When Cuba's trade-based food security strategy was threatened by the collapse of the socialist trading block in 1989-1991, the popular response of small and irregular farmers proved vital in providing a minimum food basket during the ensuing crisis. In 2008, a large-scale land reform sought to expand this development towards food sovereignty. We evaluate the reform impacts, finding that after an initial surge in 2009-2010, food production and land use have rebounded and stagnated at pre-reform levels. Peasant-led agricultural development is forestalled by inaccessibility of appropriate technologies, perceived land tenure insecurity, missing/deficient markets and competition from import-based supermarket chains. RÉSUMÉ Lorsque la stratégie de sécurité alimentaire cubainebasée sur le commerce internationala été menacée par l'effondrement du bloc socialiste en 1989-1991, la réaction populaire des petits agriculteurs et des agriculteurs irréguliers s'est révélée essentielle pour assurer un panier alimentaire minimum pendant la crise qui a suivi. En 2008, une réforme agraire à grande échelle visait à étendre ce développement en vue de la souveraineté alimentaire. Nous évaluons les impacts de la réforme et constatons qu'après une poussée initiale en 2009-2010, la production alimentaire et l'utilisation des terres ont rebondi et stagné aux niveaux d'avant la réforme. La stratégie de développement agricole dirigé par les paysans est mise à mal par le manque d'accès à des technologies appropriées, la perception d'un régime foncier incertain, des marchés inexistants ou déficients, et la concurrence des chaînes de supermarchés vendant des produits importés.
The growing academic literature on 'food sovereignty' has elaborated a food producer-driven vision of an alternative, more ecological food system rooted in greater democratic control over food production and distribution. Given that the food sovereignty developed with and within producer associations, a rural setting and production-side concerns have overshadowed issues of distribution and urban consumption. Yet, ideal types such as direct marketing, time-intensive food preparation and the 'family shared meal' are hard to transcribe into the life realities in many non-rural, non-farming households, and it is unclear, in turn, how such realities can fit into models of food sovereignty. A particular practical and research gap exists in how to engage the overwhelming need for food options served under time constraints and (often) outside of the home or a full-service restaurant. The over-generalized vilification of 'fast food' should be replaced by a framework that allows us to distinguish between unhealthy, corporate fast foods and both traditional and emerging alternatives that can serve to extend the tenets of food sovereignty further into food processing, distribution and consumption. This article analyzes existing conceptualizations of fast food, explores fast food historically, and studies how food sovereignty can operationalize its tenets and priorities in situations where fast food is an unquestionable necessity.
A central question in the current debate on food sovereignty concerns the concepts and approaches to assist and frame the operationalisation of its agendas for peasant-based agricultural development. Another is the search for inclusive methods and language to discuss these operational, 'territorial' agendas with potential constituents. This paper argues that both questions call for an investment lens, a complementary approach within food sovereignty that proposes and discusses investments rather than political demands. Decolonial epistemology will treat existing investment lenses critically; however, in doing so it also urges new perspectives on what constitutes investment, the categories of cost involved, and the measurements employed. In following the rationale of investment in agro-ecological theory and practice, the paper next argues that the reconstruction of 'big push theory' outside the 'modernisation' paradigm that once produced it is possible, and that formulation and discussion of big push strategies could reclaim a space within critical agrarian studies. Big push theory offers a frame for the consistent critique of 'silver bullet' development projects through the study of negative feedback loops; and a frame for the study of positive feedback loops, which crucially underlie the proposals of food sovereignty movements for broad, integrated changes in agrarian systems.Operationalising development theories: food sovereignty through an investment lens Scepticism towards the food sovereignty (FS) frame has focused on the feasibility of translating its principles and ideals into political practice and coherently addressing the class positions towards and within the changes in agrarian structures it envisions. 1 In this way it questions the frame's analytical capacities to convincingly deal with issues such as consumer food prices, the internal *
obra está bajo una licencia Creative Commons Atribución 4.0 (CC-BY 4.0), que permite su uso, duplicación, adaptación, distribución y reproducción en cualquier medio o formato, siempre que se otorgue el crédito apropiado al autor o autores originales y la fuente, se proporcione un enlace a la licencia Creative Commons, y se indique si se han realizado cambios.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.