Talk:Sustainable Development Goal 2: Zero Hunger

From EcoliseWiki
  • Key strategies:
    • Resilient food production systems, agroecology etc.
    • Localisation of food production reducing dependencies, increasing food security, diminishing allocation problems
    • Specific projects addressing food poverty in various contexts

      --Gil Penha-Lopes (talk) 14:22, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Interesting References: (Buchanan and Bastian, 2015)

"Local food aims at increasing the sustainability of the agrifood system by localising it (e.g. reducing the distance between farmers and consumers, reducing the number of intermediates, avoiding large retailers and industrial processors, etc.). Some of these local food initiatives take part in the Transition Network movement that gathers citizens of an area to develop grassroots community projects in order to reduce the use of fossil energy and increase self-sufficiency." (Feyereisen et al 2017:1)


A critical trend which tends to emerge is a differentiation of urban farming initiatives in the sense of a High-Tech UA discourse versus a Low-tech UA - permaculture and agroecological - discourse. A clear difference pertains to the creation of a new urban landscape. Vertical farming on the one hand and the greening of the urban environment on the other may not be so easy to connect and bridge. This jeopardizes the formulation of common goals and the capacity to bring a range of stakeholders together because of their different values and objectives related to UA." (Hebinck and Villarreal 2016:27)

"In table 2 (p. 28) we summarize our key observations and their interpretations in terms of transformative capacity. Our analysis on the transformative potential of UFIs points out that while there is potential in the developments that are currently taking place; UFIs find themselves in very vulnerable positions. This in turn hinders their capacity to further develop their value propositions and address the emerging problems of conventional food systems. Those UFIs that have a stronger market position and future viability are currently engaging with niche food markets, which results in (as of now) very little impact in terms of food and nutrition security of the region." (Hebinck and Villarreal 2016:27)

In this paper, a broad approach of Urban AgriCulture is used, which includes the production of crops in urban and peri-urban areas and ranges in developed countries from allotment gardens (Schrebergarten) over community gardens (Urban Gardening) to semi-entrepreneurial self-harvest farms and fully commercialized agriculture (Urban Farming). Citizens seek to make a shift from traditional to new (sustainable) forms of food supply. From this evolves a demand for urban spaces that can be used agriculturally. The way how these citizens' initiatives can be supported and their contribution to a resilient and sustainable urban food system increasingly attracts attention. This paper presents an empirical case study on Urban AgriCulture initiatives in the Bonn-Rhein-Sieg region (Germany). Urban AgriCulture is still a niche movement with the potential to contribute more significantly to urban development and constitute a pillar of urban quality of life." (Hirsch et al 2016:1) "While in the Global North Urban Farming disappeared from the cities, it remained a pillar of food systems in the Global South (Cofie et al., 2003, Nugent, 2000, Zezza and Tasciotti, 2010). But the increasing prominence of appropriate initiatives in the developed countries nowadays let us assumes that Urban AgriCulture will succeed in contributing to food systems in the future." (Hirsch et al 2016:2) "Despite its success it still has a niche status in urban structure and food systems and thus there are no investigations on how the Urban Agriculture movement is able to boost the food security of cities yet. Exemplarily for the city of Cleveland Grewal et al. (2012), came to the conclusion, that if urban spaces and rooftops are consequently used to grow crops, a densely populated western city has the ability to produce a significantly amount of food needed to feed the city. But not only inaccessible ground is a barrier, lack of farming skills, soil quality (contamination), resources needed for farming activities (water, fertilizer etc.) and" (Hirsch et al 2016:2) "financial means are seen to be obstacles that have to be roomed in the way to make Urban AgriCulture (Cohen and Reynolds, 2014; CoDyre et al., 2015)." (Hirsch et al 2016:3) "As the growing number of initiatives show people are interested in urban community gardening. Along with this it can be observed that new organisational structures evolve with new actors in the food system such as Meine Ernte or SoLaWi which are partnering with organic farmers. Although these partnerships are yet rare, it shows that people are not only demanding changes from the industrialised agricultural and food industry, but they increasingly start to shape it themselves. However, Urban AgriCulture is still a niche movement, which does not yet guarantee sufficient food provision. This does not pursue immediate complete self-sufficiency as above investigations show. Key resources lacking are financial support, access to (new) areas, and long term sustainable use of these areas as well as permanent staff and professionalization. Also permanent adoption of green areas by citizens such as establish long term cooperation with organic farmers, support green start-ups, use green spaces for an unlimited period is an asset. Deeper research of the Urban AgriCulture phenomenon and its role in food system dynamics is necessary; especially the potential to be a pivotal driver of urban development as well as a contributor to the environmental health and quality of life in cities." (Hirsch et al 2016:11)

"cultivating similar products. Both types of UA projects have a large potential to improve the quality of life in cities through their impact on ecological and social processes in the urban environment (Lovell, 2010). The most evident benefit of UA is that food is produced in the city, hence in close proximity to consumers (Lovell, 2010). However, UA is becoming popular not only for food production but also for its multiple other functions (Jansma et al., 2012). For instance, by transforming empty spaces into productive spaces (Mougeot, 2000) UA projects contribute to important ecosystem services, such as pollination and seed dispersion (Ernstson et al., 2010a). Such UA projects also decrease the financial burden of managing urban green spaces by delegating it to local management (Colding and Barthel, 2013). Moreover, UA projects generally increase the amount of vegetation in a city which may regulate levels of humidity (Lovell, 2010) and lower temperatures in the city, capture dirt and gas deposition, and increase stormwater absorption (Deelstra and Girardet, 2000; Leeuwen et al., 2010; McPhearson et al., 2015). An increasing amount of literature argues that UA projects like community gardens lead to the creation of social capital (Evers and Hodgson, 2011; Firth et al., 2011; Glover, 2004; Mendes et al., 2009; SaldivarTanaka and Krasny, 2004). Community gardens may also improve participants' nutrition, increase their physical activity, and positively change their mental health (Lovell, 2010; Wakefield et al., 2007). Besides, community gardens have educational value, most notably in schools, for instance regarding nutrition or the environment (Guitart et al., 2012; Heim et al., 2009). In summary, UA projects are not only thought to deliver ecosystem services—which cities need to safeguard to ensure urban human wellbeing in the long run (McPhearson et al., 2015) —but also to have social benefits for urban areas." (Knapp et al 2016:2) "Urban agriculture is a potential strategy to increase the resilience of cities (McPhearson et al., 2015) "with respect to uncertainties, complexities and major crises" (Barthel et al., 2013, p. 14), not only because UA increases the availability of food, but also because UA increases the diversity of food sources (Barthel and Isendahl, 2013) and makes it possible to maintain knowledge about growing food (Barthel et al., 2013)." (Knapp et al 2016:2) "Most of the projects we encountered are bottom up initiatives, started by local residents. If a legal framework—including restrictions—is applied to UA, this might impede the establishment of such projects. Nevertheless, legal frameworks that support land tenure contracts can enhance the security of such projects. Indeed, Mansfield and Mendes (2012) argue that the role governments should take regarding urban agriculture is not well established and needs to be clarified." (Knapp et al 2016:11) "project leaders of many other systems argued that the project enhanced the quality of life in the neighborhood. For instance, sex tourism or drug dealing diminished and there was less dumping of trash. Moreover, UA projects can increase the value of the neighborhood and diminish the costs of the local municipality for the maintenance of green areas (Been and Voicu, 2006; Colding and Barthel, 2013)." (Knapp et al 2016:12)

"This article discusses a case of popular social response to imposed austerity and recession in Greece. It focuses on the antimiddleman movement in an Athens suburb. It also addresses the broader picture of the current Greek crisis, explaining how participants in this grassroots response extend their activity beyond food distribution, beginning to imagine modes of economic conduct and interaction different from those currently dominant in Greece. I explore their efforts to turn the food market they have established in Athens into a formal co-operative which links consumers in their neighbourhood directly to selected farmers through bonds of solidarity, and to work with others to create a network of similar co-operatives which will span the whole country. I argue that their endeavours strongly resemble the co-operativism and practical socialism advocated by important social theorists such as Mauss and Polanyi, and suggest that it may be important for the young activists in Athens to learn more about their ideas." (Rakopoulos 2013:103) "By experimenting with alternatives to austerity, Greece is seeing vivid dissemination of anti-middlemen groups, which claim that they operate within the scope of solidarity economy practices. Roughly 22 % of Greece's population has benefited from the movement, which is operated by unpaid participants who coordinate initiatives by forming coalitions of grassroots co-ops across the country.8 The absence of a developed social and solidarity economy was clearly evident in Greece until recently. Today, instead, an estimated 80 % of local households in the Pieria Province are served through the solidarity economy of informal distribution of agrarian produce. A large number of around 50 such initiatives have been operating across Greece since 2010. It is therefore reasonable to correlate the crisis and the flourishing development of the solidarity economy." (Rakopoulos 2014:194)

"This paper argues that urban food systems strategies—a relatively new tool in local policymaking in the Global North—have the potential to amplify and consolidate national and international efforts in this direction and facilitate a more synergistic approach to SDG implementation." (Ilieva 2017:1) "Goaland indicator-level analyses cast light on promising areas for cross-jurisdictional cooperation and suggest that, while not without limitations, urban food systems strategies offer manifold pathways to streamline global, national, and local implementation efforts and effectively forward the 2030 Agenda over the next decade." (Ilieva 2017:1) "Since the turn of the century, more than 90 urban and regional sustainable food system plans and strategies have been devised by local administrations in the Global North alone (Figure 1). On 15 October 2015 the Milan Urban Food Policy Pact, signed by more than 100 cities all over the world, set a precedent and laid the groundwork for the first global urban food policy agenda." (Ilieva 2017:1) "4.1. SDG 1: End Poverty in All Its Forms Everywhere" (Ilieva 2017:6) "Many of the anti-poverty avenues that food uniquely can open are highlighted in local food systems plans and policies as part of the other SDGs discussed below. Yet, some local administrations do recognize the fact that no urban food system can be sustainable unless the root causes of food poverty [72] are addressed." (Ilieva 2017:6) "4.2. SDG 2: End Hunger, Improve Nutrition, and Promote Sustainable Agriculture" (Ilieva 2017:7) "According to the Community Food Security Coalition, community food security is achieved when "all community residents obtain a safe, culturally acceptable, nutritionally adequate diet through a sustainable food system that maximizes community self-reliance and social justice" [76]. In fact, community food security is at the heart of urban food systems plans and cities have put forward policies and proposals that address both access to and quality of the urban foodscape." (Ilieva 2017:7) "Table 3. Some of the SDG 2-related indicators in urban food systems strategies or reports." (Ilieva 2017:8) "Importantly, local administrations are beginning to make the case that to combat hunger, while improving public health through better nutrition, short food supply networks like CSAs (Community" (Ilieva 2017:8) "Supported Agriculture schemes) and farmers markets, need to transition from elite to widely accessible fresh food supply options." (Ilieva 2017:9) "Considering the target level alone, main areas of intersection pertain to the reduction of underconverted to numerical (e.g., Target 1.a is plotted as Target 6) for simplicity of representation. lture (target 2.4), prevention of non-communicable diseases (target 3.4), resilient infrastructure (target 9.1), efficient use of natural resources (target 12.2), Considering the target level alone, main areas of intersection pertain to the redartnerships (target 17.17)." (Ilieva 2017:25) "The comparative analysis of UFSS and the 2030 Agenda goals and indicators offered also insights into potential tensions and challenges for an integrated implementation of the SDGs. How, for instance, to reconcile the impetus for re-regionalizing the urban foodshed of Global North cities with SDGs advocating for more equitable global trade, whereby poor countries increase their exports to developed countries? How to marry localism ideologies, underscoring the social, economic, and ecological benefits of locally-sourced produce with goals of global justice and economic solidarity? These are ethical and political dilemmas which ought to be assiduously addressed in the multi-stakeholder spaces and partnerships which SDG 17 calls for." (Ilieva 2017:27)


"based on the innovative idea of the six dimensions of food that is introduced in the present work: food as an essential life enabler, a natural resource, a human right, a cultural determinant, a tradeable good and a public good, cannot be reduced to the mono‐dimensional valuation of food as a commodity. Those dimensions seem to align better with the multiple values‐in‐use food enjoys across the world" (Jose Luis ViVero Po 2017:8) "In light of this, the objective of this thesis is to trace the genealogy of the meaning making and policy implications of the two conflicting narratives of "food as a commodity" and "food as a commons". I" (Jose Luis ViVero Po 2017:8) "In the first part, the work presents a genealogy of meanings of commons and food" (Jose Luis ViVero Po 2017:8) "The second part adopts a heuristic approac" (Jose Luis ViVero Po 2017:8) "That includes a case study with food‐related professionals working in the food system at different levels and another one with members of the food buying groups in Belgium as innovative niches of transition that nurture shared transformational narratives through conviviality, networking and social learning" (Jose Luis ViVero Po 2017:8) "As a social construct based on the "instituting power of commoning", food can be valued and governed as a commons. Once the narrative is shifted, the governing mechanisms and legal frameworks will gradually be molded to implement that vision. A regime based on food as a commons would construct an essentially democratic food system (food democracy) based on the proper valuation of the multiple dimensions of food, sustainable agricultural practices (agro‐ecology) and emancipatory politics (food sovereignty). That regime would also support the consideration of open‐source knowledge (E.g. cuisine recipes, traditional agricultural knowledge or public research), food‐producing resources (E.g. seeds, fish stocks, land, forests or water) and services (E.g. transboundary food safety regulations, public nutrition) as commons." (Jose Luis ViVero Po 2017:9) "Finally, another concept that will be mentioned often here is that of Alternative Food Networks (AFNs). They are forms of social innovation developed between producers and consumers, including but not restricted to, direct marketing (Food Buying Groups), Community Supported Agriculture programs (CSA), farmers' markets and community growing/ buying/ gleaning clubs and transition networks (Goodman et al. 2012). Compared to the industrial food system, AFNs tend to eliminate (or reduce to the minimum) the intermediaries between producers and eaters (thus reducing food miles and saving intermediary costs). They also prioritize local production from agro‐ecological producers and family/peasant farming, incorporate collective governance and participatory decision‐making, promote conviviality, direct involvement of eaters and producers in food governance and, importantly, do not prioritize profit‐maximization at the expense of other non‐economic benefits that are deemed important by the community (i.e. environmental, ethical or social considerations, autonomy or social cohesion). However, AFNs are not yet widely perceived as a potentially powerful innovation that may counter‐balance and perhaps, in the future, even replace the narrative and praxis of the industrial food system. They seem to be caught in a "local trap" (Marsden and Franklin 2013), due to an overemphasis on local embeddedness and place‐based heterogeneity. This "local trap" marginalizes AFNs and hinders their potential for transforming the industrialized, conventional food system (Si and Scott 2016)." (Jose Luis ViVero Po 2017:42) "2.4.4.‐ The grassroots activist's regard of food" (Jose Luis ViVero Po 2017:118) "Local transitions towards the organization of local, sustainable food production and consumption are taking place today across the world. Food is being produced, consumed and distributed through a multiplicity of open structures and peer‐to‐peer practices, aimed at co‐producing and sharing food‐ related knowledge and items. Civic collective actions for food are generally undertaken, initially at local level, with the aim of preserving and regenerating the commons that are important for that community. Three examples will serve to highlight this movement, the Food Commons in California (USA), the Food Policy Council in Cork (Ireland) and the Walloon Network of Local Seeds (Belgium)" (Jose Luis ViVero Po 2017:118) "In brief, although being part of a so‐called alternative food movement does not make someone a revolutionary, those who value food differently (as a commons) are more likely to act politically to transform the food system than those who value food as a commodity (Vivero‐Pol et al. in prep)." (Jose Luis ViVero Po 2017:119) "However numerous, communicative and transformative those initiatives may be, the varied food innovations taking place in multiple scenarios (contemporary urban settings as well as customary rural villages) are not yet forming a self‐aware, alternative movement, but they are big and disrupting enough to present a strong alternative paradigm in the years to come; once they have organized better as a connected polycentric web, recognized their different worldviews and defended their shared values and commonalities of the consideration of food as a commons (Vivero‐Pol 2017c)." (Jose Luis ViVero Po 2017:119) "Since beliefs and values drive transition pathways, the consideration of food as a commons will certainly open up new policy options and regenerative claims in the future." (Jose Luis ViVero Po 2017:185) "The multiple valuation of food as a commons may enrich the diversity of transformative alternatives (food justice, food sovereignty, de-growth, commons, epistemologies from the South," (Jose Luis ViVero Po 2017:185) "transition towns, veganism, right to food, food security, nutrition transition), including those more transformative or more reformist." (Jose Luis ViVero Po 2017:186) "The commodification of food will consist of a long-term incremental process to dismantle the absolute reliance on market logic [114], a process that is led by transnational food movements in the international arena [140], but that needs to be complemented and re-enforced by local food movements working in customary and contemporary alterand counter-hegemonic niches in order to build a "globalization from below" [141]. Eat locally, but re-claim globally." (Jose Luis ViVero Po 2017:186) "CHAPTER 6: NO RIGHT TO FOOD AND NUTRITION IN THE SDGS: MISTAKE OR SUCCESS?" (Jose Luis ViVero Po 2017:254) "Contrarily to the international consensus reached during the past 50 years, food is not considered as a human right in the SDG route map, and this value‐ based consideration as not‐a‐right supported by several countries ended up having the human right wording removed from the final text.Thus, the research question that triggers this analysis is the following: "How does the dominant narrative of food condition preferred food policy options in international negotiations?"" (Jose Luis ViVero Po 2017:254) "We attribute this result to the adamant US position against any legal or political reference of food as a human right as well as to the timid or dual EU position (promoting its applicability to third parties but being lax at domestic level). Both political stances are anyhow backed, publicly or quietly, by other countries that are sympathetic of the non‐consideration of food as an enforceable right (i.e. Canada, Australia, Saudi Arabia) as well as by many international organisations and most transnational corporations and philantrophic foundations." (Jose Luis ViVero Po 2017:254) "International Covenant of Social, Economic and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)." (Jose Luis ViVero Po 2017:254) "The EU case is rather different, since the regional and national policy and legal frameworks are greatly grounded in the respect for and enforceability of human rights, including the socio‐economic rights. All the EU member states have ratified the ICESCR, and yet none has any specific mention to the right to food at Constitutional or national level, being this right also absent from the three most relevant European human rights charters and treaties. The EU regional institutions publicly defend and even finance this right to be implemented in other countries while they are barely doing nothing to render it operational at domestic level (within EU boundaries)." (Jose Luis ViVero Po 2017:255) "The privatization of food‐producing inputs (soil, seeds, water, knowledge) and the absolute institutions they control (i.e., World Trade Organisation, International Monetary Fund, World Bank, World Economic Forum). Those institutions are adamant about the absolute validity of market mechanisms to distribute food as a commodity. Therefore, the duties and entitlements guaranteed by the right to food clearly collide with this position." (Jose Luis ViVero Po 2017:255) "In that sense, the socially constructed narrative of food shapes the type of policies and governing mechanisms that can be put in place at international level to achieve a Zero Hunger Goal, one of the 17 SDGs agreed upon in 2015. Policies that guaranteed access to food as a human right, with higher state and civic involvement, are thus discarded, placing at the forefront market‐based policies that promote better access to food (through increasing purchasing power or reducing food prices)." (Jose Luis ViVero Po 2017:255) "The ample consensus reached in the second half of the 20th century over universal access to healthcare4 and education5 as a means to address wealth inequalities did not cover the universal access to food." (Jose Luis ViVero Po 2017:256) "Yet no EU member state recognises explicitly the right to food in their Constitutions32 or in specific laws; nor is any mention to the right to food made in the fundamental European Treaties: No right to food in the European Social Charter,33 adopted in 1961 and revised in 1996 that actually extends the protection of social and economic rights to the Council of Europe members; or in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights,34 adopted in 2000 as legally binding; it is supposed to include rights" (Jose Luis ViVero Po 2017:258) "from international instruments ratified by all European members (ie, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights); or in the European Convention on Human Rights,35 originally signed in 1950 and having been enriched with seven protocols. It is worth noting that the right to private property was included in thefirst article of thefirst protocol in 1952. Ergo, private property is a right for Europeans, but food is not." (Jose Luis ViVero Po 2017:258) "CHAPTER 7: TRANSITION TOWARDS A FOOD COMMONS REGIME: RE‐COMMONING FOOD TO CROWD‐ FEED THE WORLD" (Jose Luis ViVero Po 2017:262) "Civic collective actions for food, often done at local level, aim to preserve and regenerate the food commons that are important for the community. They can be rural and urban, and triggered by" (Jose Luis ViVero Po 2017:264) "different motivations, although both reject the dominant narrative that food is only a commodity, reconstructing multiple meanings of food with the ongoing practices of commoning, sharing, volunteering, exchanging or trading in a moral economy." (Jose Luis ViVero Po 2017:265) "In short, to achieve a food commons regime, we need to reconsider how food is regarded by our society, either as a commodity or as a commons, and to reconstruct a narrative of food based on moral values, multiple dimensions and historical constructs. Only by reconsidering our approach to food we can design different institutions, policies and legal frameowrks that will be conducive to a fairer and more sustainable global food system." (Jose Luis ViVero Po 2017:265) "Crowdsourcing the transition to food as a commons At present, the globalised world appears to be at the crossroads transition from vegetableto meat-dominated diets (Popkin," (Jose Luis ViVero Po 2017:286) "2003) and the incipient food transition from oil-dependent industrial agriculture to more environmentally friendly and less resource-intense food systems. This nascent stream can evolve towards re-localised, organic food systems, spurred by non-monetised food dimensions and alternative food movements (Heinberg & Bomford, 2009) or to deepen the globalised, profit-driven path of the industrial food system supported by science and technology developments under the 'sustainable intensification' or 'green growth' paradigms (UN, 2012) (e.g. renewable energy-based hydroponics in city towers owned by retail corporations). The dominant path that emerges from these transitions will determine the new food paradigm." (Jose Luis ViVero Po 2017:287)

The Transition movement is an initiative that aims to develop resilient communities in the face of the twin challenges of peak oil and climate change. Local food growth is at the heart of the movement. Using an ethic of care framework, I find that Transition food groups create alternative spaces for a more relational food praxis that complicates 'geographical binaries' and revalues the largely feminine role of care labour. I further observe the potential of Transition food initiatives to break down gender barriers within these new spaces for care, creating the foundations for a socially just food system. (Barrineau, 2011)

Our text:

Food sovereignty, together with water and energy, are some of the key sectors that community-led initiatives tackle when deciding to ground effective and long term sustainability and regeneration action at the local level. The Permaculture movement has been probably the one that has been acquiring knowledge and experience on how to nurture “Permanent agriCultures” (original aim) in a way that feeds local community and improves native ecosystems. Listening and understanding how Nature produces such abundant ecosystems is the key stone from which Permaculture grew and developed. Following the 3 Ethics of Earth Care, People Care and Fare Share, it is through the landscape design that the natural elements and resources do favour the implementation of the local initiative or community vision. Through the use of the wide diversity of traditional varieties, promotion of perineal cultures (that grow and produce goods and services for several years), … Permaculture has been able to produce some of the most fertile grounds in the world (refs). Permaculture has been also inspiring and permeating into Ecovillages and Transition initiatives and both these movements have also been developing ways of growing food locally in ways that respect both the environment and the community of consumers.