant policy
worldwide in food and agriculture, it is likely that industrialized countries, in line with their current behavior at the
WTO negotiation rounds, would close off their agricultural
markets to most foreign imports and continue to subsidize
their own agriculture. The net food importing countries,
including the low-income food deficit countries,14 which
are not able to expand their own food production sufficiently, would face much higher costs for their food
imports. A reduction or shortfall in exports due to market
foreclosure or reduction of export crops due to increase of
food crops could lead to a loss of foreign currency which is
for many developing countries necessary for the purchase
of production inputs and consumer goods not produced in
their own country. Another challenge may be the reduction
of global food surpluses. If world agricultural production
were limited mainly to production for individual countries’
12
The FAO has calculated that an increase in agricultural production
of 70% is necessary by 2050 to feed the world population (FAO
2009).
13
For example, the anticipated welfare effects of the WTO on
developing countries vary from negative to positive depending on the
models used (see Bouët et al. (2005, 2007), Stiglitz and Charlton
(2007)).
14
There are 77 of low-income food deficit countries (FAO 2010).
265
domestic markets, harvest losses could not be adequately
covered by purchasing food on the world market. Especially if covariate harvest losses occurred (e.g. due to
droughts or floods, climate change, or regional conflicts),
less food would be available to ensure adequate global food
supplies and would lead to higher prices for non-agricultural consumers.
A major unresolved aspect of the concept of food sovereignty is that it is not a comprehensive concept for
hunger and poverty reduction. It neglects the poor urban
population and unemployed workers, which together make
up around 40% of hungry people worldwide. It is not clear
how price increases for agricultural producers would
translate into the final product prices and how this could
affect the urban population and rural workers. Food price
increases will negatively affect the rest of the population,
and may even hurt the peasants who need to additionally
buy some food. Even if peasants benefited and became less
poor, poverty among urban populations might increase. In
developing countries, the middle-income group spends
around 35–65% of their income on food, while the poor
spend 50–80% (WFP 2009), so there is not much leeway
for both groups to absorb further price increases. Currently,
it remains unclear whether food sovereignty will contribute
to worldwide food security and poverty reduction or
whether it will simply lead to a shift in the population
groups affected.
Many elements of the concept of food sovereignty are
also mentioned in discussions about food security and the
right to adequate food in academic research and international politics. Yet, there are additional factors beyond
concepts of food sovereignty which also contribute to the
marginalization of peasants such as national governance
problems, corruption, institutional and infrastructural
weaknesses affecting education, health care, food storage
and marketing systems. Even if food sovereignty were
introduced, these challenges would continue to exist and
affect the wellbeing of the peasants as well as of the urban
consumers.
The concept of food sovereignty versus the human right
to adequate food in international development policies
In the following, we briefly outline the concept of the
human right to adequate food as a basis for the subsequent
discussion of the appropriateness for international development policies of the concept of food sovereignty versus
the right to adequate food. We do not provide a holistic
analysis or discussion about the concept of the human right
to adequate food as a lot of literature has been published
already on this topic (e.g. see the publications of the FAO-
123
266
Right to Food Unit15 and the UN Special Rapporteur on the
Right to Food,16 Haugen 2009; Mechlem 2004; Narula
2006).
The right to adequate food
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 contains in Article 25 the right to food, the first time the RtAF
experienced major international recognition. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
(ICESCR) of 1966 is a more detailed covenant regarding
the right to adequate food and entered into force in 1976,
2 years after the Universal Declaration on the Eradication
of Hunger and Malnutrition was adopted at the UN World
Food Conference (De Schutter 2010). It has been ratified
by 160 countries, i.e. it was adopted by their national
parliaments. Thus, the right to food is internationally and
nationally acknowledged; its normative content is binding
(Mechlem 2004).
Article 11 of the ICESCR explicitly refers to the right to
adequate food. Article 11(2) contains precise suggestions
for measures and policies to be implemented by governments in order to guarantee the right to adequate food. The
interpretation and understanding of Article 11 was defined
in General Comment 12 of the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in 1999 (UN-CESCR
1999). The right to adequate food should not be seen as
restrictive or limited to the right to a minimum daily
consumption of calories, proteins and micronutrients (Cotula et al. 2008; UN-CESCR 1999). It is realized only when
each individual has physical and economic access to adequate food or to the means to procure such food (UNCESCR 1999). Access can be achieved through people’s
own production of food, through income-generating
activities (within or outside agriculture) or through a mix of
both, but must be achieved in ways that are sustainable and
with dignity (General Comment 12, §12 and §13).
In the last decades, efforts have led to the human right to
adequate food becoming increasingly established in
national constitutions. The RtAF is currently enshrined in
the national constitutions in 40 countries and, according to
FAO estimates, there are 54 countries where rights related
to food are justiciable, or likely to be justiciable, meaning
that courts can enforce the right (McClain-Nhlapo 2004). If
the RtAF is not explicitly integrated in the national constitution or legislation, it is hardly possible for a citizen of
that country to make a claim at the national level for her or
his rights as granted in the covenant. In this case the right is
15
An overview of their documents is provided on their homepage:
http://www.fao.org/righttofood/publi_en.htm.
16
The homepage provides an overview of relevant documents: http://
www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/food/annual.htm.
123
T. D. Beuchelt, D. Virchow
not justiciable at a national level (Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung 1995). For this reason, the UN adopted an
Optional Protocol to the International Covenant of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) in 2009. The
Optional Protocol enables individuals to bring concrete
cases of violations of any rights set forth in the Covenant—
including the right to adequate food—before the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Thus individuals living in ratifying countries will have direct access
to a quasi judicial system at the international level when
their national legal system fails. The protocol is not yet in
force, as only three countries have ratified it as yet (United
Nations 2010).
In 2004, the FAO adopted the Voluntary Guidelines to
Support the Progressive Realization of the Right to Adequate Food in the Context of National Food Security, also
called the Voluntary Guidelines for Right to Food. The
Voluntary Guidelines for Right to Food are built on the
international declarations and conventions and provide
practical guidance and recommendations for countries on
how to implement their obligations regarding the RtAF
based on Article 11 of the ICESCR (De Schutter 2010).
This has contributed to an increased integration of the
RtAF in national constitutions (ibid.). The Voluntary
Guidelines for Right to Food are not very precise regarding
international trade, subsidies and market protection. However, they do state that the long-term aim of the WTO
agreements is a fair trade system and that all states should
be more active in their efforts to implement the Doha
mandate. They urge states to adhere to their commitments
expressed at international conferences, such as the phaseout of agricultural export subsidies and trade distorting
domestic support, and to allow special and differential
treatment for developing countries in order to take fully
into account their development needs, including food
security and rural development needs (FAO 2005).
General Comment 12 and the Voluntary Guidelines for
Right to Food extend and deepen the understanding and
activities necessary to implement policies in order to
guarantee the right to adequate food (Cotula et al. 2008).
Both draw attention to the issue of access to food but
emphasize that improved access to production resources is
especially important when hunger and poverty are concentrated in rural areas. Haugen’s interpretation (2009) of
Article 11 steps much further than the Voluntary Guidelines for Right to Food. He interprets Article 11(2b) as
directly implying that fair trade rules would have to be
established and that those subsidies should be dropped
which harm peasants and farmers in other countries. In
addition, governments would have to implement measures
which secure the livelihood basis of subsistence and
smallholder farmers in order to achieve freedom from
hunger for all. The right to adequate food already includes
Food sovereignty or the human right to adequate food
that the needs of the hungry have priority over trade initiatives. Developing countries do theoretically have a lever
to adjust their trade policies accordingly. The problem is
that developing countries lack the human and financial
capacities to prove that certain trade policies, such as
export subsidies, adversely affect their agriculture and
peasant populations. In addition, many developing countries depend on credits and projects from the World Bank,
the International Monetary Fund and bilateral trade
agreements. This makes them vulnerable and dependent on
these institutions in cases where they disagree with special
protection measures in agriculture.
When integrated into national legislation, the right to
adequate food can become a powerful tool for marginalized
groups or organizations acting on their behalf. Given a
functioning legal system, violations of the right to adequate
food can be brought before national courts. There have
been successful court cases, for example, in India, Nepal,
Brazil, and South Africa, where governments or municipalities have been forced by the court’s decision to either
provide food, enable economic access to food, or to change
267
their policies and laws in favour of the marginalized groups
enabling them access to food (De Schutter 2010).
Recent international developments regarding
the concept of food sovereignty and the right
to adequate food
The human right to adequate food was embraced in the
concept of food sovereignty from the beginning as La Via
Campesina stated at the NGO/CSO forum of the World
Food Summit in 1996: ‘‘Food is a basic human right. This
right can only be realized in a system where food sovereignty is guaranteed’’ (La Via Campesina 1996). Because
of the parallel development of both approaches, Table 2
provides an overview of both, the development of the
international debate on food sovereignty and of the right to
adequate food since 1994.
In the year 2000, civil society organizations established
the International NGO/CSO Planning Committee for Food
Sovereignty and three years later achieved the agreement
with the FAO that the IPC serves as the principal civil
Table 2 The international debate on food sovereignty and the right to adequate food (RtAF)
Year
International highlights of the food sovereignty and the RtAF processes
1994
End of Uruguay Trade round where the World Trade Organisation and the Agreement on Agriculture were established
1996
World Food Summit—Rome Declaration on World Food Security
1999
La Via Campesina publishes its manifesto ‘‘Food Sovereignty: A future without hunger’’ during the parallel NGO/CSO forum
Adoption of General Comment no. 12 on the right to adequate food by the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
2000
Formation of the International NGO/CSO Planning Committee for food sovereignty (IPC)
Adoption of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs): MDG 1 targets the eradication of extreme poverty and hunger
Establishment of UN-Special Rapporteur on the right to adequate food
2001
World Forum for Food Sovereignty in Havana, Cuba
2002
World Food Summit—calls for the establishment of voluntary guidelines to achieve the progressive realization of the right to adequate
food
Parallel NGO/CSO forum for food sovereignty
2003
Agreement between IPC and the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) that IPC serves as the principal civil society interlocutor
2004
FAO establishes its Right to Food Unit
Adoption by the FAO Council of the ‘‘voluntary guidelines to support the progressive realization of the right to adequate food in the
context of national food security’’
2006
Regional Forum on Food Sovereignty in West Africa, Niger
The Asia–Pacific people’s conference on rice and food sovereignty, Indonesia
2007
World Forum on Food Sovereignty in Nyéléni, Mali
United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
2008
Summit of Latin American countries to address food sovereignty and security
Declaration of the Rights of Peasants by La Via Campesina
FAO organizes a Right to Food Forum
2009
Adoption of the Optional Protocol to the ICESCR, making the right to food justiciable at the international level
World Food Summit on food security and parallel forum on food sovereignty of NGOs/CSOs
Hearing of La Via Campesina at the UN General Assembly on the global food crisis and the right to food
2010
Hearings of the UN Human Rights Council regarding discrimination in the context of the right to food, including a focus on peasants
123
268
society interlocutor. Two world fora on food sovereignty
were held, 2001 in Cuba and 2007 in Nyéléni, accompanied by regional fora for the West African and Asia–Pacific
region. In addition, NGO/CSO fora on food sovereignty
were held during the World Food Summits. In 2008, La
Via Campesina adopted the Declaration of the Rights of
Peasants—Men and Women. In 2009, they presented the
Declaration as a response to the world food crisis before
the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) and
before the General Assembly (UNHRC 2010).
The RtAF was strengthened by the adoption of General
Comment 12, the establishment of the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food and of the FAO Right to Food
Unit. Further, the World Food Summits, the FAO adoption
of the Voluntary Guidelines for Right to Food and the FAO
Right to Food forum in October 2008 targeted the RtAF. In
the past 3 years, the Optional Protocol to the ICESCR was
adopted, which makes the right to food justiciable at the
international level; and the UN Human Rights Council
started hearings which addressed discrimination in the
context of the right to food. In a preliminary study of the
Human Rights Council Advisory Committee, they discussed the rights of peasants and included in the annex La
Via Campesina’s Declaration of the Rights of Peasants
(UNHRC 2010).
Comparing food sovereignty with the right to adequate
food as a basis for international development policies
The right to adequate food and the concept of food sovereignty as a basis for international development policy
share some common ground but also have differences in
scope and nature so that a comparison is possible only to a
limited extent.
The right to adequate food is a legal concept, while food
sovereignty should be understood as a political concept. As
such, food sovereignty could be used as a new framework
to reorient agricultural policy by public policy makers
(Haugen 2009). As the designers and proponents of the
concept are peasant organizations or civil society organizations closely related to peasant issues, the concept of
food sovereignty focuses on smallholder food producers
and suggests specific measures on how to protect them.
Therefore, it concentrates more on rural areas and on a
local level. The right to food does not differentiate between
individuals and their occupational activities but is valid for
all human beings. Likewise, it is to be applied from the
local to the international level in rural and urban areas
alike. The right to food involves achieving food security,
but also goes further, addressing issues such as discrimination and dignity. In addition, it delineates a broad range
of measures regarding how to achieve freedom from
123
T. D. Beuchelt, D. Virchow
hunger, including in the agricultural sector; yet it is not
limited only to measures related to food producers.
The proponents of the concept of food sovereignty
consider food sovereignty together with access to agricultural resources as the major precondition for realizing the
right to adequate food. The proponents of the right to
adequate food consider access to production resources as
part of this right—yet this aspect has been neglected
despite the political declarations of the World Food Summits (Haugen 2009; UNHRC 2010). Despite these slight
differences, the right to food encompasses nearly all the
elements of the concept of food sovereignty (see Table 3),
although not all are explicitly expressed in the ICESCR
(Haugen 2009). By nature, the RtAF is more general on
most aspects.
The RtAF and the concept of food sovereignty both
stress the importance of sustainability, agrarian reform,
state sovereignty and international responsibility. While the
RtAF does not specifically addresses the agricultural production model, agricultural trade and international markets,
all these aspects need to be aligned within the spirit of the
RtAF and are not allowed to violate the RtAF. If national
and international agricultural trade and food policies hurt
smallholder producers and lead to poverty and hunger, then
the RtAF demands a revision of these policies (UNCHR
2004).
According to Mechlem (2004: 646), the right to adequate food ‘‘focuses on vulnerable groups, the marginalised, and the excluded, and pays particular attention to
non-discrimination … [and] attempts to give ‘voice’ to all
people’’. Thus, the legal approach entails a large degree of
overlap with the target group of food sovereignty but also
goes further to include any vulnerable group. In addition, it
can be seen as including the idea of people’s empowerment
(Mechlem 2004), as does the concept of food sovereignty.
Another example of the overlap between the two concepts
is the focus on smallholders and peasant agriculture.
Although not directly mentioned in the ICESCR, Article
2(1) and Article 11(2a) of the ICESCR were to be understood in such a way that governments should give priority
to smallholders and peasant agriculture providing access to
productive resources when peasants constitute the hungry
and poor of the population and no alternative income
sources are available (FAO 2005; Haugen 2009).
In an analytical comparison of the declaration Food
Sovereignty: A Right For All of the NGO/CSO Forum for
Food Sovereignty (2002) and the ICESCR, Haugen (2009)
found that the majority of the elements are similar in both
concepts except for three aspects. The first aspect refers to
corporate ownership of productive resources; the other two
to patents on seeds, plants, and animals as well as the use of
GMOs in agriculture. The concept of food sovereignty calls
for a ban on both, while the ICESCR does not make any
Food sovereignty or the human right to adequate food
269
Table 3 Comparison between the right to adequate food and food sovereignty
Right to adequate food (RtAF)
Food sovereignty
Concept
Legal
Political
International
definition
Yes
No, but increasing popularity of the definition of Nyéléni
Target group
All individual human beings
All human beings, communities and peoples but strong
focus on peasants, pastoralists, indigenous people,
artisanal fisherfolk, traditional forest-dwellers, rural
workers
Region
Local–national–international for rural and urban areas
More emphasis on local and national than international
level; concentration on rural areas; tending to be more
relevant for developing countries
Perspective
International human rights perspective; driven by
governments
Rural (agricultural) perspective; driven by lobby groups of
peasant and civil society movements
Focus
Implementation of RtAF; securing dignity and access to
food; lists general measures to implement the RtAF
Guidelines/policies for rural development; lists specific
measures to protect smallholders; legal access of peasants
to natural/productive resources; fair markets; includes the
RtAF and right to produce
Agricultural model
Not further specified; UN Special Rapporteur to Food
recommends support of peasants and agroecology
Local smallholder family farms instead of export oriented,
industrialized large-scale agriculture
Sustainability
Important
Important; strong focus on agroecological production
systems
Agrarian reform
Potential policy to secure RtAF
Absolutely necessary, especially land reform
WTO
No reference but RtAF has priority over international trade
agreements
Either no AoA in WTO or a fair reform of the AoA required
Agricultural trade
and markets
No specific reference but trade and market structures must
respect and protect the RtAF
Preference for local food production for local needs, trade
less important. Protection of domestic agriculture (e.g.
through tariffs or quotas, especially when cheap food
imports flood local markets)
Transnational
corporations/
corporate
ownership
Cannot be excluded from the possession of production
resources but must respect and protect the RtAF
Rejected
Patents on life
Possible as long as no violation of human rights
Rejected
GMO
Possible as long as no violation of human rights
Rejected
State sovereignty
Important. RtAF is more important than other international
agreements and cannot be violated. Self-determination of
human beings/peoples
Important. Self-determination of human beings/peoples.
Strong focus on state sovereignty. Right to national
autonomy regarding agriculture and food policies
International
responsibility
Important element
Important element
Validity
International and national right, binding
No international right, in some cases national right
We based our analysis of the RtAF on Art.11 of the ICESCR, the General Comment 12 and the 2004 FAO Voluntary Guidelines for Right to
Food and for food sovereignty mainly on the Nyéléni declaration
explicit statement (Table 3). The final difference is in the
validity of the concept; while the right to adequate food is a
national and international right, and thus binding, the
concept of food sovereignty is only part of national law in a
very few countries.
Policy recommendations: towards new concepts
in the fight against hunger and poverty?
After having compared the concept of food sovereignty
with the right to adequate food, the question remains of
which concept serves better for international public
development policies. This section provides a summary
and our policy recommendations, as well as a brief outlook.
The concept of food sovereignty was developed as an
alternative to the current neoliberal free-trade based model
of development, trade and agriculture. The latter has made
no significant contribution towards reducing poverty and
hunger in many countries—indeed it has led to the marginalization of peasants and has come to threaten their very
survival (UNCHR 2004). The concept of food sovereignty
offers a political approach and suggests measures to
improve the situation of smallholders by empowering
123
270
them, thus contributing also towards reducing hunger and
poverty in rural areas. We discussed the appropriateness of
the concept of food sovereignty and RtAF approaches for
national public sector policy makers. Many of the elements
of the concept of food sovereignty are relevant in the fight
against hunger and are by no means new. However, we
doubt whether the elements of food sovereignty beyond the
grounding of the food sovereignty concept in the right to
food can contribute to a significant improvement of food
security in many countries, especially over the long term.
The advantages of the concept of food sovereignty are
its focus on the marginalized smallholder food producers,
the call for agricultural reforms and access to productive
resources, as well as the criticism of dumping, unfair
market access due to structural economic imbalances
between countries, and trade distortions in the agricultural
sector. It must also be emphasized that the concept of food
sovereignty is embraced by a large civil society movement
which, as a movement, can exert substantial political
pressure. The weakness of the concept is that it is not yet a
comprehensive concept which addresses both hungry urban
and rural populations. The exclusive focus on the issue of
access to productive resources and national, or local, selfdetermination of agricultural and food policies fails to take
account of the need for adequate and functioning systems
of local and national institutions, legal frameworks, education, health care and hard infrastructure in the fight
against poverty and hunger. Agricultural production disadvantages due to unfavorable climatic and infrastructural
conditions which may speak against local production, as
well as the possibility of large-scale covariate harvest
losses are not discussed. It is not clear how the required
price increases for agricultural products due to higher
payments to farmers and favored international trade
restrictions will affect poverty levels of the non-food producing population.
The right to adequate food is a broader concept than that
of food sovereignty, as it is valid for and applies to all
human beings and does not focus on a particular population
group. When being compared, the main differences
between the concept of food sovereignty and the right to
adequate food are related to the target group; the perspective; corporate ownership in agricultural production;
patents on seeds, plants and animals; and GMOs in
agriculture.
General policy recommendations: enforcing the right
to adequate food
A ‘‘business as usual’’ approach to rural and agricultural
development is neither sustainable nor acceptable given the
future challenges of climate change, population growth,
shortages of fossil fuels, and limited agricultural resources.
123
T. D. Beuchelt, D. Virchow
Smallholder agriculture must be supported and developed
because today the hungry and poor are concentrated in
rural areas and smallholders make up the majority.
The legal approach of the right to adequate food appears
to be the more promising way to reduce global hunger
because it applies to all human beings, including small
food producers. A further advantage is that it is internationally agreed upon and has been ratified by nearly every
country in the world. The concept of food sovereignty is
supported mainly by civil society at present, although some
countries have included it in their constitutions. Yet, as
there are critics of the concept and unresolved challenges,
it seems more feasible and especially much faster to
enforce the right to adequate food than the concept of food
sovereignty. For these reasons we recommend the continued reliance on the right to adequate food rather than
introducing the concept of food sovereignty in national and
international policy making. The right to adequate food
must be more vigorously enforced and promoted; it must
receive much higher priority in policies, laws, international
agreements and politics than it currently has. Otherwise it
will be ineffective. In addition to anchoring the right to
adequate food in policies, it is necessary for the goals and
suggested policy measures of the ICESCR to be rendered
operational. To this end, we also recommend that all
countries ratify the Optional Protocol of the ICESCR. As a
well functioning legal and court system is of crucial
importance in successfully implementing the right to adequate food, we recommend that developing countries and
their local institutions be supported in implementing the
right to adequate food in their national constitutions and in
creating an efficient legal system.
Elements of the concept of food sovereignty, such as
agricultural reforms leading to equitable land distribution
which enables improved land efficiency, are also important
to the right to adequate food and need to be further
strengthened. The need for fair international trade rules to
support the right to adequate food could be enshrined in a
General Comment as part of the ICESCR. This could also
include a normative definition of the principle of fairness, a
concept which supposedly guides international trade. All
bilateral and multilateral trade agreements must be reassessed in order to ensure that they do not violate the right to
adequate food.
We recommend that the interpretation of the right to
adequate food should be oriented more clearly towards the
relevant target groups. This could be emphasized in General Comment 12 or in a newly formulated General Comment on the right to adequate food. This interpretation
should always refer to the actual situation, i.e. currently the
concentration of hunger in rural areas. It could integrate
more explicitly the need for access to productive resources,
the protection of smallholders, and a stronger orientation of
Food sovereignty or the human right to adequate food
the international trade system towards peasants and lowincome groups (Haugen 2009). This might be complemented by proposals for specific policy measures, possibly
in the form of non-binding resolutions, declarations or
guidelines. The focus on smallholder agriculture would
need to be made subject to reassessment in the future,
taking account of respective food insecure groups.
Outlook
In order to fight hunger, a special focus must be placed on
the development and promotion of smallholder agriculture,
as roughly half the hungry people in the world depend on
it. Alongside the focus on agriculture, the landless and
urban population threatened by poverty and hunger should
not be forgotten. In the end, however, the reduction of
poverty and hunger depends on national and international
political will—in developing and industrialized countries
alike—and not on an underlying concept. Neither the
introduction of the concept of food sovereignty nor the
continued use of the right to adequate food will change the
actual numbers of undernourished and poor people if
hunger and poverty reduction fails to be given greater
priority in policies and politics. However, the concept of
food sovereignty can empower marginalized groups to
stand up and force the public and politicians to incorporate
their plight into the political agenda and to take action to
redress it. Wherever the right to adequate food is embedded
in national law, individuals as well as groups can bring
their cases of neglect, discrimination, social, economic and
ecological marginalization to court, and bring charges
against the government. Although now powerless, marginalized people can be enabled to change the politics of a
country through the legal enforcement of the human right
to adequate food.
References
Altieri, Miguel A., and Clara I. Nicholls. 2008. Scaling up agroecological approaches for food sovereignty in Latin America.
Development 51(4): 472–480.
BDM. n.y. Die Ziele des BDM. Bundesverband Deutscher Milchviehhalter (BDM). http://bdm-verband.org/html/index.php?module=
Content&func=view&pid=9. Accessed 15 November 2010.
Beauregard, Sadie. 2009. Food policy for people: Incorporating food
sovereignty principles into state governance. Los Angeles:
Urban and Environmental Policy, Occidental College. http://
departments.oxy.edu/uepi/uep/studentwork/09comps/Food%20
Policy%20for%20People.pdf. Accessed 22 October 2010.
Bello, W. 2008. How to manufacture a global food crisis. Development 51(4): 450–455.
Bouët, Antoine, Jean-Christophe Bureau, Yvan Decreux, and Sébastien Jean. 2005. Multilateral agricultural trade liberalisation: The
271
contrasting fortunes of developing countries in the Doha round.
World Economy 28(9): 1329–1354.
Bouët, Antoine, Simon Mevel, and David Orden. 2007. More or less
ambition in the Doha round: Winners and losers from trade
liberalisation with a development perspective. World Economy
30(8): 1253–1280.
Boyer, Jefferson. 2010. Food security, food sovereignty, and local
challenges for transnational agrarian movements: The Honduras
case. Journal of Peasant Studies 37(2): 319–351.
Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung. 1995. Menschenrechte—dokumente und deklarationen. Bonn: Bundeszentrale für politische
Bildung.
CDU, CSU, and FDP. 2009. Wachstum. Bildung. Zusammenhalt.
Koalitionsvertrag zwischen CDU, CSU und FDP. 17. Legislaturperiode. http://www.cdu.de/doc/pdfc/091026-koalitionsvertragcducsu-fdp.pdf. Accessed 22 November 2010.
Cline, W.R. 2007. Global warming and agriculture: Impact estimates
by country. Washington, DC: Center for Global Development
and Peterson Institute for International Economics.
Cotula Lorenzo, Moussa Djiré, and Ringo W. Tenga. 2008. The right
to food and access to natural resources—Using human rights
arguments and mechanisms to improve resource access for the
rural poor. Right to Food Studies. Rome: Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations (FAO). http://www.fao.org/
righttofood/publi09/natural_resources_en.pdf. Accessed 22
October 2010.
DBV. 2010. Gemeinsame Erklärung zum Erntedank 2010. Sep 23rd
2010. Deutsche Bauernverband (DBV). http://www.bauernver
band.de/index.php?redid=352351. Accessed 15 November 2010.
De Schutter, Olivier. 2010. Countries tackling hunger with a right to
food approach. Briefing Note 01—May 2010. http://www.srfood.
org/images/stories/pdf/otherdocuments/20100514_briefing-note01_en.pdf. Accessed 22 October 2010.
Desmarais, Annette A. 2008. The power of peasants: Reflections on
the meanings of La Via Campesina. Journal of Rural Studies
24(2): 138–149.
ECOWAS. 2008. Regional agricultural policy for West Africa:
ECOWAP. Economic community of West African states (ECOWAS).
http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/fr/IMG/pdf/01_ANGComCEDEAO.pdf. Accessed 15 November 2010.
EPFS. n.y. The European platform for food sovereignty. European
Platform for Food Sovereignty (EPFS). http://www.epfs.eu/
content.aspx?l=003&lang=ENG. Accessed 24 November 2010.
European Commission. 2009. Food security: Understanding and meeting
the challenge of poverty. DG EuropeAid—European Commission.
http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/infopoint/publications/europeaid/
163a_en.htm. Accessed 15 November 2010.
FAO. 2008. Food security, the right to adequate food and food
sovereignty. Right to food. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). http://www.fao.org/righttofood/kc/downloads/
vl/docs/Thomas%20Harmon%20_%20FS%20Rtf%20Food%20
Sovereignty.ppt. Accessed 12 November 2010.
FAO. 2009. Global agriculture towards 2050. How to feed the world
2050. High-level expert forum, 12–13 October 2009. Rome Food
and Agriculture Organization (FAO). http://www.fao.org/
fileadmin/templates/wsfs/docs/Issues_papers/HLEF2050_Global_
Agriculture.pdf. Accessed 15 November 2010.
FAO. 2010. Low-income food-deficit countries (LIFDC)—List for
2010. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). http://
www.fao.org/countryprofiles/lifdc.asp. Accessed 15 November
2010.
FAO. 2005. Voluntary guidelines to support the progressive realization of the right to adequate food in the context of national food
security. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).
http://www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/009/y9825e/y9825e00.HTM.
Accessed 22 October 2010.
123
272
Germanwatch and AbL. 2007. Ernährungssouveränität: Ansätze im
Umgang mit dem Konzept in Deutschland. Workshop, 12 April
2007. Berlin/Hamm: Arbeitsgemeinschaft bäuerliche Landwirtschaft e.V. (AbL) and Germanwatch. http://www.germanwatch.
org/handel/ernsouv07.pdf. Accessed 21 September 2010.
Godfray, H. Charles J., John R. Beddington, Ian R. Crute, Lawrence
Haddad, David Lawrence, James F. Muir, Jules Pretty, Sherman
Robinson, Sandy M. Thomas, and Camilla Toulmin. 2010.
‘‘Food security: The challenge of feeding 9 billion people.’’
Science 327(5967): 812–818.
Haugen, Hans Morten. 2009. Food sovereignty—An appropriate
approach to ensure the right to food? Nordic Journal of
International Law 78(3): 263–292.
IAASTD. 2009. Agriculture at a crossroads. Synthesis report of the
international assessment of agricultural knowledge, science and
technology for development. Washington DC: Island Press.
IAASTD. n.y. Über den Weltagrarbericht. http://www.weltagrarbericht.
de/themen-des-weltagrarberichtes/ueber-den-weltagrarbericht.
html. Accessed 15 November 2010.
La Via Campesina. 2009. La Via Campesina policy documents. 5th
Conference. Mozambique, 16–23 October 2008. http://via
campesina.org/downloads/pdf/policydocuments/POLICY
DOCUMENTS-EN-FINAL.pdf Accessed 22 October 2010.
La Via Campesina. 2008. Our members. http://viacampesina.org/en/
index.php?option=com_wrapper&view=wrapper&Itemid=71.
Accessed 22 October 2010.
La Via Campesina. 1996. The right to produce and access to land.
Food sovereignty: A future without hunger http://www.
voiceoftheturtle.org/library/1996%20Declaration%20of%20
Food%20Sovereignty.pdf. Accessed 22 October 2010.
Menezes, Francisco. 2001. Food Sovereignty: A vital requirement for
food security in the context of globalization. Food sovereignty:
A vital requirement for food security in the context of
globalization. Development 44(4): 29–33.
McMichael, Philip. 2008. Peasants make their own history, but not
just as they please…. Journal of Agrarian Change 8(2–3):
205–228.
McClain-Nhlapo, Charlotte. 2004. Implementing a human rights
approach to food security. 2020 Africa Conference brief no. 13.
Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute
(IFPRI).
http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/pubs/pubs/ib/
ib29.pdf. Accessed 22 October 2010.
Meadows, Donella, Jorgen Randers, and Denis Meadows. 2009.
Grenzen des Wachstums. Das 30-Jahre-Update, 3rd ed. Stuttgart: Hirzel.
Mechlem, Kerstin. 2004. Food security and the right to food in the
discourse of the United Nations. European Law Journal 10(5):
631–648.
Murphy, Sophia. 2008. Globalization and corporate concentration in
the food and agriculture sector. Development 51(4): 527–533.
Narula, Smita. 2006. The right to food: Holding global actors
accountable under international law. Columbia Journal of
Transnational Law 44(3). Accessed at: http://papers.ssrn.com/
sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=951582##. Accessed 19 June 2011.
NGO/CSO Forum for Food Sovereignty. 2007. Declaration of
Nyéléni. 27 February 2007. Nyéléni Village, Sélingué, Mali.
http://www.nyeleni.org/IMG/pdf/DeclNyeleni-en.pdf. Accessed
22 October 2010.
NGO/CSO Forum for Food Sovereignty. 2002. Food sovereignty: A
right for all political statement of the NGO/CSO forum for food
sovereignty. Rome, 13 June 2002. http://www.nyeleni.org/
spip.php?article125. Accessed 22 October 2010.
Patel, Raj. 2009. What does food sovereignty look like? The Journal
of Peasant Studies 36(3): 663–773.
123
T. D. Beuchelt, D. Virchow
Pimbert, Michel. 2008. Towards food sovereignty: Another world is
possible for food and agriculture (Part I: Chapters 1-3). London:
IIED. http://www.iied.org/pubs/display.php?o=G02268. Accessed 21 September 2010.
Rosset, Peter M. 2006. Food is different. Why we must get the WTO
out of agriculture. London and New York: Zed Books.
Rosset, Peter M. 2008. Food sovereignty and the contemporary food
crisis. Development 51(4): 460–463.
Stiglitz, Joseph E., and Andrew Charlton. 2007. Fair trade for all.
How trade can promote development. New York: Oxford
University Press.
UN-CESCR. 1999. Substantive issues arising in the implementation
of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights. General Comment 12: The right to adequate food (Art.
11). New York: United Nations-Economic and Social Council.
http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/0/3d02758c707031d58025677
f003b73b9. Accessed 22 October 2010.
UNCHR. 2004. Economic, social and cultural rights. The right to
food. E/CN.4/2004/10. New York: United Nations-Commission
on Human Rights (CHR). http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/
UNDOC/GEN/G08/100/98/PDF/G0810098.pdf?OpenElement.
Accessed 22 June 2011.
UNHRC. 2010. Preliminary study of the Human Rights Council
Advisory Committee on discrimination in the context of the right
to food. A/HRC/13/32. New York: United Nations-Human
Rights Council (HRC). http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/
hrcouncil/docs/13session/A-HRC-13-32.pdf. Accessed 22 October 2010.
UNHRC. 2008. Promotion and protection of all human rights, civil,
political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right
to development. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to
food. A/HRC/7/5. New York: United Nations-Human Rights
Council (HRC). http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/
GEN/G08/100/98/PDF/G0810098.pdf?OpenElement. Accessed
22 June 2011.
UN Millennium Project. 2005. Halving hunger: It can be done.
Summary version of the report of the task force on hunger. New
York: The Earth Institute at Columbia University. http://www.
unmillenniumproject.org/documents/HTF-SumVers_FINAL.pdf.
Accessed 22 October 2010.
United Nations. 2010. Optional Protocol to the International Covenant
on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Treaty Collection:
United Nations. http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=
TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-3-a&chapter=4&lang=en. Accessed 15
November 2010.
WFP. 2009. Hunger and markets. World hunger series. Rome: World
Food Programme (WFP). http://documents.wfp.org/stellent/groups/
public/documents/communications/wfp200279.pdf. Accessed 22
October 2010.
WFS. 1996. Rome declaration on world food security. Rome: World
Food Summit (WFS). http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/w3613e/
w3613e00.HTM. Accessed 8 November 2010.
Windfuhr, Michael, and Jennie Jonsén. 2005. Food Sovereignty.
Towards democracy in localized food systems. Rugby: ITGD
Publishing. http://www.ukabc.org/foodsovereignty_itdg_fian_
print.pdf. Accessed 22 October 2010.
Author Biographies
Tina D. Beuchelt is an agricultural economist and currently a postdoctoral fellow at the International Maize and Wheat Improvement
Center (CIMMYT). Prior to that, she was a research fellow at the
Food sovereignty or the human right to adequate food
Food Security Center, University of Hohenheim. She conducts
research on socio-economic aspects of conventional and certified
coffee production as well as on conservation agriculture, poverty
analysis and impact assessment. Her research interests include rural
development policies, sustainable agriculture, standards and certifications in agriculture as well as food security.
273
Building (Germany), and as the director of the Regional Center for
Africa of the AVRDC-The World Vegetable Center. He now is the
executive manager of the Food Security Center, University of
Hohenheim (Germany). His research areas are natural resource
management, rural and regional development, and food security.
Detlef Virchow holds a PhD in agricultural economics. He worked as
a research fellow at the Center for Development Research ZEF-Bonn
(Germany), as a Senior Project Manager at InWEnt-Capacity
123