During the last two decades we all have witnessed the growing chorus of people promoting free trade as the only guiding economic and policy principle. Whoever criticizes it is part of a failed past; whoever embraces it is a member of a promising future. In recent articles, I have emphasized the limited ability of free trade to bring about positive changes for agriculture. The limiting factors, including the ecosystem basis of agriculture and the investments previously made in technology and transportation infrastructure, impose significant restrictions on an equitable distribution of the benefits from free trade. At the same time, the absence of alternative uses for cropland in the major producing areas limits the ability of low prices to induce a reduction in production. In summary, free trade has little chance of bringing about any significant improvement in agricultural prices, and even in the cases that it could, the distribution of the benefits would largely be appropriated by large transnational agribusiness firms and the segment of corporate farmers of the North. Trade liberalization in agriculture has little to offer to developing nations, small farmers, and rural population with regard to reducing poverty and hunger.

I see growing discontent with the trade liberalization prescription, much of it coming from the understanding that free trade in agriculture has very little to offer, especially for developing countries and small farmers. But we all want to be part of a promising future so what happens after the castle that was built on the shaky foundations of free trade collapses? What would be the guiding principle for agriculture?

In 1996, Via Campesina, an international movement which coordinates peasant organizations of small and middle-scale producers, agricultural workers, rural women, and indigenous communities from Asia, Africa, the Americas, and Europe, developed the concept of “food sovereignty” with the purpose of encouraging non-government organizations and civil society organizations to discuss and promote alternatives to the trade liberalization policies being promoted by the World Trade Organization.

The definition of has evolved since it was presented, and currently: “Food Sovereignty is the right of individuals, communities, and countries to define their own agricultural, labor, fishing, food, and land policies, which are ecologically, socially, economically, and culturally appropriate to their unique circumstances. It includes the true right to food and to produce food and, which means that all people have the right to safe, nutritious and cultural appropriate food and to food-producing resources and the ability to sustain themselves and their societies.”

From this definition, it is easily understood that Food Sovereignty is not a target to be achieved, but instead an ongoing process. It defines the principles of a social process, and establishes the principles for the development of policies to move that social process forward. Let us, however, focus not on general social policy but on the implications that the concept of food sovereignty has for agricultural and trade policy.

The first implication is the need to put the primary emphasis of agricultural policy on domestic food production and then not even at the national level but at the community level. The strategy is to integrate the local community into the decision making process of land use, and of putting local resources in service of local needs first. For many it will not be obvious, but what this calls for is for land use to be linked to food needs of the community.

In this respect, farms should be characterize not by an export oriented production system of monoculture and specialization, but by diversification. National policies should reflect this principle. This does not imply that farms in Iowa or North Dakota should be filled with vegetable and fruit production, which in fact they may not be able to produce due to ecosystem limitations. Rather, given this policy direction, the education, research, and extension elements of land grant universities should reflect this concern for more localized production and facilitate the process of diversification of farm operations according to the need of the community and the possibilities of the ecosystem.

Food Sovereignty is not a rejection of trade. It values the contributions of trade in so far as it is the element that would ensure the availability of food that local resources were not able to produce. Trade therefore becomes a policy instrument rather than at end by itself. Effectively, the trade flows will not change at a dramatic speed because they are currently largely determined by ecosystem conditions and investments already made in technology and infrastructure. In the long range, one would expect a degree of redistribution of cereal production and small animal production from the North to the South, very small changes in the trade flows of tropical products from the South to the North, and small changes in fruits and vegetable production as they reflect counter season flows. Food Sovereignty also puts the emphasis on the right to produce, rather than on the right to export.

Another direct implication of Food Sovereignty is the explicit recognition that the policies of any given country have to respect the sovereignty of every other country and people in the world. That is agricultural products cannot be distributed in international markets at prices that are below their cost of production. In other words, there is no place for all out export subsidies or dumping.

Finally, the production of traded goods need to be environmentally and socially sustainable. The export surplus can not be created on the basis of environmental degradation, or on the basis of threatening the social and economic sustainability of farmers and farm communities.

The implementation of Food Sovereignty, as guiding principle for agricultural trade and policy, does not imply the elimination of trade, or the irrelevance of trade rules and their enforcement. Instead, Food Sovereignty is an alternative to the current trade framework which is based on free trade and the right to export. Food Sovereignty is characterized by the emphasis on the sustainable utilization of the local resources, under the premise that the emphasize is put on the right of local individuals and communities to produce the food that will satisfy their food
requirements, respecting their cultural and social sustainability.DTU