Civil Society and Social Movements in Food System Governance

Peter Andrée, Jill K. Clark, Charles Z. Levkoe, Kristen Lowitt, Peter Andrée, Jill K. Clark, Charles Z. Levkoe, Kristen Lowitt

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• Print ISBN: 9780367661823
• eBook ISBN: 9780429994364
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Biowissenschaften
• Subtopic: Ökologie

This book offers insights into the governance of contemporary food systems and their ongoing transformation by social movements.

As global food systems face multiple threats and challenges there is an opportunity for social movements and civil society to play a more active role in building social justice and ecological sustainability. Drawing on case studies from Canada, the United States, Europe and New Zealand, this edited collection showcases promising ways forward for civil society actors to engage in governance. The authors address topics including: the variety of forms that governance engagement takes from multi-stakeholderism to co-governance to polycentrism/self-governance; the values and power dynamics that underpin these different types of governance processes; effective approaches for achieving desired values and goals; and, the broader relationships and networks that may be activated to support change. By examining and comparing a variety of governance innovations, at a range of scales, the book offers insights for those considering contemporary food systems and their ongoing transformation.

It is suitable for food studies students and researchers within geography, environmental studies, anthropology, policy studies, planning, health sciences and sociology, and will also be of interest to policy makers and civil society organisations with a focus on food systems.

The Open Access version of this book, available at http://www.tandfebooks.com/doi/view/10.4324/9780429503597, has been made available under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives 4.0 license.

1 The governance engagement continuum

Food movement mobilization and the execution of power through governance arrangements

Peter Andrée, Jill K. Clark, Charles Z. Levkoe, Kristen Lowitt, and Carla Johnston

Introduction

To enable the transition towards more sustainable and just food systems, food movements are claiming new roles in governance (Martorell & Andrée, 2018; Carlson & Chappell, 2015; Renting et al, 2012). Among academics and policy-makers, there is also growing interest in the potential contributions of social movement and civil society actors to co-governance (aka collaborative governance) processes. This interest is based, in part, on the recognition that, in social democracies, “wicked problems” (Candel, 2014) of a systemic nature can only be addressed through the active participation of all sectors: the public sector, the private sector, and civil society (Emerson et al, 2011; Blomgren Bingham et al, 2005; O’Toole, 1997). This chapter proposes a governance engagement continuum as a theoretical and practical framework to help conceptualize the role of food movement actors in food systems governance.

The governance engagement continuum helps conceptualize, compare, and critically analyze the opportunities and challenges to food movement engagement with governance across different contexts and scales. The continuum ranges from multi-stakeholderism on one end to polycentric governance (which we understand to include “self-governance”) on the other. Between these poles are a range of possibilities, including some arrangements that can be defined as co-governance. Positioning the forms of social movement actor participation in governance along a continuum brings to the fore the variety of ways that civil society and social movements wrestle with power, from influencing, to sharing, claiming, and exerting power within their own contexts and within broader social, economic, and ecological systems.

This chapter begins with a discussion of the various ideological and strategic orientations of food movements found in the Global North, since these orientations have significant implications for the ways in which food movement actors engage with governance. We then discuss conceptions of power, bringing together a framework developed by Clapp and Fuchs (2009) – which incorporates the concepts of instrumental, discursive, and structural power – with Gaventa’s (2005) “power cube”. The power cube distinguishes among three forms of power (visible, hidden, and invisible), and also draws attention to the diverse spaces and places where power relations are at work. Together, we believe these frames offer a useful account of what power is and how it works in relation to governance processes. Power relations of all forms are involved in the creation and implementation of governance mechanisms. They are also at work in resistance within and against governance, as well as through the claiming of new spaces outside formal governance regimes. The chapter then presents our governance continuum in detail, demonstrating its heuristic value. We end by identifying questions the continuum raises for future scholarship on food movement engagement in governance. Throughout the chapter, we draw on examples from case studies presented in this volume to illustrate our arguments.

Food movements in governance processes

In our introductory chapter, we emphasized those aspects that unite food movements. We noted a wide range of labels associated with these movements, including fair trade, civic agriculture, food justice, food sovereignty, food democracy, agroecology, slow food, and community food security (Schiff & Levkoe, 2014; Friedland, 2010). Nonetheless, we emphasized what these movements have in common: a critique of the industrial food system (Friedland 2008; Allen, 1999); a desire to build healthier, more just and sustainable food systems; practical experience in building positive alternatives (Roberts, 2013); a growing level of networking across movements (Levkoe, 2015); and the increased use of systems-thinking to diagnose and try to solve the challenges associated with how food is produced, distributed, and accessed. Here, we begin by focusing on the differences among the ideological and strategic orientations of food movements found in the Global North, since these orientations have implications for why, and how, food movement actors engage in governance processes.

Within the food systems literature, one common way to distinguish food movements, and the food initiatives they champion, is according to the strategies they employ to make change. These strategies can be understood, in part, as the orientation that movement initiatives take towards the dominant food system (McInnes & Mount, 2017). While some efforts are designed to serve as alternatives and work in parallel to the dominant food system, others directly challenge and aim to transform those systems. Still others work to achieve incremental changes within the dominant system (Holt-Giménez & Shattuck, 2011; Allen et al, 2003). Examples of the first type are often called “alternative food networks” (AFNs). In this volume, we have several case studies that focus on the construction and governance of AFNs, including the story (described in Chapter 4) of the development of a local food producer’s cooperative, YYC Growers and Distributors, in Calgary, Canada. The category of AFNs includes farmers’ markets, organic supply chains, and fair-trade networks. What these diverse AFNs have in common is that they are established as alternatives to conventional supply chains by their turn away from standardized and industrial systems of food provisioning towards an emphasis on particular types of quality, locality, or production practices (Andrée et al, 2010; Goodman, 2003, 2004). The “resistance” of AFNs to the dominant, neoliberal food system is mainly enacted through their “autonomy” rather than any overt struggle or covert sabotage (Van der Ploeg, 2007, p. 3). As Van der Ploeg (2007, p. 3) writes,

Resistance resides in the fields, in the ways in which “good manure” is made, “noble cows” are bred, “beautiful farms” are constructed, and “fresh milk” is delivered. As ancient and irrelevant as such practices may seem when considered in isolation, in the current context they are increasingly vehicles through which resistance is expressed and organized.

A great deal of ink has been spilled on the question of whether AFNs actually impact the status quo and to what extent they might reinforce problematic aspects of the dominant industrial food system (Holt-Gimenez & Shattuck, 2011; Levkoe, 2011; Fridell, 2007; Ilbery & Maye, 2005; Sonnino & Marsden, 2005; Watts et al, 2005; Guthman, 2003; Winter, 2003). The point of the distinction being drawn here is that movements focusing primarily on establishing and growing AFNs put most of their energy into building those alternatives, which has been described as slowly transitioning towards a more ideal food system through the provision of alternatives (McInnes & Mount, 2017). This focus can be contrasted with other food movements that actively seek to transform the dominant food system in one way or another. The latter, which include movements for food justice and food sovereignty, seek to actively change how the dominant system works and is structured. The nature of the changes these movements seek, however, represents another significant distinction. We return to this point below.

From the perspective of governance, the work of building a successful AFN involves considerable governance engagement on multiple levels. For example, establishing YYC Growers and Distributors in Calgary first involved building a formal internal governance structure among the producers. Developing supportive and mutually beneficial relationships with YYC’s consumers, some of whom pick up community supported agriculture (CSA) shares from one another’s houses, has expanded this governance structure, albeit informally. YYC also works alongside a range of community organizations, and with local food champions in municipal and provincial government, to advocate for changes that better support a more sustainable, equitable, and localized food system. Some YYC members participated in the development of Calgary’s food strategy and have also provided input to the provincial government’s Local Food Act. This dynamic, multi-level context that YYC is part of reveals the complexity of AFNs and local food governance issues.

Drawing on the insights of Karl Polanyi (1944) about the social reaction that regularly follows an over-emphasis on market liberalization (as we again find in the neoliberal era), AFN development is frequently presented in this literature in terms of “re-embedding” markets in social and ecological values (e.g. Vivero Pol, 2015; Pinkerton & Davis, 2015; Renting et al, 2012; Holt-Gimenez, 2011; Guthman, 2007; Sonnino, 2007). The idea of “re-embedding” markets refers to the re-regulation of food through a mix of formal (e.g. policies and laws) and informal (e.g. norms and relationships) governance mechanisms (Sonnino 2007; Andrée, 2014).

Other food movements use strategies that work from within the dominant food system, taking a reformist approach. An example in this collection is the organic movement success story of Correns’ France, whereby the community has collectively engaged in global markets, but on their own terms and for their local business and broader community benefit. Their champions may be comfortable with having their initiatives embedded within a globalizing system that otherwise remains dominated by a limited number of large transnational corporations (Clapp, 2016). Even if they are uncomfortable with this situation, their work is likely to be only tangentially challenging the dominant system. This reformist label might also apply to many of the organizations that advocate for food security.

Food security means having physical and economic access to sufficient, nutritious, and culturally appropriate food (FAO, 2003). Several of the food movement efforts presented in this book, including the Yellowknife Food Charter Coalition (Chapter 2), formally organize their work under the banner of furthering food security. In his review article on the subject, Candel (2014) finds that the governance of food security is highly complex. To be effective, it requires coordination across multiple scales and sectors and the involvement of multiple actors, including international organizations, states, civil society organizations, and private sector actors. For food movement actors to call for food security is thus effectively to call for changes to food system governance. However, because of accepted food security definitions, the appeal may only be for changes to specific aspects of the food system, such as food distribution. Holt-Gimenez and Shattuck (2011) argue that “rather than call for structural change, most [food security advocates] work to increase and improve social safety nets” (p. 323). More specifically, the food security orientation, on its own, can lend itself to technocratic (rather than democratic) solutions, and is insufficiently discerning about where food comes from, the conditions under which it was produced or harvested, and the full range of impacts associated with the structures that bring food to people. Holt-Gimenez and Shattuck (2011) argue that most reformist orientations effectively reinforce the industrial food system by “fine-tuning the neoliberal project rather than encouraging substantive change of direction” (p. 123). It should be noted that movement actors have adopted approaches that have addressed some of the critiques via a community food security (CFS) approach, which focuses on long-term solutions, individual empowerment, support for local food systems, and community-based marketplaces. CFS is arguably a more alternative approach than a reformist approach (Allen, 2004).

Several points are worth making in response to the criticism of food security. First, a reformist orientation may, indeed, ultimately serve to fine-tune the neoliberal project. However, food movements are increasingly aware of this possibility, which they saw vividly in the corporate take-over of the organic food counter-culture in California in the late twentieth century (Guthman, 2004). Second, significant improvements to social safety nets – to the point where food security for all within a country is realized – would be no small political transformation, and much more than fine-tuning the neoliberal project. Perhaps most importantly, many food movement actors adopt food security as a primary goal as a way of claiming access to an ongoing, formal, governance conversation. Speaking in the language of food security (or some other reformist position) does not necessarily mean the actors in question do not have more transformative goals for their food system. In the case of the Yellowknife Food Charter Coalition (Chapter 2), efforts to establish a food charter were framed in terms of “food security”, but the contents of that charter resonate more with community food security and food sovereignty (both discussed below), particularly in terms of its goals for increasing localized food production and strengthening the role of traditional (hunted, fished, and gathered) foods in the Yellowknife, Northwest Territories food system as important pathways to “food security”.

In contrast to the reformist orientations of the food movements organized to promote food security, or the alterative orientations of farmers’ markets, fair trade and organic farming, radical food movement orientations directly challenge the dominant industrial food system with aims of system transformation (Jarosz, 2000; Kloppenburg et al, 1996). Some consider the right to food discourse (as recognized by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the United Nations Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the United Nations General Comment 12) as a radical call to action. For example, the Civil Society Mechanism to the Committee on World Food Security (Chapter 6) strongly supports the right to food and adequate nutrition and has staunchly resisted efforts to water that down to strictly food security. As discussed in Chapter 6, some states, such as Brazil, have formally adopted the right to food in their constitutions in response to social movement mobilization. While no state fully guarantees this right in practice, human rights discourse has a considerable degree of moral authority. Champions see it as an accountability framework for the marginalized and least powerful to use when they are interacting with powerful actors and governments (McKeon, 2017). In deliberate contrast to food being considered a commodity or private good, which limits access to food to those that can pay, promotes accumulation that only enriches a few, and creates negative environmental, so...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half Title
• Series Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Acknowledgements
• List of Contributors
• Foreword: Social Movements in Food System Governance
• Introduction – Traversing Theory and Practice: Social Movement Engagement in Food Systems Governance for Sustainability, Justice, and Democracy
• 1 The Governance Engagement Continuum: Food Movement Mobilization and the Execution of Power Through Governance Arrangements
• 2 Pathways to Co-Governance? The Role of NGOs in Food Governance in the Northwest Territories, Canada
• 3 Searching for Fit? Institution Building and Local Action for Food System Change in Dunedin, New Zealand
• 4 Catalyzing Change in Local Food System Governance in Calgary, Alberta: The Role of YYC Growers and Distributors Cooperative
• 5 Policy Engagement as Prefiguration: Experiments in Food Policy Governance Through the National Food Policy Dialogue in Canada
• 6 Comparing the Effectiveness of Structures for Addressing Hunger and Food Insecurity
• 7 Indigenous Self-Determination and Food Sovereignty Through fisheries Governance in the Great Lakes Region
• 8 Collaborative Governance: The Case of Local Food Action Planning
• 9 Hybrid Governance as Rural Development: Market, State, and Civil Society in Correns, France
• Index