EL FUTURO DE LA ALIMENTACIÓN Y RETOS DE LA
AGRICULTURA PARA EL SIGLO XXI:
Debates sobre quién, cómo y con qué implicaciones sociales, económicas y
ecológicas alimentará el mundo.
THE FUTURE OF FOOD AND CHALLENGES FOR
AGRICULTURE IN THE 21st CENTURY:
Debates about who, how and with what social, economic and ecological
implications we will feed the world.
ELIKADURAREN ETORKIZUNA ETA NEKAZARITZAREN
ERRONKAK XXI. MENDERAKO:
Mundua nork, nola eta zer-nolako inplikazio sozial, ekonomiko eta ekologikorekin
elikatuko duen izango da eztabaidagaia
To be or not to be a constituency:
Reflections on the roles of researchers in
the European Food Sovereignty Movement
Priscilla Claeys and Jessica Duncan
Paper # 36
Apirila – Abril – April
24, 25, 26
2017
www.elikadura21.eus
To be or not to be a constituency: Reflections on the
roles of researchers in the European Food
Sovereignty Movement
Priscilla Claeys and Jessica Duncan
In this paper we explore the roles of researchers in the European food sovereignty
movement, from a constituency perspective. To this end, we review the origins and
evolution of constituencies with a focus on various mechanisms for categorization
and participation from the international level, with a focus on the involvement of
food sovereignty actors in the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and
Committee on World Food Security (CFS), through to the EU level. We focus on the
processes that informed the make-up of delegations and selection of participants
at the 2011 and 2016 Nyéléni Europe Fora, including a brief review of the processes
followed by some of the national delegations. From there, attention turns to a short
review of the roles that researchers currently play or could play in the movement.
Our exploration of the implications of a researchers’ constituency focuses on the
three following themes, each with associated drawbacks: developing a collective
identity; formalizing a supportive function; and, coordinating to ensure
accountability. We end with a discussion of possible directions when it comes to
the ever-evolving issue of constituencies, including proposals to formalize the
support roles that NGOs and researchers provide through the formalization of a
two-tier system. We argue in our conclusion that while self-organizing as a
researchers’ constituency is premature, we would do well to engage collectively in
discussions about our roles as researchers and relations with others in the
movement, for reasons we explore in this paper.
Keywords: Nyéléni Europe, Constituency, Researchers, Academics, Politics,
Participation
El futuro de la alimentación y la Agricultura en el Siglo XXI.
Abstract
Introduction1
In October 2016, more than 500 food sovereignty activists from across Europe and
Central Asia met in Cluj-Napoca, Romania, for the second Nyéléni Europe Forum for
food sovereignty. The objective of this important gathering was to follow up on key
commitments made at the 2011 Nyéléni Europe Forum (Krems, Austria), the first
event organized at the European level to facilitate dialogue and convergence across
peasant movements, other rural constituencies and urban-based movements in the
framework of food sovereignty. Both events were efforts to purse the political
process initiated at the global level in 2007 at the Nyéléni Food Sovereignty Forum
(Mali).
1This
paper is still a work in progress. We are in the process of sharing and improving the paper. We share it
here with the understanding that it will not be cited and in the hope that it opens up more opportunities for
discussion and reflection. We are grateful to colleagues and friends who have contributed informally to this
paper through rich discussions in the last few months.
1
El futuro de la alimentación y la Agricultura en el Siglo XXI.
2
As participants to the 2016 Forum, we were curious to create a space to reflect on
the roles of researchers, who appeared to be there is relatively large numbers. We
therefore triggered a meeting of researchers during the time allotted for
constituency meetings. Researchers have historically played, and continue to play
various roles in the movement, including key supporting functions. At times, their
activities have overt or implicit political implications (Interviews 9, 15, 16, 17). Yet,
there is no clarity on the roles of researchers in and across the movement, or on
the nature of their contributions. Furthermore, there is no formal space or
organizational structure for researchers in the movement. This paper explores this
tension, as well as some of the issues around trust, objectivity, and independence,
that derive from our experiences and roles as researchers. What would it mean for
researchers to self-organize and be recognized as a constituency? To answer this
question meant revisiting the development of constituencies throughout the
history of the movement, and exploring issues of representation and categorization
in the movement today. Why, when and how did constituencies emerge, first at the
global and later at European level? How have they evolved over time? How do
constituencies interact, organize their access to policy spaces, and jointly build a
movement, and what are the implications of these developments for food
sovereignty researchers?
In this paper, we address these questions by making use of participatory
observation at the 2016 Forum in Cluj, key informant interviews (N= 17), and
document analysis. A table with a short description of the profiles of our
interviewees is provided in the annex, to protect the anonymity of our informants.
Our research builds on a growing body of literature on agrarian movements and
academia, most of which attempts to establish some kind of typology for various
kinds of “scholar-activists” or “solidarity researchers”. These works discuss various
kinds of researcher-movement interactions, and the tensions associated with doing
research with, for, about or within agrarian movements (see for example
Desmarais, 2002; Edelman, 2009; Brem-Wilson, 2014a; Borras Jr., 2016). In
addition, we dialogue with theoretical works in different fields that discuss the
conditions enabling the participation and representation of marginalized, subaltern
publics in policy processes (Fraser, 1990, 2008). The originality of our paper is to
explore the roles of researchers from a constituency perspective, meaning that we
attempt to look at researchers as political, although not marginalized, actors.
In what follows we review the origins and evolution of constituencies with a focus
on various mechanisms for categorization and participation from the international
level, with a focus on the involvement of food sovereignty actors in the UN Food
and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and Committee on World Food Security (CFS),
through to the EU level. We focus on the processes that informed the make-up of
delegations and selection of participants from different constituencies at the 2011
and 2016 Nyéléni Europe Fora, including a brief review of the processes followed
by some of the national delegations. From there, attention turns to a short review
of the roles that researchers currently play or could play in the movement. Our
exploration of the implications of a researchers’ constituency focuses on the three
following themes, each with associated drawbacks: developing a collective identity;
formalizing a supportive function; and, coordinating to ensure accountability. We
end with a discussion of possible directions when it comes to the ever-evolving
issue of constituencies, including proposals to formalize the support roles that
NGOs and researchers provide through the formalization of a two-tier system. We
argue in our conclusion that while self-organizing as a researchers’ constituency is
premature, we would do well to engage collectively in discussions about our roles
as researchers and relations with others in the movement, for reasons we explore
in this paper.
In this section we provide a discussion of what constituencies are, how they
emerged, and how they have come to function in the food sovereignty movement.
We include a historical overview of the emergence of constituencies with respect
to a globalizing movement, and related interaction with international organizations,
including UN bodies. Constituencies are broadly defined as a group of people with
shared interests (Oxford English Dictionary, 2017). In the contemporary food
sovereignty movement, the concept of constituencies has been used to identify and
distinguish between groups of people who play a role in the movement, but who
have distinct identities and lived realities. Reflecting on the development of
constituencies uncovers a rather opaque, fragmented, and at time contradictory
series of pathways, which we do our best to sketch out below. In our analysis, we
pay particular attention to the ways in which representation, and related
mechanisms for coordinating participation, have shifted. We take note of what
appears to be a dual function of constituencies: supporting processes of movement
building; and, facilitating access to policy processes for particularly affected or
marginalized categories of people.
There is a surprising paucity of literature on constituencies, given their prevalence
and relevance within the current organization of the global food sovereignty
movement. To understand the development of constituencies, it is helpful to
understand the history of civil society participation in the United Nations and the
transition from representation of NGOs to CSOs and eventually to peoples’
movements within some bodies of the UN system (McKeon, 2009). This may seem
like a strange starting point to understand how a transnational social movement
organises itself, however, the global food sovereignty movement has developed, to
a large part, in relation to the architecture of global food governance, for example
in relation to the activities of the FAO, and in direct opposition to the World Trade
Organization (Desmarais, 2007; McKeon, 2009; Brem-Wilson, 2014b; Claeys, 2015).
The UN has a long and diverse history of civil society participation and different UN
institutions have advanced different mechanisms to facilitate multi-stakeholder
consultations and participation (Willets, 1996; Sassen, 2003; Cornwall, 2008;
McKeon, 2009; Quick and Feldman, 2011; Westberg and Waldenström, 2016). Only
a small number of UN entities have managed to establish direct relationships with
peoples’ organizations (McKeon, 2009b), including the International Labour
Organization (ILO), FAO and International Fund for Agricultural Development
(IFAD).2 Given that changes in the world political scene since the early 1990s have
“opened the door to more significant involvement of non-state actors in UN affairs”
(McKeon, 2009, p. 8), and that this period marks the entry of food sovereignty into
food movement discourse, we start our overview in the early 1990s, with the launch
2
The ILO involves trade unions as full partners while IFAD established its Farmers’ Forum in 2005 to function as
a tripartite body between IFAD, governments and farmers’ organizations. The FAO established an agreement
with the International Planning Committee for Food Sovereignty (IPC) as outlined below.
El futuro de la alimentación y la Agricultura en el Siglo XXI.
Origins and Evolution of Constituencies at the International level
3
El futuro de la alimentación y la Agricultura en el Siglo XXI.
of the Major Groups, elaborated in Agenda 21, and adopted at the Earth Summit in
1992 (UNSD, 1992).
4
Major Groups refer to the key sectors in society that would act as “the main
channels through which broad participation would be facilitated in UN activities
related to sustainable development” (DESA, 2017). The idea is based on the
assumption that achieving sustainable development requires the active
participation of all sectors of society. Agenda 21 formally recognized nine sectors
of society, or Major Groups: Women, Children and Youth, Indigenous Peoples, NonGovernmental Organizations, Local Authorities, Workers and Trade Unions,
Business and Industry, Scientific and Technological Community, and Farmers.
Twenty years later, at the Rio+20 conference, the outcome document “The Future
We Want” reiterated the importance of Major Groups in pursuing sustainable
societies and “invited other stakeholders, including local communities, volunteer
groups and foundations, migrants and families, as well as older persons and persons
with disabilities, to participate in UN processes related to sustainable development”
(DESA, 2017).
Four years later, in 1996, the FAO hosted the World Food Summit (WFS). At this
time, NGOs could apply to be observers. McKeon (2009:26) writes that:
criteria for accreditation of NGOs to attend the summit as observers
referred to the open-ended terminology of ‘relevant and competent’
which had been coined for the United Nations Conference on
Environment and Development (UNCED) and adopted by subsequent
summits. In the context of the WFS, this was interpreted to mean that
NGO observers should have one or more of the following: knowledge of,
and experience in, areas related to food and agricultural development
issues; knowledge of, and experience in, working with food producers
and consumers; normative and/or operational cooperation with the FAO
in areas of work related to food security.
There was no reference to CSOs or movements or any distinction related to
constituencies here. However, alongside the World Food Summit, a parallel NGO
Forum was organized and attended by 1,300 NGO representatives from 80
countries (FAO, 1999b). As one interviewee recalls, the FAO agreed to the idea of
an NGO forum and shared with civil society organisers the names of all the
organizations the FAO had worked with over the years, only after having received
reassurance that there would be no violent protest (Interview 13).
The Parallel NGO Forum was divided into two phases. As McKeon (2009:35) recalls,
“the first, from 11-13 November, was limited to 600 delegates with voting rights,
50 per cent of whom represented local or national organizations of peasants,
women and indigenous peoples from the South.” What is of importance for this
paper is that this was the only parallel forum to the World Summits of the 1990s
that adopted specific procedure to ensure balanced civil society participation
(McKeon, 2009, p. 35). This also reflects the first instance we can find of a system
of quotas being implemented to prioritise the voices of certain groups of civil
society over others. The second part of the NGO Forum was open to all interested
organizations subject to a light registration process that served essentially to keep
track of who was in the building. Over 800 organizations from 80 countries
participated, which an average attendance of 1,000 people.” (McKeon 2009:36).
The NGO Forum produced a statement that was read at the World Food Summit.
The statement referred not to different constituencies, nor to producers, but spoke
of the collective representation of “the more than one billion hungry and
malnourished people of the world, most of them children and women” (FAO, 1996).
The lack of reference to food producers, or other constituencies is significant as the
concept of food sovereignty was first brought to international attention at the
World Food Summit (Pimbert, 2009, p. 5). Furthermore, La Via Campesina (LVC)
refused to sign the NGO declaration on the basis that “it did not address sufficiently
the concerns and interests of peasant families” (Desmarais, 2002, p. 104).
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
Rural and urban people's organizations
Southern national and regional development NGOs
Northern development NGOs
Humanitarian NGOs
Advocacy NGOs
International NGOs and NGO networks
Professional associations and academic/research institutions
Agricultural trade union
Private sector associations
The order of the list, which gives clear priority to people’s organizations and
southern NGOs is significant here. Also significant is the shift from NGO to CSOs and
the inclusion of academic and research institutions.
The emergence of the IPC
In 2002, the FAO hosted the World Food Summit: five years later (WFS:fyl), which
saw the participation of 52 CSOs and social movements (IPC, 2016). Following this,
a number of the involved groups came together to form the International Planning
Committee for Food Sovereignty (IPC). The IPC continued to work informally until
2003, when it formalised and co-signed an Exchange of Letters with the FAO
outlining the principles governing FAO-IPC relations and outlining a program of
work. The IPC established key principles of autonomy and self-representation, but
“it is not as if the IPC was born with total clarity about what a constituency could
look like” (Interview 15). At this point, the IPC was “composed of focal points for
the regions, for major constituencies, and for key themes” (McKeon 2009:54). This
means that internally, in order to represent major social actors, the IPC organized
around “social constituencies”: farmers, fisherfolk, indigenous peoples, agricultural
workers, women and youth. It is in the declaration of the NGO/CSO Forum for food
sovereignty that a declaration of constituencies emerges: “The social movements,
farmer, fisherfolk, pastoralists’, indigenous peoples’, environmentalist, women’s
organizations, trade unions, and NGOs” (La Via Campesina, 2002).
These social constituencies, as they developed within the IPC, can be seen as a
double reaction to the domination of NGOs within FAO civil society spaces, and to
El futuro de la alimentación y la Agricultura en el Siglo XXI.
Following the WFS, the FAO (1999a) moved forward with the development of a
Policy and Strategy for Cooperation with Non-Governmental and Civil Society
Organizations.” In this document, distinctions were made between, for example,
membership organizations and organizations that do not represent communities or
sectors of society, and between the non-profit sector and the private sector. The
document also outlined the “Major categories of CSOs to which FAO relates” which
were:
5
El futuro de la alimentación y la Agricultura en el Siglo XXI.
the Major Groups approach. The process of formation of constituencies
within/through the IPC departed from the Major Group (MG) approach in a number
of important ways. McKeon (2009:56-7) identifies four clear distinctions. First, MGs
were predefined by an intergovernmental forum whereas the IPC emerged from a
process of self-definition of civil society. Second, the MG approach assumed broad
categories like ‘farmers’ would be able to come with consensus positions on issues
where the different types of producers within the category often had widely
different interests. Third, the MG consultation processes were led by global focal
points whereas the IPC process was rooted in regional and local consultation.
Finally, the MGs included business and industry whereas the IPC excluded the
private sector. We also note that while researchers are included in the MGs under
the heading of “Science and Technology”, researchers were not included in the IPC.
In addition, while NGOs have been part of the IPC since the beginning, it has always
been with the sense that they were, as one activist noted, of a “different nature”
(Interview 14). According to our interviews, the principle of ensuring that the voices
of producers were predominant vis-à-vis the voices of NGOs was very clear to
everyone involved (Interviews 9 and 14).
In 2006, in the final declaration of the CSO Forum “Land, territory and Dignity” in
Porto Alegre, we see an even more elaborated list of constituency categories:
We are representatives of organizations of peasants, family farmers,
indigenous peoples, landless peoples, artisanal fisherfolk, rural workers,
migrants, pastoralists, forest communities, rural women, rural youth,
and defenders of human rights, rural development, the environment,
and others. (IPC, 2006).
The CSO Forum was organized by the IPC, following an agreement with FAO, as a
parallel summit to the International Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural
Development (ICARRD). The IPC’s goal was to connect all food producers and to
have a forum that was “not only about LVC” (Interview 14). Retrospectively, people
we interviewed describe the CSO Forum as the real turning point for the multiconstituencies approach. This was perhaps prompted by the fact that this Forum
took place in the Global South, with less restrictions on access to Forum venues.
The following year, in February, the Nyéléni Forum for Food Sovereignty was held
in Sélingué, Mali. It was at this meeting that the constituency approach – or what
was then called sectors – was more broadly endorsed or, in the words of one
activist, “sanctified” (Interview 13). The shift in focus from the Porto Alegre CSO
Forum to the Nyéléni Forum is noteworthy in so far as the former sought to enhance
participation, whereas the latter aimed to bring together different groups and build
the larger movement through alliances, largely at the initiative of La Via Campesina
(Interview 14).
In the lead up to the Nyéléni Forum, for pragmatic reasons, key mechanisms for
participation revolved around the language of delegates. However, in a letter to
delegates, the organizers explained:
6
Delegates have been selected in the regions on the basis of regional,
sectoral and gender balance as representatives of social movements
and organisations that have endorsed the call to action and are already
participating in activities relevant to food sovereignty at local, national
or regional levels (Nyeleni, 2007a).
At the meetings, delegates were given time to meet as sectoral groups, and to
comment and make proposals for a joint action agenda (Nyeleni, 2007b). In total,
six sectors were identified:
Farmers/peasants,
Fisherfolk,
Pastoralists,
Indigenous Peoples,
Workers & Migrants,
Consumers & Urban Movements.
NGOs were not considered a sector but referred to as allies within the final report
(Nyéléni, 2007). Also identified were three interest groups: Women, Youth, and
Environment. The agenda included sectoral meetings and organizers noted that
interest groups could also meet in parallel with Sectoral meetings. Two years later,
back in Rome a People's Food Sovereignty Forum was organised as a parallel
initiative to the World Summit on Food Security, organised by the FAO in the
context of the world food crisis. At this time, the sectors included at Nyéléni had
been adapted and translated into a quota system of sorts for delegates of smallscale food producers’ organisations of farmers, fisherfolk, Indigenous Peoples, food
and rural workers, rural youth, women and pastoralists, as well as food insecure
city dwellers, and NGOs.
The Civil Society Mechanism of the CFS
A few years later, the importance of prioritizing the participation of food producers
and peoples’ organizations was translated into the core principles of the Civil
Society Mechanism (CSM) of the Committee on World Food Security (CFS). As
McKeon (2015, p. 185) notes, the CSM “was designed to ensure pride of place and
visibility to organizations directly representing small-scale food producers and
other categories of those most affected by food insecurity”. The design of the CSM
sought to ensure adequate representation, and to prioritize the participation of
people most affected by hunger, “recognizing that victims of hunger are also the
bearers of solutions” (CFS, 2010, para. 14). This sentiment is also entrenched in the
reform principles of the CFS:
The CFS is and remains an intergovernmental Committee. It will be
composed of members, participants and observers and will seek to
achieve a balance between inclusiveness and effectiveness. Its
composition will ensure that the voices of all relevant stakeholders
– particularly those most affected by food insecurity - are heard
(CFS, 2009, para. 7).
The original proposal for the Civil Society Mechanism (CFS, 2010) outlined 11
constituencies:
smallholder
family
farmers,
artisanal
fisherfolk,
herders/pastoralists, landless, urban poor, agricultural and food workers, women,
youth, consumers, Indigenous Peoples, and NGOs. The CSM founding document
notes that the list of constituencies was taken from the CFS reform document (CFS,
2009, para. 11.ii) “to help ensure its smooth and rapid interaction with the CFS”
(CFS, 2010). However, this decision included several caveats. First, the CSM
reiterates that one of the key organizing principles is for self-organized groups to
speak for themselves in the CSM and have a greater representation in the
mechanism. The CSM also makes the distinction between NGOs, as organisations
that represent the interests of a particular theme or support the interests of certain
El futuro de la alimentación y la Agricultura en el Siglo XXI.
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7
El futuro de la alimentación y la Agricultura en el Siglo XXI.
social groups, and self-organised social actors who share a common identity and
have come together to represent their own interests, (CFS, 2010, n. 3). This is
slightly different than the formulation in the CFS Reform Document which lists
constituencies as the participant categories (e.g. civil society and private sector)
(CFS, 2009, para. 15), identifying the 11 CSM constituencies as examples of
representative organizations worthy of particular attention (i.e., sub-categories of
a civil society constituency). Second, it was noted that of the “self-organized
constituencies, smallholder producers have a larger number of spaces in the
coordination mechanism because they represent the majority of the world’s
hungry; they also hold in large parts solutions to addressing hunger sustainably”.
Consequently, in the development of the governing body of the CSM, smallholder
family farmers, now referred to within the CSM as smallholder farmers, were given
four seats, while other constituencies were allotted two seats.
8
Since the launch of the CSM, there have been some discussions about
constituencies. As one interviewee explained: “It is not like the conversation on
constituencies is over (Interview 9). For example, it does appear as though a new
constituency is on the horizon: People in protracted crisis.3 While tensions between
NGOs and self-organizing movements were prevalent at the initiation of the CSM,
this has stopped being a dominant issue, in part due to the accepted view that
within the CSM the voices of social movements are prioritized and that the role of
NGOs and others (i.e. researchers) is to play a supporting role. Indeed, within the
CSM, it is the regional tensions more than constituency-based tensions that have
caused problems (Duncan, 2015).
According to the FAO’s (2013) Guidelines for Ensuring Balanced Representation of
Civil Society, constituencies are one of four main ways too ensure balanced
representativeness (FAO, 2013).4 Noting that constituencies “ensure that the
different voices are listened to with equal weight”, the Guidelines identify 12
constituencies:
1. Small farmers
2. Landless
3. Agricultural workers
4. Fishers and fish workers
5. Pastoralists and herders
6. Forest dwellers
7. Ethnic minorities and indigenous peoples
8. Urban poor
9. Consumers
10. NGOs
11. Women
12. Youth
3
Towards this end, there is an agreement in principle to have a new constituency on the basis of people in
protracted crisis because it is clear that these people face a unique state of food insecurity that is not covered
by the current constituencies, but that also need to be addressed in certain ways. At the same time, they are
not organised in such a way that they can currently participate in the structure and therefore, a Working
Group has to look at how that constituency can be organised in a way that gives a voice to these people and
that can represent multiple states of protracted crisis and conflict.
4 While the FAO has developed very clear guidelines for representation of CSOs, little has been done when it
comes to distinguishing difference amongst private sector actors. They remain categorised as a unitary group.
For me it started to crack down [the constituency logic] when you got the
food policy councils….Territorially-based movements that were just not
following the logic of one constituency pursing its agenda and making
alliances with other constituencies (Interview 15).
Reform of the IPC
Around the time that the FAO was defining this strategy, the IPC was undergoing a
reform. The IPC had played a key role in the development of the CSM but there was
a sense, according to some of the people interviewed, that the CSM in many ways
overtook the IPC in transparency, reliance on clear rules, ability to build a plural
space, and operational capacity linked to its quasi-institutional status and thereby
ability to receive/attract funding: in short, according to one interviewee, the IPC
was perceived by funders as less transparent and more dangerous (Interview 14).
As a result, the IPC decided to reform.
Central to the reform of the IPC was the establishment of collective leadership, with
a facilitating group made of representatives from peoples’ movements. Regional
focal points were removed as they were perceived as gatekeepers and trouble
makers and none of them were representing food producers (Interview 14).
According to the IPC, social movement organisations provide legitimacy “based on
the ability to voice the concerns and struggles that a wide variety of civil society
organizations and social movements face in their daily practice of advocacy at local,
sub-national, regional and global levels” (IPC, 2016). At the same time, we note that
the current participating organizations continue to represent many of the key
constituencies (IPC, 2016). By way of the reform, Working Groups were recognized
as the main structuring mechanism of the IPC. Each Working Group is headed by a
constituency representative, supported by an NGO representative (Interviews 12
and 14). Through the reform, NGOs have come to be recognized as having a
supporting role only, with no membership and no right to speak. We note that in
practice, the IPC works in a more fluid way, and collaborates with trusted individuals
who work with supportive NGOs. The key supporting NGOs remain FIAN, Friends of
the Earth International, Centro Internazionale Crocevia, and the International
Collective in Support of Fishworkers (IPC, 2016).
El futuro de la alimentación y la Agricultura en el Siglo XXI.
Reflecting on how constituencies are structured at the global level, we see that in
the 1999 policy on partnerships between the FAO and CSOs, a distinction was made
between the private sector and the non-profit sector, with recognition of the need
to make “allowances for grey areas between the two such as informal economic
enterprises of the poor” (FAO, 1999a). Ten years later, with the development of the
11 CSM constituencies and the 12 FAO constituencies, we note that small or
progressive economic actors are not included as a clear constituency. Although they
exist across the existing constituencies, the lack for an explicit trade constituency
leads to this group often being represented in the CFS for example by the Private
Sector Mechanism (Interview 9). Local authorities are identified as one of the UN
Major Groups, which is also the case for the scientific community, but both have
been historically disregarded by the IPC’s focus on food producers. The growing
recognition that local governments and food policy councils are important actors in
the food sovereignty movement questions some of the foundations of the
constituency approach. As noted by one our interviewees:
9
The organizational reform of the IPC away from constituencies towards Working
Groups is instructive. As one interviewee explained, a key rationale was that the IPC
was seeking a more horizontal structure which is important given that social
movements are dynamic in ways that extend beyond the clean categories of
constituencies (Interview 12). Many of the participating organizations of the IPC are
comprised of people who cut across multiple constituencies (e.g. women,
Indigenous, youth, fishers) (Interviews 4, 12, 15, 16).
El futuro de la alimentación y la Agricultura en el Siglo XXI.
Reflecting on the IPC and the CSM as two closely related, yet distinct platforms
where food sovereignty actors come together, we see different understanding of,
and uses for, constituencies. As one activist noted:
IPC is a space of alliance for social movements, so is based on mutual
trust and confidence, but it is not a space of representation. Not even
the CSM represents, it just facilitates the participation. Since the CSM is
an institutional space, any concern of inclusivity (more than
representation) is appropriate. In the IPC there is not such a concern,
since it is based on mutual commitment and work already done
together. Even in FAO processes, IPC facilitates the participation of
CSOs, also CSOs which are not part of the IPC, it does not aim to
represent all the CSOs (Interview 12).
In the IPC, the focus is on food producers and NGOs play a supportive role. In the
CFS, NGOs are recognised as a constituency, but the CSM has organised itself so
that NGOs provide support to the social movements. This is evident in the CSM
Working Groups on policy processes, which have come to play an increasingly
important role (Duncan, 2015). Thus, while NGOs formally have the right to express
their own interests, the ones that tend to stay in the CSM see their role as one of
support rather than advocacy. As one interviewee clarified: “yes, we are formally
part of the NGO constituency but we do not follow the interests of our
constituency” (Interview 14). It was explained that this is due to the fact that the
NGO constituency is very large and diverse, and defends different interests/views.
Later it was explained that the discussions in Rome are “so dominated by social
movements that NGOs don’t have a chance [to push their own agenda].”
This points to a tension which one interviewee reflected on:
There is also this debate, certainly within civil society organizations like
ours as to what degree do we exist to support social movements, and to
what degree do we exist to achieve goals which may include as part, the
support of social movement… Or turning it around the other way, when
can we be critics of social movements? And I think that [Name of NGO],
we need to be critics of social movements as well, and not hesitate, well,
yes, hesitate, do it cautiously, but be prepared to say, you guys are not
doing your job properly, or you are screwing up, or you really made a
mistake, or you are getting too conservative or bureaucratic and you
need a revolution in the social movement (Interview 17).
10
When asked how to balance the idea that NGOs are there to support social
movements, with the idea that NGOs are organizations that have their own
objectives and aims, another interviewee noted:
If you have, as an NGO, a specific objective that you want to reach or
longer term vision of how you see NGOs as actors of change and
legitimacy. And probably it is the 2nd. In the first aspect you might have
tensions. … In the longer term ,what I see if that there are certain NGOs
that play a role, they have specific expertise, they can bring these
elements into the discussion. … I am sometimes worried that we do not
have conflicted discussion in terms of position within the CSM. I am not
sure if that is a problem of NGO vs social movements as I assume that
within social movements there are tensions and conflicts. … The biggest
conflict we have in the CSM are not on the basis of NGOs (Interview 9).
This review of the development of constituencies around and within the food
sovereignty movement at the international level highlights a process of defining
categories to support representation and advocacy within various organizational
processes, including processes led by social movements (e.g. sectors in Nyéléni, to
constituencies in the IPC, and beyond). This representation has been fundamental
to coordinating participation in various spaces and in advancing advocacy. As one
interviewee noted:
The constituencies are an important passage. It made it clear to know
who was being talked about and to focus on the groups that were
weakest and to help strengthen them. It was useful to recognise and
address conflicts between constituencies… Recognising who you are
talking about is important (Interview 15).
The identification of food producers helped to make visible who was present and
facilitated the prioritization of the voices of previously under-represented, but
overly affected people. When it comes to the Nyéléni Europe Forum, we note that
the focus on constituencies is transferred from the international to the regional.
We also see that the application of constituencies shifts from advocacy to
movement building.
El futuro de la alimentación y la Agricultura en el Siglo XXI.
From our own perspectives and experiences, we note that researchers often face
similar problems to those described above, but that researchers lack the formal
space that NGOs have, as well as the claims of representation and organizational
backing. We come back to this tension below.
Constituencies in the Nyéléni Europe Food Sovereignty Forum(s)
The Nyéléni 2007 Forum in Mali “acted as a catalyst” for efforts to create a food
sovereignty movement in Europe and, according to the Nyéléni Europe website,
“the vision of food sovereignty for Europe is based on the principles defined at the
Nyéléni forum in 2007” (Nyéléni Europe, 2016b). At the European level, the global
constituency approach was “replicated”, with some adjustments, in preparation of
the two Nyéléni Europe Forums for food sovereignty that were held in 2011 in
Krems, Austria, and in 2016 in Cluj-Napoca, Romania. The roles played by
constituencies are apparent both in the organizing structure for the organization of
these forums, and in the processes carried out at national level for selecting
participants.
For the 2011 Nyéléni Europe Forum, a quota system was used to ensure that one
third of the delegates would be “food producers”, half of the delegates women and
11
El futuro de la alimentación y la Agricultura en el Siglo XXI.
one third youth (Nyéléni Europe, 2011, p. iii). In addition, the composition of
national delegations had to “take into account the following constituencies”:
1. Food producers (farmers, fisherfolk, pastoralists, urban gardeners, community
supported agriculture);
2. Workers (agricultural workers, migrants, trade unions);
3. Environmental, Health and Development NGOs;
4. Youth organizations;
5. Women’s organizations;
6. Consumers (food co-ops, urban poor); and,
7. Others (artists, teachers, researchers,...).
The list of constituencies was taken from the 2007 Nyéléni Forum and only slightly
amended to reflect the European reality. There was awareness that the original
Nyéléni Sectors were not immediately applicable to the European context
(Interviews 9 and 13).5 What is striking is that all types of food producers were
grouped under one category (a clear move away from the specification that had
emerged at the international level), and an additional “others” constituency was
added.
The Steering Committee6 in charge of organizing the 2011 Forum was mostly
composed of peasant organization members of La Via Campesina (N=6) and NGOs
(N=5), with the addition of two national food sovereignty platforms, and Urgenci
(International network of community supported agriculture). Most of these
organizations were part of the European network for food sovereignty and Another
CAP (Common Agriculture Policy), FoodSovCap. The FoodSovCap network gathered
around 100 organizations, both environmental and development NGOs, and smallscale farmers’ organizations, jointly campaigning and advocating for European
agriculture policy reform.7
The reason why the conveners of the 2011 Nyéléni Europe Forum adopted a
constituency approach appears to be that the Steering Committee included a
number of people who had been actively involved in the organization of the 2007
Nyéléni Forum in Mali. In the words of one interviewee who was involved in this
process: “… things like this (quotas) were not new for them (…) A lot of it was
coming from them and we just adopted it” (Interview 11). The quotas, however,
were applied in a very flexible way (Interview 9). The idea of Nyéléni Europe was to
build the movement, and to give space to representatives of local alternatives, such
as seed banks, land banks, CSAs, anti-GMO campaigns, as well as national food
5
12
Discussions on how to move forward with a regional Nyéléni process at the European level certainly took
place, however, the nature of these discussions would require more investigation. What is known is that the
small Belgian NGO Collectif stratégies alimentaires (CSA) was appointed as focal point for Europe following the
2007 Forum but failed to bring convergence. Concord was also tentatively used as a platform for European
coordination, but failed because it was too dominated by NGOs.
6 Steering committee in 2011: Alexandra Strickner, Attac Austria, Anna Korzenszky, Hungarian Food Sovereignty
Platform, Anne Gueye, Uniterre Switzerland, David Sánchez, Amigos de la Tierra, Spain, Geneviève Savigny,
European Coordination Via Campesina, Gert Engelen, Vredeseilanden, Javier Sanchez, European Coordination
Via Campesina, Jocelyn Parot, Urgenci, Irmi Salzer, Via Campesina Austria, Luca Colombo, Italian Food
Sovereignty Platform, Ludwig Rumetshofer, Via Campesina Austria, Mira Palmisano, Via Campesina Austria,
Stanka Becheva, Friends of the Earth Europe, Thierry Kesteloot, Oxfam-Solidariteit.
7 For a list of organizations, see http://www.eurovia.org/foodsovcap-position-on-cap-reform/. The network
included ECVC, FoE, Attac, TNI and national organizations as well, such as Vredeseilanden in Belgium, ABC
platform in NL, etc.
From 2011 to 2016
The group of organizations that decided to launch the mobilization call for the
second Nyéléni Europe Forum in 2016 was roughly the same as in 2011. At its core,
it was a group of people who “work well together” (Interview 9). This time the
Coordination Committee8 was composed of the European coordination of Via
Campesina (ECVC) and 2 peasant organizations belonging to ECVC, with the
Romanian organization Eco-Ruralis playing a key role as host. The Coordination
Committee was expanded to other producer constituencies, namely fishers,
Indigenous peoples and shepherds, as well as representatives from the organic
sector through a Georgian member organization of IFOAM. Consumers and CSAs
were represented by the Urgenci network, and a handful of new NGOs joined. A
particularly important role was played by TNI and FIAN, in part because of the
financial and human resources made available through the EU-funded project
Hands on the Land for Food Sovereignty (HOTL), conducted jointly with ECVC.9
In its mobilization call,10 the Coordination Committee set the four key goals of the
Forum: sharing experiences and mapping alternatives; building a common
understanding of food sovereignty in Europe; strengthening and enlarging the
movement; and advocating for policies that support food sovereignty. Also, of
particular relevance to our paper was a stated emphasis on “ increasing linkages
and convergences among different on-going struggles and constituencies within
our movement” and “developing a working structure to maintain and ensure the
continuity of our collective work after the Forum” (Nyéléni Europe, 2016a). The
Coordination Committee also identified the national focal points to be in charge of
composing the national delegations, and established criteria for reaching out to and
selecting participants.
The same quotas used in 2011 were again applied in 2016 to ensure adequate
“representation of constituencies”: minimum 30% Food Producers, minimum 30%
Youth, and 50% Women and 50% Men. But the list of constituencies was
substantially amended. The first six constituencies remained unchanged, with the
exception of CSAs that were now listed as belonging to the “organized consumers”
constituency, while they were originally listed under “food producers”. A seventh
constituency of “local economic actors for food sovereignty webs” was added,
including “cooperatives, transformers, people-owned distribution, food
sovereignty infrastructure, etc.” And the “others” constituency was expanded to
include not only artists, teachers and researchers but also “community groups
involved in local food policy councils” and “representatives of local authorities”.
El futuro de la alimentación y la Agricultura en el Siglo XXI.
sovereignty platforms. Nevertheless, ECVC organizations and NGOs remained
predominant (Interview 11).
8
Steering committee in 2016: Eco Ruralis Association, ÖBV-Via Campesina Austria, European Coordination Via
Campesina, World Forum of Fisher People, The Resource Center for Indigenous People, Urgenci Community
Supported Agriculture Network, The Biological Farming Association Elkana, Friends of the Earth Europe, FIAN
European Sections and Coordinations, European Attac Network, Transnational Institute (TNI), European
Shepherds’ Network (member of the global pastoralist network WAMIP).
9 HOTL is described as a collective campaign by 16 partners, that “includes peasants and social movements,
development and environmental NGO, human rights organisations and research activists”. It features ECVC,
EHNE Bizkaia and Eco Ruralis (ECVC member organizations), TNI, FIAN, Crocevia, Terra Nuova, ZaZemiata (FoE
member, Bulgaria), Védegylet (Hongary) and IGO (Instytut globalnej odpowiedzialnosci). For more information,
see https://handsontheland.net/about/who-are-we/
10 https://nyelenieurope.net/index.php/publications/mobilization-call-second-nyeleni-europe-forum
13
El futuro de la alimentación y la Agricultura en el Siglo XXI.
Through interviews we learned that the underlying objective was to ensure
representation of actors already involved in multi-actor processes, and social forces
capable of implementing joint actions in the future, while opening to new thematic
areas (Interview 9). It was also decided that the size of the national delegations
needed to be proportional to the size of the population in each country. It should
be highlighted that these quotas and criteria were elaborated by the NGOdominated Methodology Group11 made up of members of the Coordination
Committee and other resource persons, but were not discussed by the
Coordination Committee due to a lack of time and resources (Interview 9).
14
Interviews indicate that the composition of the Coordination Committee (CC) was
the result of a difficult balancing act. In the view of one member of the
Methodology Group, the Coordination Committee “is broad but needs to be
broader” (Interview 9). There was some discussion within the Coordination
Committee regarding how to ensure that it was representative of the food
sovereignty movement in Europe and that “no one was missing in terms of
organizations” (Interview 11). This aspiration towards more inclusiveness existed in
tension with the requirements of trust and ensuring that all Coordination
Committee members “stand for the same things” (Interview 11); that is, share the
values and objectives of the food sovereignty movement. In the end, it was decided
that the Coordination Committee should build on established working
relationships, and that opening up might be premature. Here, a clear tension
emerges between the aspiration to enlarge the movement and the understandable
fears around leadership. A related issue concerns the need for members of the
Coordination Committee to be structured organizations, which impedes
representation of grassroots activists committed to specific struggles and involved
in food sovereignty alternatives but who are not formally organized.12
From quotas to national delegations
Interviews with various focal points in charge of the process of putting together the
national delegations to Cluj, coupled with the analysis of the excel sheets listing all
relevant information about delegation participants, reveal a great diversity in terms
of processes and final composition of the delegations, but also shared challenges.
For the purposes of this paper, we analysed the following delegations in detail:
France, Belgium, Netherlands, UK, Sweden, Italy, and Austria and attempts were
made to get information about Spain, Turkey and Romania, but unsuccessfully. For
reasons of time, space and resources, our analysis looks at the situation in
Western/central European countries. It is important to note here that one of the
important objectives and achievements of the Forum was to identify contact points
and build relations in countries where the European Food Sovereignty movement
was not yet present, such as Eastern Europe and countries outside the EU (the
Forum included people from 47 countries in total). In such cases, the Coordination
Committee focused on reaching out to people and organizations they felt shared
the values and objective of the movement, and inviting them to attend.
11
To support the work of the Coordinating Committee, various working groups were set up: Task team,
Communications, Methodology, Finance and Logistics. See: https://nyelenieurope.net/preparatory-process . It
is relevant to note that several members of the Methodology Group have also been very involved in Romebased processes (CFS reform, etc.).
12 Representatives of specific grassroots activist struggles are included in some national level food sovereignty
platforms such as in Belgium or Austria but how to achieve this at the pan-European level is unclear. This is
relevant to our discussion about researchers because researchers would (almost) never be in a position to speak
on behalf of their academic institution.
In the UK, the process was a bit different and thus worth reviewing. In the UK, a call
for applications was circulated through existing networks and anyone interested
could fill in an online form. The form requested applicants to indicate which
constituency they belonged to from a list that was very similar to the one coming
from the Methodology Group, with the addition of: “people socially
disadvantaged”15 and “campaigner/activist”. About 80 applications were filled and
later examined by a selection committee of individuals who were connected to the
movement, but who were not planning to attend the Forum. This was in part to
avoid perceptions of conflict of interest. It also meant that those who had
supported the coordination of the delegation were not present at the Forum and
thus unable to continue that coordination. Additional criteria were discussed in the
UK such as ensuring a balance between funded and self-funded participants, and
crowdfunding was used to enable more self-funded participants to join. In most
other countries, NGOs made funds available to enable the participation of food
producers, both from Europe and the Global South (e.g., Italy and France). The UK
process was also different in that it was coordinated by paid dedicated staff from
the UK Food Group.16
All focal points interviewed took very seriously the criteria for composing the
“ideal” delegation. One interviewee explained:
The aspiration was to have an ideal-type delegation, I guess, in which
all the constituencies would have been represented. So, food
producers, agricultural workers, NGOs, women and youth, organized
consumers. You try to be as broad and inclusive as possible and to tick
all those boxes. It was never a concern that we would not have food
producers, but it was a bit challenging... the concern was to broaden
it beyond just small-farmers groups. And so, some effort was really
put into that in order to be inclusive in terms of the food producer
constituency. What we were not successful in, unfortunately, is
El futuro de la alimentación y la Agricultura en el Siglo XXI.
The processes of putting together national delegations varied a great deal, but all
relied on the existing networks of the national focal points, who had themselves
been chosen by the Coordination Committee for being well connected to and
representative of the food sovereignty movement in a specific country. The
rationale for building on existing networks was to ensure that participants could be
trusted and would be in a position/more likely to follow up on shared actions and
campaigns after the Forum. In most countries, the process involved identifying key
people that “we already work with” (Interviews 9 and 11). In countries were some
kind of food sovereignty network or platform exists, the platform was used to
circulate the information (e.g. Voedsel Anders in the Netherlands13, the Réseau de
soutien à l’agriculture paysanne14 “Résap” in Belgium).
13
http://www.voedselanders.nl/
http://www.luttespaysannes.be/?lang=fr
15 The attention paid to the inclusion of marginalized people in the food sovereignty movement is not unique
to the UK, but it seems that only in the UK did this issue become really prominent. The emergence of a
constituency of people marginalized by colonialism and coloniality in Cluj was clearly led by UK delegates. It
was also decided, as part of the UK process, that “in the UK, we will also ensure that half the delegation is made
up of visible ethnic minorities (diasporas of the Global South), refugees and recent migrant communities, as
well as those whose class or income would normally preclude them from being part of the movement” (UK
Food Groups, internal document).
16 http://www.ukfg.org.uk/about/members/
14
15
getting agricultural workers or any organized consumers groups
(Interview 2).
El futuro de la alimentación y la Agricultura en el Siglo XXI.
As highlighted above, the criteria for the delegations essentially aimed at ensuring:
a) a focus on food producers (i.e. that the delegation is representative enough of
their interests/speaks their voice);
b) gender and generational equality; and,
c) a diversity of participants through the inclusion of representatives of the eight
identified constituencies.
The first criterion was met with uneven success. Some countries with active peasant
organizations like France or Italy had more than the required third of food
producers, some like Belgium or Sweden, struggled a bit more, partly because of
last minute cancellations. There was apparently little success in bringing
representatives of politically aligned small-scale farmers’ organizations with similar
interests but not affiliated with La Via Campesina to the Forum, although in several
countries the Forum appears to have represented an occasion to reach out to such
organizations.17 This is the case of the newly formed Boeren Forum in the North of
Belgium, and certainly the case of un- or less organized peasants in Eastern
European countries.
In all countries, bringing representatives from a diversity of food production sectors
such as fishers, shepherds/pastoralists, crofters (Scottish tenant farmers) or
Indigenous peoples, was a challenge, which is partly a reflection of the fact that
these sectors are less numerous and less organized than small-scale farmers, and
not present in all countries.18 Regrettably, we do not have data on the types of
activities carried by food producers, which would appear relevant in the European
context, e.g. livestock, fruit/vegetable, grains, etc. We also lack data on the
geographical distribution of participants, but our interviews showed that several
delegations struggled to ensure coverage of their whole territory (e.g. UK, Belgium,
and Sweden).
The second criterion regarding gender and generational equality was generally met,
although youth were under-represented on most delegations. Women were well
represented over all, with slight variations. In some cases such as in the UK, women
were vastly over-represented in the application process.
The third criterion – a diversity of participants through the inclusion of
representatives of the 8 suggested constituencies — is more difficult to assess,
because it touches on:
a) whether focal points succeeded in including all constituencies in their
delegations; and,
b) whether the list of eight constituencies actually reflects the composition and
reality of the food sovereignty movement across Europe.
16
17 Relations with European organic
producers, organized at the global level in the IFOAM, would require further
investigation. It appears that in most contexts organic farmers would be considered by food sovereignty
activists as “part of the establishment” (Interview 11).
18 The European Shepherds Network for example counts three members in France, five in Germany, two in
Spain, and one in Bulgaria, Finland, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Romania, Poland, UK, Norway and the Netherlands.
See http://shepherdnet.eu/?page_id=18
Representatives from workers’ organizations (be they migrant workers or food and
agricultural workers’ unions) were also very scarce or in most delegations
completely absent, at the exception of some countries where the issue is more
prominent, such as Italy or Spain (where one workers’ organizations, the SOC, is
member of ECVC). The relative absence of the workers’ constituency in Cluj appears
to be linked to the absence of networks connecting them with food sovereignty
actors. In some countries, like in Belgium and the Netherlands, contacts were made
but the lack of established relationships made it difficult to convince union
representatives to make the time commitment to attend the Forum for a whole
week. In addition, the fact that the global network IUF (International Union of Food,
Farm and Hotel Workers) left the Coordination Committee following an internal
conflict a few months before the Forum, may explain the lack of participation of
workers/unions at the Forum.
Organized consumers and members of Community Supported Agriculture projects
(CSAs) were numerous in Cluj, and the constituency has certainly grown since
Krems. This is perhaps not surprising given the growth of Urgenci and its presence
in the Coordination Committee, and the blooming of CSAs in general across Europe
(Duncan and Pascucci, 2017). However, bringing in the urban poor or organizations
working on urban poverty, homelessness, public health and nutrition, or food banks
remains a major challenge, and the disconnect is evident. The presence and role of
NGOs remains important, though we lack data to assess the relative balance of
environmental, human rights and development NGOs, as well as the balance
between larger, globally connected NGOs and smaller, more locally anchored nonprofit organizations, as all fall under the very diverse NGO constituency. A number
of small organizations working on a range of food and agriculture issues in urban
and rural settings – including access to land, composting, urban gardens, and seeds
– appear on the national delegations lists but are not represented in clear
constituencies, and, as noted above, it is difficult to include them in the
Coordination Committee.
19
The feminist network the International March of Women was involved in the launching and preparation of
the 2011 Forum (through its Steering Committee) but did not get involved in the preparation of the 2016 Forum,
although the reason is unclear.
El futuro de la alimentación y la Agricultura en el Siglo XXI.
Although this is beyond the scope of this paper, it is clear that the nature, maturity
and trajectory of local and national food sovereignty movements across Europe
vary a lot according to the different historical, cultural, economic and political
contexts. Out of the eight identified constituencies, three appear absent or
disconnected from the food sovereignty movement at this time: women, youth, and
workers. Youth and women’s organizations were absent from all the delegations
we analysed (although youth and women were certainly present).19 Interestingly,
we noted a mix of confusion (between quotas and constituencies) and pragmatism
when it came to including feminist and youth organizations in the food sovereignty
movement. Efforts to identify women or youth organizations working on food were
generally unsuccessful, and the issue was generally not seen as a priority because
attention was already paid to filling the youth and women quotas across
constituencies. The organization of a women’s meeting by members of La Via
Campesina during one of the Forum’s open spaces is nevertheless worth
highlighting. It was called “Women's opportunities and struggles in Food and
Agriculture” and was attended by more than 70 participants.
17
El futuro de la alimentación y la Agricultura en el Siglo XXI.
The roles and contributions of the last two, more recent constituencies, involving
local (alternative) economic actors (such as food coops or people-owned
distribution networks), local governments, community groups involved in food
policy councils, and researchers, are of interest in the context of this paper insofar
as they consist not of “affected” or “impacted” groups but of publics that need to
be brought on board to operate a transition to re-localized and resilient food
systems. The inclusion of these actors in the list of constituencies reflects the
increasing number of local, not necessarily producer-led, initiatives around food
system transformation in Europe. This is emblematic of the much discussed and
contested “urbanization” of food sovereignty (McMichael, 2014). It also evokes
tensions already identified in the US context between the radical, producer-led
food sovereignty movement and the progressive, urban-led food justice movement
(Holt-Gimenez and Shattuck, 2011), although the distinction between the food
sovereignty and food justice movements appears less sharp in the European
context (CSAs for example are described as food justice actors in the US context,
but were heavily represented in the Nyéléni Europe 2016 Forum).
Finally, when you consider the national delegations, all of the ones we analysed
included researchers, either listed as researchers or listed as representatives of
local alternatives, organizations, networks or CSAs. In most national processes, the
roles and contributions of researchers, and the extent to which they should be part
of the delegation, were discussed (certainly in Italy, France, Belgium, The
Netherlands, and the UK). It does not appear that this led to much controversy,
probably because focal points only considered the participation of “trusted”
researchers who are already well connected and involved in the movement. We
think it is therefore fair to say that the presence of researchers in Cluj was
recognised and largely anticipated.20 What was not anticipated was the
researchers’ decision to sit together during the time allotted for constituencies to
meet and discuss.
Constituency meetings at the Nyéléni Europe Food Sovereignty
Forum
During the Nyéléni Forum for Food Sovereignty, constituencies were given a space
to share experiences and discuss strategies. They were asked to reflect on the
following three questions:
1. How will we take forward the campaigns and actions discussed during the
forum?
2. How do we best organize ourselves as a constituency to achieve this?
3. What do we need from the Nyéléni organization/coordination committee to
bring this forward?
18
20
In addition to researchers individually engaged in local projects or initiatives, two groups of researchers
attended the Forum as part of specific ongoing larger research projects: the HOTL young researchers project
and the Centre for Agroecology, Water and Resilience (CAWR)’s project on agroecology learning and training
(http://www.agroecologynow.com/ ). Both projects are led jointly with ECVC. It is important to note that this
did not represent a high number of researchers (probably 6 to 10 out of 50).
The following criteria were set by the organizers in order for the initiators of new
constituencies to identify whether there was sufficient interest in their proposal
and whether the proposed new constituency was sufficiently diverse and
representative: to include members from at least 5 different organizations, coming
from at least 5 different countries, and amounting to at least 20 people in total.
With more than 50 people signing up, the researchers’ constituency was by far the
largest, with enough diversity in terms of countries and institutions involved. We
explore further below the outcomes of the researchers’ meeting. The group of
people interested in farming or wanting to start or join a farm gathered about 15
people, and was encouraged to join the established producers’ constituency. The
group of people interesting in awareness and education work was small (five
people), as was the group of people engaged in alternative retail (8-10). Although
the original idea was that only the groups meeting the proposed criteria would
convene and self-organize, it appears that all the groups enjoyed the opportunity
to discuss and exchange ideas. This is certainly the case of the people interested in
building concrete alternative to supermarkets, who enjoyed the space to talk about
the technicalities of their respective projects. The group of people marginalized by
colonialism, coloniality, enslavement and oppression, initiated by people of colour
in the UK, was joined by several participants of the Global South and participants
sympathetic to the issue. It gathered around 20 people and worked on a joint
statement that was shared with all participants at the final plenary. The statement
called on Nyéléni Europe to be more inclusive of all those in the margins (the street
sleepers, those with disabilities, the disinherited refugees, the traditional market
sellers, etc.), and for a reframing of food sovereignty to reflect the full diversity of
European society.
El futuro de la alimentación y la Agricultura en el Siglo XXI.
Most participants joined the discussions held within the ambit of the four largest
constituencies21 i.e. producers (about 100 participants), consumers and urbanbased movements (about 30-40), agricultural and migrant workers (no data), and
NGOs (about 40). Participants who felt they did not identify with any of these
constituencies had the opportunity to look for other participants sharing “identity
or common experience” (Nyéléni Europe, 2016) and issue an invitation (using
flipcharts) to anyone interested in joining an emerging constituency. Five proposals
were made by participants: 1. people marginalized by colonialism, coloniality,
enslavement and oppression, 2. alternative retailers, 3. “peasants-to-be”, 4. people
interested in education and awareness-raising work, and 5. researchers.22
A draft follow-up structure was circulated at the Forum as a basis for discussing the
composition of the new Coordination Committee and the creation of the working
groups in charge of coordinating the implementation of specific actions and
campaigns.23 The document identifies the Forum as the body for identifying key
21 The origin of
this list of four “established” constituencies is unclear. It is partly a reflection of the composition
of the Coordination Committee and of the key organizations that mobilized people to attend the Forum, and
partly the result of pragmatic considerations such as the number of venues where people could meet and where
interpretation could be provided (Interviews 2, 11 and 15). It also reflects the fact that “some questions are not
easy to address in the movement” (Interview 11), referring to marginalized/diaspora and LGBTI issues in the
context of an agrarian movement in Europe where the dominant view remains attached to “patriarchal family
farming”(Interview 11).
22 It is interesting that alternative retailers and researchers are already listed in the 8 constituencies highlighted
by the methodology group, but not the other emerging ones.
23 The following six areas for shared campaigns and actions were identified in Cluj: 1. Land, seeds, natural
resources and the commons; 2. Agroecology, 3. Territorial markets; 4. A Common Food Policy; 5. Alternative
19
El futuro de la alimentación y la Agricultura en el Siglo XXI.
priorities and strategic orientations, while placing political orientation and
leadership in the hands of regional and sub-regional social movements for food
sovereignty. The Coordination Committee will be responsible for continuously
assessing and ensuring that its composition reflects the reality of the movement,
and will be assisted by a technical secretariat, which should be established within a
producer organization such as ECVC to ensure producers play central role. While
this draft follow-up structure was not discussed in Cluj, its key elements are
emblematic of the tension between efforts to open up the movement to nonproducer groups and the need to ensure the food sovereignty movement remains
true to its core values and principles.
20
Following this review, we ask ourselves, what represents a good reflection of the
composition of the food sovereignty movement in Europe? The criteria that were
set in the mobilization call for an “ideal” delegation? Or the actual composition of
the various delegations? How do we make sense of the tensions between the
development of constituencies to advance advocacy at the international level, and
the processes of movement building and opening up taking place at the EU level?
This question of opening up leads us to the case of researchers. What are, or should
be, our roles in the movement?
Formalizing support roles or moving past constituencies?
As researchers committed to the objectives of food sovereignty, and to supporting
food sovereignty struggles, we suggested an informal meeting of researchers to
discuss the implications of a researcher constituency. About 10% of participants at
the Forum self-identified as researchers: more than 50 researchers signed up and
39 attended the meeting. We met in an open space around the contours of the
eating area amidst the country delegation displays. We had no interpretation and
no microphones and very little time to prepare. What was prepared was a short
introduction outlining the impetus for calling the meeting and two questions for
discussion:
1)
What are the pros and cons of becoming a constituency?
2)
Regardless of the form: what do we/could we contribute to the food
sovereignty movement?
The large group broke into two smaller groups each armed with pens and flip charts.
Where possible, and needed, translation was provided in an informal and
impromptu way. After the break out discussions, the group came back together and
reviewed what had been said. From there, some decisions were made, including
the development of a listserv. The meeting also included a short mapping exercise
to identify the countries within which we are working, how our research relates to
the thematic axes and policy levels of the Forum (see table 1), to identify the
movements we are engaging with, and what disciplines we are from.
Of the 39 people that attended, 21 countries were represented. There was a broad
range of disciplines represented from the social sciences, but not from the natural
sciences, with the exception of a seed scientist and a plant breeder. 12 researchers
stated that they worked with or researched cooperatives, CSA or urban
movements. Five worked with or researched movements addressing food policy
trade systems and ending global corporate power; 6. Rights for agricultural workers including migrants,
peasants and women.
and governance issues. Another five stated that they worked with or researched La
Via Campesina or other peasant movements.
Thematic axis related to #
research
(Policy) level most reflective #
of research
Production
17
Local
30
Distribution
13
National
19
Natural Resources and the 13
Commons
EU
21
Work and Social Conditions
8
Global
16
Policy Convergence
12
Global South
12
Table 1: Overview of researcher self-identification of relevant thematic axis and
policy level.
The idea of a researcher constituency is highly political. To be clear, in proposing
this informal meeting, our interest was not to establish such a constituency, but
rather to address potential implications (i.e. pros and cons), and at a deeper level,
to address the issue of how many researchers were at the forum. This is a discussion
that we ought to have, “not because we have to be there but because we are there”
(Interview 1), as noted by one interviewee who describes herself as a food activist
who “happens to be a researcher as well”.
The review of the roles, potential and actual, of researchers within the movement
were generally seen as positive contributions, but they were framed with a great
deal of concern about the dangers and risks related to extraction of knowledge,
imposition of a researcher agenda, and relations of power amongst other things
(see below for further elaboration). Here we see parallels with the NGO
constituency in other spaces. McKeon (2015, p. 186), reflecting on the role of NGOs
in the CSM, noted: “a continued challenge is that of finding ways of building
collaboration without having the agenda be overtaken by them.” Furthermore, the
discussions on the pros and cons of a researchers’ constituency were far from
conclusive. This, in part, reflected the diversity amongst researchers. It was clear
that there were at least three categories of researchers: those who research (or
hope to study) the movement or some actors within the movement; those who do
research with and for the movement; and those who consider themselves to be
part of the movement, but who also happen to be researchers. There were
researchers who had been working with facets of the movement, although not
necessarily in the European context, for years, and others who were new to the
movement and unclear on what constituencies even were. More broadly, there are
existing tensions not only between those who research for their job, and students
who are learning to be researchers, but also between those who have academic
positions in universities, and researchers with research institutes or NGOs. These
tensions are not unique to this forum. Borras (2016, p. 27) has, for example, warned
that it is not uncommon that “academy-based scholar-activists do not treat [nonacademic researchers] as equals, but as second-rate scholar-activists, often in a
patronizing manner.” It is in the context of these tensions, concerns and challenges
El futuro de la alimentación y la Agricultura en el Siglo XXI.
* Participants selected all relevant categories (N=39)
21
that we now introduce and interrogate key arguments advanced in favour and
against the development of a researcher constituency. We summarise the
discussions around three themes: Developing a collective identity; Formalizing a
supportive function; and, Coordinating and ensuring accountability to the
movement.
El futuro de la alimentación y la Agricultura en el Siglo XXI.
Developing a collective identity
There was a sense of tension, and often unease, as researchers worked through the
pros and cons of what a constituency would mean. A first opportunity of
coordinating as a constituency was identified as a space to develop a collective
identity. A constituency would provide an opportunity for researchers to explain
their role in the movement, as well as what they do and can offer the movement.
This could serve to improve transparency, visibility, and publicity, while also
creating a platform to exchange and collaborate (e.g. for funding). Other ideas
included having a platform to help match questions that arise from the movement
with researchers capable of providing answers. Similarly, the potential to become
a two-way knowledge hub at the service of the movement and other researchers
(i.e. for researchers to better understand the movement) was identified as an
opportunity. Such a role may be well accepted by the movement, but would need
to happen by way of consultation with the movement. A key challenge is that it is
unclear whether this would ever be a priority for the movement.
This links to the tension between advocacy and building the movement and where
priorities lie. One activist that we interviewed explained:
Now the movement has a specific challenge, which is to get organised
across the different constituencies and social movements at the EU level.
Of course, the researchers can provide support but it is more urgent for
the social movements to organise. Otherwise it remains just ECVC and
supporters. The whole movement needs to set up the priorities at the EU
level to bring the discussion on the CAP, or whatever forward. There,
researchers can support (Interview 12).
The idea of developing a more collective and transparent identity responds to the
need for greater reflection on the participation of researchers in movement
meetings, and in the movement more broadly. Yet, at least two key limitations
emerge: the practicality of such a process, and the political implications of the
process.
22
First, a researchers’ constituency would take a great deal of time and effort to
coordinate. A related concern links to questions of categorization: are we food
sovereignty researchers? Researchers in solidarity? Or in simple terms: who would
be in and who would be out? How would we deal with researchers from NGOs?
Would they count as researchers or NGOs when it comes to quotas for national
delegations? If they counted as researchers, would that mean they potentially give
their NGO an additional delegate, or representative at the Forum? Second, and
perhaps at the core of many apprehensions were concerns around relations of
power. Such relations need to be further explored between ourselves, and between
us and the movement. At the same time, we note that researchers should not
During the meeting, researchers rightly questioned whether we already had too
much influence and if we ran the risk of overshadowing peasants’ voices. Others
warned of the potential of a researcher’s constituency dictating agendas, processes
and languages (“academifying” the movement), as well as the risk of influencing the
movement to think in “research” terms. There was a noted risk of domination of
Anglo-Saxon and social science researchers. One of the key issues, especially with
regards to constructing a constituency, comes down to representation and
accountability. It is clear that as researchers we are not, at least not currently,
representing anyone, nor are we necessarily accountable to anyone. This illustrates
a problem for several other constituencies that do not have a formal organizational
structure (e.g. youth or peasants-to-be). This also creates an interesting problem in
terms of how these actors can formalise their participation in the political structures
of the movement given that, as highlighted above, these all rely on organizational
representation. We address this issue in more detail below.
In these discussions, concerns were also raised about isolation. If we set out to build
a researcher constituency, we may become inward looking, and miss out on the
observation of and participation in other processes and struggles. One participant
noted that while we were sitting all together, talking amongst ourselves, we were
not listening to farmers. A related concern was that if a researcher constituency
emerged, there would likely be guaranteed quota for researchers on delegations.
This could serve as a disincentive for researchers to building relations with national
delegations, and would require establishing processes to decide on which
researchers attend forums and events.
Formalizing a supportive function
Alongside discussions of creating a space for collective identity, attention also
focussed on the relationship between a formal constituency and the support roles
that researchers play or could play in the movement, specifically: data and analysis,
communication, facilitation, and critical observation. Researchers noted that
through their work they produce data and analysis that can respond to the needs
and requests of the movement, in particular to support policy advocacy. Towards
this end, researchers document practices and life stories and disseminate these,
along with alternatives that may otherwise be overlooked by those outside of the
movement. In line with this, researchers bring in participatory methodologies (such
as participatory action research (PAR) tools) and undertake community-supported
research that leads to the co-production of knowledge. This is particularly vibrant
in the field of agroecology. With respect to methods, researchers felt they played a
role promoting multi- and transdisciplinary research so as to overcome the siloed
nature of food and agriculture research (e.g. connecting social and natural
sciences), and influencing teaching and education programmes. It was noted that
researchers often have funding and longer-term time frames, but that many of our
El futuro de la alimentación y la Agricultura en el Siglo XXI.
become myopic in their attempts at reflexivity to the extent that their actual roles
become inflated. Social movements are adept in developing relationships with
researchers on their own terms. One interviewee noted: “The relationship to
researchers is instrumental, we go get our friends when we need help with
something, which is not a good thing” (Interview 13).
23
research methods require time and reflexivity. Such timelines are not always
coherent with the needs and realities of the movements.
Researchers highlighted the technical support they provide in the context of policy
processes, at global or regional or national level. This was mentioned also during
interviews. Reflecting on the IPC structure, one activist noted that:
El futuro de la alimentación y la Agricultura en el Siglo XXI.
It is almost in the Working Groups that there is more interaction with
the Academy, also due to the fact that we move from global policy
dialogue to more technical levels. Here researchers are really needed as
discussions are quite technical (e.g. livestock). Here researchers are
needed to translate food sovereignty principles into technical discussion
(Interview 12).
24
Related to this, researchers spoke about how they could, and indeed should, adapt
the communication of their research results to different audiences to ensure that
the outcomes are translated back to those in the movement, or in the communities
where they are working. While in theory this could be the case, we note that this
rarely happens in practice. Related to that was playing a communication role, either
by bridging barriers between constituencies, or by engaging with those outside of
the movement, by for example supporting the circulation of information and
outreach. This also relates to the role researchers play in providing solidarity and
relevant connections (i.e. to policy makers). Discussions around communication
raised concerns that an over representation of researcher-derived or researcherled communication could aggravate relations of power and shift wider perceptions
of who speaks for the movement.
Another role identified by researchers was support with facilitation, reporting and
assessment of processes, also by making use of specific methodologies and tools.
Related to this, is support in advocacy. Researchers spoke of a two-way style of
advocacy wherein they not only advance the messages of the movement, but also
play a role in alerting the movement about various policy discussions and processes.
A key example of the former is ensuring that food sovereignty messages are
integrated in policy/UN platforms.
Researchers also saw it as their role to critically observe and raise issues with the
movements (to varying degrees). Here there was some discussion about how
amongst the researcher group there was also a need to address a diversity of
approaches, languages, cultures, disciplines, methods, and entry points. This would
involve deliberate efforts to decolonize knowledge, bring in different
“knowledges”, challenge broader discourses in academia, expose discursive myths,
and influence teaching and education programs. Researchers felt the need to
democratize research and to reshape institutional research agendas. Researchers
spoke about the possibility of using a researcher constituency to feed into the
movement with identification of relevant or emerging topics for the movement
such as worrying developments in policy debates, to propose critical reflection on
the movement itself, to contribute to defining key terms (i.e. agroecology) or
develop indicators and undertake monitoring. Again, many concerns were raised,
but here we elaborate on concerns relating to objectivity and extraction.
It was a nice discovery because it is not always clear that researchers
are part of the movement. In that sense, it was a happy discovery. But,
I was surprised that researchers wanted to come together as a separate
group. Partly because I see researchers as having one foot in the
movement and one foot outside. There is a compulsion in research
around being seen as objective. So, there are fears that you may lose
objectivity if you become so visible in the movement. I was surprised
then that the researchers wanted to be so visible and considered coming
together as a constituency with all the implications this would have, like
representation in the CC [Coordination Committee] (Interview 2).
There was a also great deal of concern related to the issue of extraction of
knowledge. Researchers face the risk of extracting information, time and trust from
people in the movement, while not necessarily feeding back into movement
processes. This is not a potential threat but an actual one. When discussing the idea
of a researchers constituency, one interviewee reflected that when it comes to
researchers and social movements:
There has always been a love hate, but mostly hate relationship I think
from the social movement side ... many of us have this experience of
being used by academics. You know “Give us your information. We will
publish it and you will have credentials ... Then you will be credible...”
And I have had, over the years, had academics come to me... and say
that you know, no one will believe us [CSOs], but if we give them all of
our data, then they will publish it and then we can quote them. You
know! And it was so infuriating often. And I have talked to lots of people
who have been in that situation. And it’s a misunderstanding sometimes
of what was being offered as well (Interview 17).
El futuro de la alimentación y la Agricultura en el Siglo XXI.
With respect to objectivity, it was asked how can researchers maintain their
legitimacy by engaging so actively in the movement. While many of the researchers
reject the idea of objectivity in research, there is acknowledgement of the risks
associated with research that appears to others as biased. Such research is at risk
of being undermined and thus providing a disservice to the movement and the
future career of the researcher. Reflecting on whether the food sovereignty
movement could use researchers more strategically, one interviewee noted: “there
has to be a trade-off between the space that researchers need, to ensure
independent minds, and the control that would be exercised” (Interview 14).
Reflecting on this tension and on the number of researchers at the Forum, another
interviewee noted:
Coordination to ensure accountability to the movement
Another positive implication of a researchers’ constituency would be a dedicated
space where we can be fully present as researchers and have a specific group for
discussions only about research. Such a space could facilitate improved
coordination amongst researchers, to support one another and to share and pool
resources. Researchers provide labour and time, but can also support the
movement by for example supervising Master’s thesis research that addresses key
25
questions raised by the movement, by finding interns for specific projects, providing
support with writing, databases, accesses to existing research, and website support.
El futuro de la alimentación y la Agricultura en el Siglo XXI.
One of the reasons why more coordination among researchers was perceived as
important is that it would improve clarity on what food sovereignty research or
solidarity research (Brem-Wilson, 2014a) entails, and how to ensure that such
research serves the movement. This would be particularly useful in terms of
providing support to young researchers, including relevant political education, and
to bring more researchers on board, in response to movement needs.
The idea of developing particular guidelines for doing research in, with or for the
food sovereignty movement, is not new. A few trusted academics close to La Via
Campesina (LVC) have attempted to draft a research protocol guiding LVC’s
interactions with academics, in dialogue with the movement. The objectives of such
a protocol would be to help LVC address and direct the many requests it receives
from researchers, avoid extraction and establish safeguards to better manage
negative experiences, while alerting researchers to the specific challenges of
activist research. This process, however, has not achieved completion, in part
because it is not perceived as a priority (Brem-Wilson and Nicholson, 2016).
Guidelines for conducting activist research24 would also be particularly relevant
because movement activists and researchers operate along very different
timelines, scales and rationales (Schoen, V. et al, 2017). In the absence of such
guidelines, relations with researchers develop on a case by case, personal basis,
that allows for trust to play a central role. We note that this is similar to movementNGOs interactions. As Borras points out, while agrarian movements “are not in a
position to reward or punish institutionally or materially”, they have found ways to
reward or punish researchers as they see fit:
A movement reward usually comes in the form of further and sustained
access to the movement, and at times one can even get invited into a
movement‘s 'politburo' and 'central committee' meetings. The trust
that they can have, and the openness they can offer are rewards like no
other.
Punishment is done when violation of trust, or suspicion of such, occurs.
Punishment comes in quick and complete—and almost always comes in
the form of abrupt suspension of access, at times complemented with
broader political isolation among other movements (Borras 2016:36).
This supports the insight of one researcher at the Nyéléni EU Forum who felt that
the emergence of a researchers’ constituency would in fact be nothing new, but the
outcome of a long process of working together and building trust.
26
24 Several examples of such guidelines exist.
For example the Botanical Society of America (1997) has Guidelines
for Professional Ethics. Also, TRUST is a pluralistic project, which aims to foster adherence to high ethical
standards in research globally and to counteract the practice of “Ethics dumping” or the application of double
standards in research, by co-developing with vulnerable populations tools and mechanisms for the
improvement of research governance structure. They have recently supported the San people to draft a code
of ethics for researchers (Institute, 2017; Nordling, 2017).
First, it would ensure that priorities are set up by food producer organizations,
although researchers (and NGOs) could participate to some extent (Interviews 12
and 16). This would address an imbalance that is perceived as a key problem by a
number of non-academic observers. One interviewee expressed the fear that if
organised as a constituency, researchers may start “to talk on behalf of the others”
or “define positions before others have time to think about it” (Interview 16).
Another worried that the movement would turn too much to research for
legitimizing its demands (Interview 9). A third interviewee pointed to the risk that
researchers may give credit or visibility to urban alternatives, and therefore naively
contribute to the urbanization of food sovereignty (Interview 13). It follows that any
coordination structure for the food sovereignty movement in Europe must account
for the fact that “social movements’ representatives need more resources and time
in order to fulfil their roles more effectively” (Interview 10) and that more attention
needs to be put on strengthening the capacities of political lobbies (some of them
weak or barely organized). In this context, formalizing the support roles played by
academics and other non-social movement actors would seem appropriate. A
related advantage of the proposed two-tier system would be that it would keep a
focus on what many perceive as the key priority for the European food sovereignty
movement, i.e. for various sectors/social movements to develop strong links and
work together. In the words of one interviewee: “Of course the researchers can
provide support but it is more urgent for the social movements to organise.
Otherwise it remains just ECVC and supporters” (Interview 12).
Second, a two-tier system better reflects the fact that academics do not hold stakes
at the same level as other groups in the movement. This relates back to discussions
around the struggle to ensure that the voices of those most affected are given
priority, and the implementation of specific mechanisms to ensure that this
happens. This issue was an important discussion point for the last three meetings
of the CFS. At CFS43 in Rome, CSOs for example, called on the CFS to acknowledge
that power relations and influence differ widely among stakeholders. They noted
that efforts to “level out” the field so that all stakeholders can participate on equal
footing falsely assumes that all stakes in the outcomes are equal (Duncan, 2015, p.
91). As one interviewee explained:
And that is what is troubling me in this talk about constituencies. It is
suggesting a kind of equality, as if operating on the same level and
evidently, that is not the case or should not be the case. When it comes
to the peasant movement, to La Via Campesina, it evidently is the
peasants, the women, the fisherman, the indigenous people, they are
the different constituencies. It should be crystal clear that there might
be considerable involvement of intellectuals, of researchers, but that is
El futuro de la alimentación y la Agricultura en el Siglo XXI.
Towards a two-tier system?
The emergence of researchers as a visible component of the European food
sovereignty movement led a number of actors to think more concretely about how
to structure interactions with researchers. One idea that has gained some traction
is to have key “political lobbies” e.g. peasants and other rural constituencies on the
one hand, and support groups, including NGOs and researchers, on the other
(Interview 10). This two-tier system is the way LVC is structured – with peasants in
the driving seat, and a number of support staff with no decision-making power and
no right to speak publicly—, but also the reformed IPC described above. This idea is
attractive for at least two reasons.
27
in a supportive role. They can be involved in their own struggles, but
then they are struggling in their own working place. In the university
and research institutes, trying to redefine the agenda (Interview 16).
El futuro de la alimentación y la Agricultura en el Siglo XXI.
However, several actors we interviewed raised objections to this proposal for a twotier system. Sceptics insist that NGOs and researchers have access to specific
leverages to push for social change, beyond and outside the food sovereignty
networks they are involved in. Hence, they should not be limited to support roles.
Interviewee 14 expressed total disagreement with the two-tier system, because
their network represents grassroots organizations and has its own processes for
defining shared advocacy positions. Interviewee 16 cautiously noted that
researchers as well “can make a substantial contribution exactly as a scientist, as
researchers, and that might, in particular circumstances, strengthen movements
very much”. In addition, researchers:
28
are struggling in their own working place. In the university and research
institutes, trying to redefine the agenda (…) we need universities where
critique is possible, is allowed. Where these is diversity in approaches.
Where students are offered a wide range of views on these matters. And
we are fighting for that (Interview 16).
Not discarding the possibility of researchers becoming a constituency, this scholar
activist insisted:
I would argue that in a way you have to deserve to become a constituency.
You cannot have a constituency simply because you share the same
category... (…) If you can specify, we as researchers, are as researchers, very
much tied to the issue of food sovereignty, it cross-cuts our work, it
represents a challenge for us... whatever, and it is to be translated to the
agenda of our work, to the conditions of our work, and we should like to do
this but given the current power relations we are constrained to do that, so
in our own working place we are fighting for this and that and that, and we
consider this to be an important part, one integrative part of a movement
for the struggle for food sovereignty (Interview 16).
A different objection to the two-tier system was raised by an interviewee who
remarked that “dividing the movement in two circles does not correspond to the
social transformation dynamics that exist” (Interview 9). Indeed, this person further
explained, the various roles people play in alliances and networks become
increasingly blurry. In addition, the movement is more and more “structured
around shared strategies than specific groups and large organizations, which is a
good thing. It may work at IPC level and not be the best way for the European
region” (Interview 9). The European food sovereignty movement is facing important
challenges, including linking with urban movements and other processes, notably
in the social and public health sectors, this interviewee noted, and “hopefully this
can be done within one circle”, to overcome the risk that constituencies become
closed, self-sufficient clubs.
A last objection related to the two-tier system concerned the “control that would
be exercised” by movements over researchers, who need their own space to ensure
“independent minds” and guarantee their legitimacy (Interview 14). One
interviewee noted:
It’s also tough for me, by saying that I am a bit sceptical about researchers
being perhaps a constituency, I mean I also wouldn’t want researchers to be
only part of the movement, and only be able to attending something like the
Nyéléni Forum as observers, where they can’t have a voice and they can only
observe from the sidelines. I mean I think that would also be equally a
mistake to make (Interview 2)
As noted by another interviewee, a similar challenge faces NGOs siding with social
movements struggles:
This situation evokes the difficulty that some NGOs have faced within the CSM, as
discussed above. This points to a very complex situation in which social movements
have achieved a great deal in terms of representation in the last decades, but they
now need to consolidate these advances, while paying attention to some difficult
trade-offs that need to be addressed. For researchers, the implications of this
tension between support and control are particularly tricky, considering that one of
the roles we see for ourselves is being critical and pointing out problems and
limitations.
Conclusion
The aim of this paper was not to answer the question of whether or not there
should be a researchers’ constituency within the Nyéléni Europe food sovereignty
movement. Rather, we aimed to contribute to ongoing discussions about the roles,
responsibilities and contributions of researchers in the food sovereignty
movement, today and in the future. In the process of writing this paper, it became
clear to us that the emergence of researchers as a visible part of the European food
sovereignty movement is symptomatic of broader changes and challenges that the
movement is facing as it is organizing its expansion. How can the movement expand
to non-food producers – urban-based movements, progressive retailers, local
governments – while ensuring that it is coordinated in a way that reflects its internal
dynamics and upholds its core values/priorities? As interviewee 9 said, “the
strategy is shared, what are the roles and places of each actor? What space should
each of these actors be given?” This sentiment was echoed by another interviewee,
who said “Who are and who should be the central actors? What kinds of
relationships do we have with each other?” (Interview 14).
In this paper, we explored developments with regard to the strategic importance,
organization of, and evolving relationships between constituencies, both at the
global and European levels, over the last three decades. We mapped the evolution,
in and across global food policy arenas, from regional to sectoral focal points, from
NGOs to CSOs to peoples’ organizations, and from constituencies to working
El futuro de la alimentación y la Agricultura en el Siglo XXI.
Of course [our organization] should not be limited to support role and it
has developed its own thinking around human rights and global
governance and it has its own contributions to make but (…) we are so
inside the others that this is difficult in practice (Interview 14).
29
El futuro de la alimentación y la Agricultura en el Siglo XXI.
groups. We also showed how the constituency approach adopted at the
international level was replicated at the European level, with minor adjustments,
to organize the 2011 and 2016 Nyéléni European food sovereignty forums. We
highlighted a number of tensions that derive from the fact that the composition of
the food sovereignty movement in Europe today departs from the “ideal”
envisioned by constituency quotas. Building on this historical analysis, we
highlighted the dual role of constituencies as: a) mechanisms for enabling the
“coordinated” participation of different rural groups/categories of food producers
in policy debates (at global, but also regional and national level), including ways to
ensure each constituency has ‘adequate’ relative weight or representation in
advocacy efforts; and, b) mechanisms for building bridges and alliances, organizing
discussions (e.g., on what food sovereignty means, strategies, and actions) and
carrying actions (e.g., campaigns, resistance, building alternatives) across different
parts of the food sovereignty movement (initially different categories of food
producers but increasingly broader and expanding to non-food producers).
30
If there seems to be consensus around the idea that like NGOs, researchers
play/should play a support role in ensuring access to policy spaces, we contend that
there are divergent views on the nature of this support, and on how to address the
challenges associated with providing support in the right way. Moreover, the
rationale for limiting the contribution of NGOs and researchers to a support role is
unclear when what is at stake is building a broad movement for social change that
needs to be inclusive of all “sectors”, each with their own practices, leverage, etc.
This tension, between constituencies as representing marginalised and affected
publics – as designed and organized by the IPC, also called “frontline groups” in the
US context (Brent et al., 2015) – and constituencies as representing all key sectors
that have a transformative role to play – as conceived of in the UN Major Groups –
certainly deserves further exploration. To date, there has been limited attention to
how constituencies develop and interact, which is regrettable considering their
political relevance for the movement.
While food sovereignty researchers may be marginalized (and often are) in their
own academic institutions, and have their own struggles to fight, including against
the privatization and commodification of knowledge and education,25 they do not
exist in the margins, occupying subaltern or non-elite positions in society, quite the
contrary. Yet, they are an important part of the food sovereignty movement, and
likely to stay, and we note that an increasing number of researchers feel that more
coordination or self-organization would be useful, to reinforce our contributions or
ensure that we do no harm. At the same time, we perceive a lack of interest and
engagement from researchers after the forum (the listserv we established, for
example, is completely inactive), for lack of time, lack of interest, lack of clarity
about the objectives or discomfort with the way things were moving forward.
Regardless of the reasons, researchers seem likely to face great difficulties in
developing into a coherent group capable of acting as, and representing, a
constituency. The fact that it may be premature to talk about a researchers’
consistency should not, we argue, encourage us to remain invisible or passive
observers. It should encourage us to reflect more on our roles in, and our relations
with, the food sovereignty movement.
25 In response
to such trends we have seen proposals for “slow research” (Adams, Burke and Whitmarsh, 2014)
as well as a number of manifestos including the Reclaiming Our University! manifesto originating at the
University of Aberdeen, and from occupied to public universities (Halffman and Radder, 2015).
Annex
Identifier*
Description
Interview 1
Food activist and researcher
Interview 2
Researcher from an EU-based NGO
Interview 3
Network coordinator and activist
Interview 4
Farmer and focal point for national
delegation
Interview 5
Farmer and focal point for national
delegation
Interview 6
Farmer and focal point for national
delegation
Interview 7
NGO activist
Interview 8
NGO activist working for an international
network
Interview 9
Activist working for an international NGO
Interview 10
Researcher and Civil Society Organization
Interview 11
NGO activist
Interview 12
Network coordinator and activist
Interview 13
CSO coordinator and activist
Interview 14
NGO activist working for an international
network
Interview 15
Researcher and Civil Society Organization
Interview 16
Scholar Researcher
Interview 17
Researcher and Civil Society Organization
El futuro de la alimentación y la Agricultura en el Siglo XXI.
Annex 1: Identifiers and description of interviewees conducted between
February 11 and April 10, 2017.
* NB: The numbering of the interviewees was randomly assigned to protect
anonymity
31
Works Cited
Adams, V., Burke, N. J. and Whitmarsh, I. (2014) ‘Slow Research: Thoughts for a
Movement in Global Health’, Medical Anthropology, 33(3), pp. 179–197.
Borras Jr., S. M. (2016) Land politics, agrarian movements and scholar-activism:
Inaugural lecture. Den Haag.
Botanical Society of America (1997) Guidelines for Professional Ethics, Website.
Available at: http://botany.org/governance/ethics.php (Accessed: 4 October
2017).
El futuro de la alimentación y la Agricultura en el Siglo XXI.
Brem-Wilson, J. (2014a) ‘From “Here” to “There”: Social Movements, the
Academy and Solidarity Research’, Socialist Studies/Études Socialistes, 10(1).
Brem-Wilson, J. (2014b) ‘Towards Food Sovereignty: Interrogating Peasant Voice
in the UN Committee on World Food Security’, in Food Sovereignty: A Critical
Dialogue. The Hague: International Institute for Social Studies. Available at:
http://www.iss.nl/fileadmin/ASSETS/iss/Research_and_projects/Research_ne
tworks/ICAS/87_Brem-Wilson.pdf.
Brem-Wilson, J. and Nicholson, P. (2017). ‘La Vía Campesina and the Academy: A
Snapshot’, In: Wakeford, T., Sanchez-Rodriguez, J., Chang, M., Buchanan, C. and
Anderson, C. (eds.) Harnessing People’s Knowledge for Food System
Transformation. Coventry: Centre for Agroecology Water and Resilience.
Brent, Z., Schiavoni, C. and Alonso-Fradejas, A. (2015). Contextualizing Food
Sovereignty: The politics of convergence among movements in the US, Third
World Quarterly, 36:3, 618-635.
CFS (2009) Reform of the Committee on World Food Security Final Version, FAO.
Rome. Available at:
http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/cfs/Docs0910/ReformDoc/CFS_200
9_2_Rev_2_E_K7197.pdf.
CFS (2010) International Food Security and Nutrition Civil Society Mechanism for
Relations with CFS. Rome. Available at: http://www.csm4cfs.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/03/Proposal-for-an-international-civil-societymechanism.pdf.
Claeys, P. (2015) Human Rights and the Food Sovereignty Movement. Reclaiming
Control. London: Routledge.
Cornwall, A. (2008) ‘Unpacking “Participation”: models, meanings and practices’,
Community Development Journal, 43(3), pp. 269–283.
32
DESA (2017) About Major Groups and other stakeholders, Sustainable
Development Knowledge Platform. Available at:
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/majorgroups/about (Accessed: 19
March 2017).
Desmarais, A.-A. (2002) ‘Peasants Speak - The Vía Campesina: Consolidating an
International Peasant and Farm Movement’, The Journal of Peasant Studies,
29(2), pp. 91–124.
Desmarais, A. A. (2007) La Vía Campesina: Globalization and the power of
peasants. Halifax, Nova Scotia: Fernwood.
Duncan, J. (2015) Global Food Security Governance: Civil society engagement in
the reformed Committee on World Food Security. London: Routledge.
Duncan, J. and Pascucci, S. (2017) ‘Mapping the Organisational Forms of Networks
of Alternative Food Networks: Implications for Transition’, Sociologia Ruralis,
p. In Press.
Edelman, M. (2009) ‘Synergies and tensions between rural social movements and
professional researchers’, Journal of Peasant Studies, 36(1), pp. 254–265.
FAO (1999a) FAO Policy and Strategy for Cooperation with Non-Governmental and
Civil Society Organizations. Rome.
FAO (2013) Guidelines for Ensuring Balanced Representation of Civil Society in FAO
Meetings and Processes. Rome. Available at: http://www.fao.org/3/aau892e.pdf.
Fraser, N. (1990) ‘Rethinking the Public Sphere: A contribution to the critique of
actually existing democracy’, Social Text, 25/26, pp. 56–80.
Fraser, N. (2008) Scales of Justice: Reimagining Political Space in a Globalizing
World. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Halffman, W. and Radder, H. (2015) ‘The Academic Manifesto: From an Occupied
to a Public University’, Minerva, 53(2), pp. 165–187.
Holt-Gimenez, E. and Shattuck, A. (2011) ‘Food crises, food regimes and food
movements: rumblings of reform or tides of transformation?’, Journal of
Peasant Studies, 38(1), pp. 109–144.
Institute, S. A. S. (2017) San Code of Research Ethics. North Cape, South Africa.
Available at: http://trust-project.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/San-Codeof-RESEARCH-Ethics-Booklet-final.pdf.
IPC (2006) Final Declaration of the ‘Land, Territory and Dignity’ Forum, Porto
Alegre, March 6-9, 2006. For a New Agrarian Reform based on Food
Sovereignty! Porto Alegre. Available at:
http://www.agter.org/bdf/fr/corpus_chemin/fiche-chemin-273.html.
El futuro de la alimentación y la Agricultura en el Siglo XXI.
FAO (1999b) The World Food Summit and its Follow up. Rome. Available at:
http://www.fao.org/docrep/X2051e/X2051e00.htm#P176_18923.
IPC (2016) About Us: Timeline, Website. Available at:
http://www.foodsovereignty.org/about-us/ (Accessed: 19 February 2017).
McKeon, N. (2009) The United Nations and Civil Society. Legitimating Global
Governance-Whose Voice? Zed Books with the United Nations Research
Institute for Social Development (UNRISD).
McKeon, N. (2015) Food Security Governance. Empowering Communities,
Regulating Corporations. London:Routledge.
McMichael, P. (2014) ‘Historicizing food sovereignty’, Journal of Peasant Studies,
41(6), pp. 933-957.
Nordling, L. (2017) ‘San people of Africa draft code of ethics for researchers’,
Science.
33
Nyeleni (2007a) Invited Delegates Only, Website. Available at:
https://nyeleni.org/IMG/pdf/invitedonlyengl.pdf (Accessed: 19 March 2017).
Nyeleni (2007b) Synthesis Report. Selingue, Mali. Available at:
https://nyeleni.org/spip.php?article334.
Nyéléni (2007) Nyéléni 2007: Forum for Food Sovereignty. Sélingué, Mali. Available
at: https://nyeleni.org/DOWNLOADS/Nyelni_EN.pdf.
Nyéléni Europe (2011) Synthesis Report and Action Plan. Krems. Available at:
https://nyelenieurope.net/publications/synthesis-report-action-plan-nyelenieurope-2011.
Nyéléni Europe (2016) Mobilisation Call, Website. Available at:
https://nyelenieurope.net/mobilisation-call (Accessed: 10 April 2017).
El futuro de la alimentación y la Agricultura en el Siglo XXI.
Nyéléni Europe (2016) Nyéléni History, Website. Available at:
https://nyelenieurope.net/nyeleni-history (Accessed: 4 March 2017).
Nyéléni Europe (2016) Program, Website. Available at:
https://nyelenieurope.net/preparatory-process (Accessed: 10 April 2017).
Oxford English Dictionary (2017) ‘Constituency’. Oxford. Available at:
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/constituency.
Pimbert, M. (2009). Towards food sovereignty: reclaiming autonomous food
systems. IIED, London.
Quick, K. S. and Feldman, M. S. (2011) ‘Distinguishing Participation and Inclusion’,
Journal of Planning Education and Research, 31(3), pp. 272–290.
Sassen, S. (2003) ‘The Participation of States and Citizens in Global Governance’,
Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 10(1), pp. 5–28. Available at:
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/gls/summary/v010/10.1sassen.html.
Schoen, V. et al. (2017), CSO-academic collaboration: theory and practice. Food
Research Collaboration Policy Brief, 11th January.
UNSD (1992) Agenda 21. Rio de Janerio. Available at:
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf.
La Via Campesina (2002) Declaration NGO Forum FAO Summit Rome+5. Rome.
Westberg, L. and Waldenström, C. (2016) ‘How can we ever create participation
when we are the ones who decide? On natural resource management
practice and its readiness for change’, Journal of Environmental Policy &
Planning, Online fir, pp. 1–14.
Willets, P. (1996) The conscience of the world: The influence of NGOs in the United
Nations system. London: C. Hurst.
34
Nazioarteko Hizketaldia
ELIKADURAREN ETORKIZUNA ETA NEKAZARITZAREN ERRONKAK XXI. MENDERAKO:
Mundua nork, nola eta zer-nolako inplikazio sozial, ekonomiko eta ekologikorekin
elikatuko duen izango da eztabaidagaia
2017ko apirilaren 24 / 26. Europa Biltzar Jauregia. Vitoria-Gasteiz. Araba. Euskal
Herria. Europa.
International Colloquium
THE FUTURE OF FOOD AND CHALLENGES FOR AGRICULTURE IN THE 21st CENTURY:
Debates about who, how and with what social, economic and ecological implications
we will feed the world.
Coloquio Internacional
EL FUTURO DE LA ALIMENTACIÓN Y RETOS DE LA AGRICULTURA PARA EL SIGLO XXI:
Debates sobre quién, cómo y con qué implicaciones sociales, económicas y ecológicas
alimentará el mundo.
24 / 26 de Abril, 2017. Palacio de Congresos Europa. Vitoria-Gasteiz. Álava. País Vasco.
Europa.
GUNTZAILEAK/COLABORAN/COLLABORATING ORGANIZATIONS
El futuro de la alimentación y la Agricultura en el Siglo XXI.
April 24th - 26th. Europa Congress Palace. Vitoria Gasteiz. Álava. Basque Country/Europe
LAGUNTZA EKONOMIKOA/APOYAN/WITH SUPPORT FROM
35