- Jennifer Clapp is a Canada Research Chair in Global Food Security and Sustainability and Professor in the School of E... moreJennifer Clapp is a Canada Research Chair in Global Food Security and Sustainability and Professor in the School of Environment, Resources and Sustainability at the University of Waterloo and is currently a Trudeau Fellow. Her research interests focus on issues at the intersection of the global economy, the environment, and food security. Her most recent books include Food. 2nd edition (Polity, 2016), Hunger in the Balance: The New Politics of International Food Aid (Cornell University Press, 2012), The Global Food Crisis: Governance Challenges and Opportunities (co-edited with Marc Cohen, WLU Press, 2009), and Corporate Power in Global Agrifood Governance (co-edited with Doris Fuchs, MIT Press, 2009).
Feel free to email me to ask for pdf copies of my publications - jclapp@uwaterloo.caedit
This article analyzes the rise of precision technologies for agriculture-specifically digital farming and plant genome editing-and their implications for the politics of environmental sustainability in the agrifood sector. We map out... more
This article analyzes the rise of precision technologies for agriculture-specifically digital farming and plant genome editing-and their implications for the politics of environmental sustainability in the agrifood sector. We map out opposing views in the emerging debate over the environmental aspects of these technologies: while proponents see them as vital tools for environmental sustainability, critics view them as antithetical to their own agroecological vision of sustainable agriculture. We argue that key insights from the broader literature on the social effects of technological change-in particular, technological lock-in, the double-edged nature of technology, and uneven power relations-help to explain the political dynamics of this debate. Our analysis highlights the divergent perspectives regarding how these technologies interact with environmental problems, as well as the risks and opportunities they present. Yet, as we argue in the article, developments so far suggest that these dynamics are not always straightforward in practice.
Research Interests:
Corporations have gained enormous power and influence in recent decades as mergers and acquisitions in just about every sector of the global economy have given rise to mega-sized companies that influence almost every aspect of our lives.... more
Corporations have gained enormous power and influence in recent decades as mergers and acquisitions in just about every sector of the global economy have given rise to mega-sized companies that influence almost every aspect of our lives. In this contribution, we examine the rise of corporate concentration and control in two key sectors – agriculture and extractives – where in recent years consolidation has accelerated due to a combination of technological
change, weakening state regulation and financial pressures, leaving these sectors largely controlled by just a handful of giant players. Corporate concentration and control in these sectors has important consequences, contributing to heightened inequality, environmental harm, and human rights violations. This paper reflects on the strategies of civil society and social movements in contesting extreme consolidation and corporate power. It calls for a multiscale approach that restores the regulatory powers of states and reestablishes people’s sovereignty on a broader scale.
change, weakening state regulation and financial pressures, leaving these sectors largely controlled by just a handful of giant players. Corporate concentration and control in these sectors has important consequences, contributing to heightened inequality, environmental harm, and human rights violations. This paper reflects on the strategies of civil society and social movements in contesting extreme consolidation and corporate power. It calls for a multiscale approach that restores the regulatory powers of states and reestablishes people’s sovereignty on a broader scale.
Research Interests:
Financial investment in the food and agriculture sector has grown in recent decades, including investment in equity-related funds that invest in or track the performance of a range of publicly traded transnational agrifood companies. At... more
Financial investment in the food and agriculture sector has grown in recent decades, including investment in equity-related funds that invest in or track the performance of a range of publicly traded transnational agrifood companies. At their height in recent years, equity-related investment funds accounted for around one third of financial investment in the sector. Despite their significance, investment in the agrifood sector via these types of investment funds has received much less academic and policy attention than other types of financial investment, such as farmland acquisition and commodity speculation. This paper examines the rise of equity-related investment in the agricultural sector and analyzes its implications for the food system. It provides an overview and analysis of the available data on these investment vehicles, including their holdings (i.e. the companies in which they invest) and ownership (i.e. the investors who own shares in those companies). This data shows a rise in common ownership of large agrifood firms by large asset management companies. The paper makes the case that this new pattern of investment in agrifood firms by large asset management firms has the potential to contribute to the already concentrated market power in the agrifood system. This article is open access - just click on the link below for a copy
Research Interests:
This article examines the rise of financialization in the agrifood sector and maps out both the way it has unfolded as well as its implications. The article first argues that financialization has opened up new arenas for capital... more
This article examines the rise of financialization in the agrifood sector and maps out both the way it has unfolded as well as its implications. The article first argues that financialization has opened up new arenas for capital accumulation in the agrifood sector; reshaped the agrifood firms in ways that respond to demands of shareholders; and transformed everyday practices of food and social provisioning. The authors make the case that these three broad processes, while each important in their own right, are interconnected and mutually reinforcing. The article also argues that the complex iteration of financialization in the agrifood sector carries three important implications for the long-term social and ecological sustainability of food and agricultural provisioning: it exacerbates the existing imbalances of power and wealth in the food system; it increases economic and ecological vulnerabilities within agrifood systems; and it has evolved in ways that impede and dampen collective demands for change and resistance. Taken together, these wider implications of financialization in the agrifood sector present a direct challenge to the ability of food systems to provide livelihoods and food security over the long term.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
The food and agriculture sector is both a major contributor to climate change and especially vulnerable to its worst impacts. This means that much is at stake in what is a complex set of contested political dynamics as new governance... more
The food and agriculture sector is both a major contributor to climate change and
especially vulnerable to its worst impacts. This means that much is at stake in what is
a complex set of contested political dynamics as new governance agendas are rolled
out. On one hand, there is a strong push for ‘climate-smart agriculture’ (CSA) and
related initiatives in the area of marine resources such as the idea of the blue
economy, as an attempt to bring a range of viewpoints together to address the
interrelationship between these ecological and economic systems. On the other hand,
critics see these strategies as promotion of more of the same kinds of policies that
created stress in the climate–food system in the first place. To unpack these issues,
this special forum brings together a collection of papers that highlight three
overlapping themes that lie at the centre of these debates, yet which have not been
fully acknowledged by those implementing CSA initiatives: the role of power and
interests in shaping governance approaches to climate and food systems; the ways in
which existing approaches, primarily those promoting open markets and technology,
are reinforced in governance initiatives; and the sidelining of questions of inequality.
especially vulnerable to its worst impacts. This means that much is at stake in what is
a complex set of contested political dynamics as new governance agendas are rolled
out. On one hand, there is a strong push for ‘climate-smart agriculture’ (CSA) and
related initiatives in the area of marine resources such as the idea of the blue
economy, as an attempt to bring a range of viewpoints together to address the
interrelationship between these ecological and economic systems. On the other hand,
critics see these strategies as promotion of more of the same kinds of policies that
created stress in the climate–food system in the first place. To unpack these issues,
this special forum brings together a collection of papers that highlight three
overlapping themes that lie at the centre of these debates, yet which have not been
fully acknowledged by those implementing CSA initiatives: the role of power and
interests in shaping governance approaches to climate and food systems; the ways in
which existing approaches, primarily those promoting open markets and technology,
are reinforced in governance initiatives; and the sidelining of questions of inequality.
Research Interests:
Abstract: The global agrifood industry is undergoing profound upheaval, with a spate of mergers, acquisitions and deals that are consolidating the sector. The mergers announced in 2015 and 2016, for example -- including Dow and Dupont,... more
Abstract: The global agrifood industry is undergoing profound upheaval, with a spate of mergers, acquisitions and deals that are consolidating the sector. The mergers announced in 2015 and 2016, for example -- including Dow and Dupont, ChemChina and Syngenta, and Bayer and Monsanto -- are poised to change the face of the agricultural inputs sector. This paper examines the political and economic dynamics surrounding these large transnational agribusiness megamergers and reflects on the broader implications of these deals for global environmental and food politics. The paper advances two arguments. First, it makes the case that the current wave of mergers is in some ways similar to past waves of consolidation in the sector, but also different in important ways. Past mergers in the sector were driven largely by technological innovation and integration along with strengthened intellectual property protection. Further technological innovation and integration remains important for today’s mergers, but it is not the only driver. The current mergers are also deeply shaped by increased financialization in the agrifood sector that has prioritized investor demands for profits in ways that encourage corporate consolidation. Second, the paper argues that past episodes of consolidation in the sector had important implications for questions of economic fairness, farmer autonomy, environmental sustainability and political power, and that the proposed mergers are likely to result in even more pronounced effects on these fronts. Yet while these concerns are wide-ranging, the evaluation measures used by regulatory bodies to assess the impacts of the mergers only partially capture the ways in which they affect economic fairness, and say little on questions of environmental impact, farmer autonomy, and power inequities.
Research Interests:
Oxfam Research Reports are written to share research results, to contribute to public debate and to invite feedback on development and humanitarian policy and practice. They do not necessarily reflect Oxfam policy positions. The views... more
Oxfam Research Reports are written to share research results, to contribute to public debate and to invite feedback on development and humanitarian policy and practice. They do not necessarily reflect Oxfam policy positions. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of Oxfam. The four big commodity traders – Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), Bunge, Cargill and Louis Dreyfus, collectively referred to as 'the ABCD companies' – are dominant traders of grain globally and central to the modern agri-food system. This report considers the ABCDs in relation to several global issues pressing on agriculture: the 'financialization' of both commodity trade and agricultural production; the emergence of global competitors to the ABCDs, in particular from Asia; and some of the implications of large-scale industrial biofuels, a sector in which the ABCDs are closely involved. The report includes a discussion of how smallholders in developing countries are affected by these changes, and highlights some development policy implications, given the importance of the ABCD firms in shaping the world of food and agriculture. The report highlights the ways in which these four firms are decisive actors in the global restructuring of the overlapping food, feed, and fuel complexes that is now under way, and considers how the firms are evolving as they respond to and shape the new pressures and opportunities in the modern agri-food system.
This contribution argues that the food sustainability agenda in global food governance arrangements is becoming ‘trade-ified’. It shows that international trade has become normalized in these settings not only as being compatible with,... more
This contribution argues that the food sustainability agenda in global food governance arrangements is becoming ‘trade-ified’. It shows that international trade has become normalized in these settings not only as being compatible with, but also as a key delivery mechanism for, food system sustainability. The paper first explains the rationale for this dominant narrative, which revolves around the efficiency gains from trade. Second, it outlines two important critiques of this approach – one that stresses the need to look beyond food as an economic commodity, and one that reveals the internal flaws of trade theory – which together provide important counterpoints to this dominant narrative. Third, the paper offers three interrelated explanations for why trade continues to be presented as a key ingredient to food sustainability despite the weaknesses of the dominant approach: institutional fragmentation in global food governance; the carryover of previous normative compromises regarding trade and the environment in other governance settings; and the influence of powerful interests.
Research Interests:
Big Food corporations have capitalized on nutritionism—the reduction of food’s nutritional value to its individual nutrients—as a means by which to enhance their power and position in global processed and packaged food markets. Drawing on... more
Big Food corporations have capitalized on nutritionism—the reduction of food’s nutritional value to its individual nutrients—as a means by which to enhance their power and position in global processed and packaged food markets. Drawing on the literatures on nutrition and corporate power, we show that Big Food companies have used nutritional
positioning to bolster their power and influence in the sector. Through lobbying and participation in nutritionally focused public–private partnerships, they have directly sought to influence policy and governance. Through market dominance in the nutritionally enhanced
foods sector, and participation in nutrition-focused rule-setting activities in agrifood supply chains, they have gained power to influence policy agendas. And they have used public outreach and the media to present their views on the nutritional aspects of their products, which shapes public perceptions and the broader regulatory environment. Together, these strategies have enhanced the power of Big Food firms to influence policies in the food sector.
positioning to bolster their power and influence in the sector. Through lobbying and participation in nutritionally focused public–private partnerships, they have directly sought to influence policy and governance. Through market dominance in the nutritionally enhanced
foods sector, and participation in nutrition-focused rule-setting activities in agrifood supply chains, they have gained power to influence policy agendas. And they have used public outreach and the media to present their views on the nutritional aspects of their products, which shapes public perceptions and the broader regulatory environment. Together, these strategies have enhanced the power of Big Food firms to influence policies in the food sector.
Research Interests:
Food self-sufficiency gained increased attention in a number of countries in the wake of the 2007–08 international food crisis, as countries sought to buffer themselves from volatility on world food markets. Food self-sufficiency is often... more
Food self-sufficiency gained increased attention in a number of countries in the wake of the 2007–08 international food crisis, as countries sought to buffer themselves from volatility on world food markets. Food self-sufficiency is often presented in policy circles as the direct opposite of international trade in food, and is widely critiqued by economists as a misguided approach to food security that places political priorities ahead of economic efficiency. This paper takes a closer look at the concept of food self-sufficiency and makes the case that policy choice on this issue is far from a straightforward binary choice between the extremes of relying solely on homegrown food and a fully open trade policy for foodstuffs. It shows that in practice, food self-sufficiency is defined and measured in a number of different ways, and argues that a broader understanding of the concept opens up space for considering food self-sufficiency policy in relative terms, rather than as an either/or policy choice. Conceptualizing food self-sufficiency along a continuum may help to move the debate in a more productive direction, allowing for greater consideration of instances when the pursuit of policies to increase domestic food production may make sense both politically and economically.
Research Interests:
This forum article highlights three major research trends we have observed in the journal Global Environmental Politics since 2000. First, research has increasingly focused on specific and formal mechanisms of global environmental... more
This forum article highlights three major research trends we have observed in the journal Global Environmental Politics since 2000. First, research has increasingly focused on specific and formal mechanisms of global environmental governance, contributing to more elaborate and refined methodologies that span more scales and levels of analysis. Second, research increasingly has concentrated on the rise of market-based governance mechanisms and the influence of private actors, reflecting a broader shift among policymakers toward liberal approaches to governance. Third, over this time empirical research has shifted significantly toward analyzing issues through a lens of climate change, providing valuable insights into environmental change, but narrowing the journal's empirical focus. These trends, which overlap in complex ways, arise partly from shifts in real-world politics, partly from broader shifts in the overall field of global environmental politics (GEP), and partly from the advancing capacity of GEP theories and methodologies to investigate the full complexity of local to global governance. This maturing of GEP scholarship does present challenges for the field, however, including the ability of field-defining journals such as Global Environmental Politics to engage a diversity of critical scholarly voices and to influence policy and activism.
Research Interests:
This paper examines the recent rise of initiatives for responsible agricultural investment and provides a preliminary assessment of their likely success in curbing the ecological and social costs associated with the growth in private... more
This paper examines the recent rise of initiatives for responsible agricultural investment and provides a preliminary assessment of their likely success in curbing the ecological and social costs associated with the growth in private financial investment in the sector over the past decade. I argue that voluntary responsible investment initiatives for agriculture are likely to face similar weaknesses to those experienced in responsible investment initiatives more generally. These include vague and difficult to enforce guidelines, low participation rates, an uneven business case, and confusion arising from multiple and competing initiatives. In addition, the large diversity of investors and high degree of complexity of financial investments further complicate efforts to discern who bears the burden of responsibility in practice. As a result, there is a strong likelihood that voluntary governance initiatives for responsible agricultural investment will shift discourse more than they will change practice.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Food studies scholars have paid increasing attention to ‘financialization’ within the food system as private financial actors have played a growing role in various facets of the sector in recent years. While there has been much attention... more
Food studies scholars have paid increasing attention to ‘financialization’ within the food system as private financial actors have played a growing role in various facets of the sector in recent years. While there has been much attention paid to the implications of the greater role for financial actors in the food system, there has been relatively less attention paid to the ways in which these actors have historically interacted with it; in particular, in relation to the role of the state in mediating agricultural finance. This paper examines the long association between agriculture, finance and the state. Historically, private capital has been reluctant to invest in agriculture without assurances and support from the state, and states have practiced varying degrees of regulation on private financiers in the sector. These trends have shaped the practices of contemporary financialization. Although we recognize the systematic political project to reduce the role of the state in agriculture since the 1970s, these patterns persist and we ultimately argue that to understand the financialization of agriculture, it is important to understand how the state has been a long-standing coupler between finance and agriculture.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Is trade a threat or an opportunity for food security? Longstanding debates over this question remain unresolved. This is understandable when one considers that the agricultural sector serves a range of vital functions in society. It... more
Is trade a threat or an opportunity for food security? Longstanding debates over this question remain unresolved. This is understandable when one considers that the agricultural sector serves a range of vital functions in society. It provides food, which is essential for human survival, and it provides a livelihood for approximately 30 percent of the world’s active workforce. At the same time, agricultural exports are a significant source of revenue for some states, and imports are crucial for food security in other states. Agriculture also has deep ecological connections as well as important cultural dimensions. For these various reasons, there has long been concern about the ways in which international trade might improve or hinder society’s ability to balance different social and economic goals as they relate to agriculture and food security.
This paper seeks to shed light on this debate by providing an overview of the main opposing narratives and the rationale behind them. It does not seek to advocate one viewpoint over the other. Instead, it seeks to examine the contours of the debate with a view to uncovering why it is so polarized, and how we might move beyond the current impasse in international policymaking.
The first section of the paper briefly maps out the historical context of the different understandings of the links between food security and trade. It shows that norms and ideas around the concepts of both food security and trade in agriculture have shifted over time, both independently and in relation to each other.
The second and third sections of the paper explain the conceptual basis of two distinct narratives: one that sees trade as an opportunity to enhance food security; and another that sees trade as a threat to food security. These sections examine the arguments put forward in support of these viewpoints and discuss some of the potential limitations and inconsistencies of each approach. Each of these narratives emerges from different scholarly traditions grounded in their own notions of science. The trade as opportunity narrative emerges largely from the discipline of neoclassical economics and relies on the ideas of gains from trade as predicted by trade theory, the practicality of trade in a diverse world, as well as the perceived costs of trade protection. The trade as threat narrative emerges from a range of social science disciplines as well as agroecological science and draws on ideas of the sovereignty of states and communities to determine their own food policy, the multifunctional nature of agriculture in society, and the perceived costs associated with trade liberalization. Each of these approaches raises valid arguments, but each also has weaknesses and inconsistencies.
The final section of the paper considers some of the factors that help to explain why this debate has been so polarized in policy settings, and suggests some possible avenues for advancing the policy dialogue. These include asking more open-ended questions, the development of joint language and indicators, and strengthening areas of convergence in institutions of global governance through more collaborative processes. The paper concludes that an assessment of the interplay between food security and international trade benefits from evaluation that draws on multiple disciplinary and methodological perspectives, and it is through such an exercise that common ground in the debate is most likely to be found.
This paper seeks to shed light on this debate by providing an overview of the main opposing narratives and the rationale behind them. It does not seek to advocate one viewpoint over the other. Instead, it seeks to examine the contours of the debate with a view to uncovering why it is so polarized, and how we might move beyond the current impasse in international policymaking.
The first section of the paper briefly maps out the historical context of the different understandings of the links between food security and trade. It shows that norms and ideas around the concepts of both food security and trade in agriculture have shifted over time, both independently and in relation to each other.
The second and third sections of the paper explain the conceptual basis of two distinct narratives: one that sees trade as an opportunity to enhance food security; and another that sees trade as a threat to food security. These sections examine the arguments put forward in support of these viewpoints and discuss some of the potential limitations and inconsistencies of each approach. Each of these narratives emerges from different scholarly traditions grounded in their own notions of science. The trade as opportunity narrative emerges largely from the discipline of neoclassical economics and relies on the ideas of gains from trade as predicted by trade theory, the practicality of trade in a diverse world, as well as the perceived costs of trade protection. The trade as threat narrative emerges from a range of social science disciplines as well as agroecological science and draws on ideas of the sovereignty of states and communities to determine their own food policy, the multifunctional nature of agriculture in society, and the perceived costs associated with trade liberalization. Each of these approaches raises valid arguments, but each also has weaknesses and inconsistencies.
The final section of the paper considers some of the factors that help to explain why this debate has been so polarized in policy settings, and suggests some possible avenues for advancing the policy dialogue. These include asking more open-ended questions, the development of joint language and indicators, and strengthening areas of convergence in institutions of global governance through more collaborative processes. The paper concludes that an assessment of the interplay between food security and international trade benefits from evaluation that draws on multiple disciplinary and methodological perspectives, and it is through such an exercise that common ground in the debate is most likely to be found.
Research Interests:
This paper examines the relationship between the development of the dominant industrial food system and its associated global economic drivers and the environmental sustainability of agricultural landscapes. It makes the case that the... more
This paper examines the relationship between the development of the dominant industrial food system and its associated global economic drivers and the environmental sustainability of agricultural landscapes. It makes the case that the growth of the global industrial food system has encouraged increasingly complex forms of ''distance'' that separate food both geographically and mentally from the landscapes on which it was produced. This separation between food and its originating landscape poses challenges for the ability of more localized agricultural sustainability initiatives to address some of the broader problems in the global food system. In particular, distance enables certain powerful actors to externalize ecological and social costs, which in turn makes it difficult to link specific global actors to particular biophysical and social impacts felt on local agricultural landscapes. Feedback mechanisms that normally would provide pressure for improved agricultural sustainability are weak because there is a lack of clarity regarding responsibility for outcomes. The paper provides a brief illustration of these dynamics with a closer look at increased financialization in the food system. It shows that new forms of distancing are encouraged by the growing significance of financial markets in global agrifood value chains. This dynamic has a substantial impact on food system outcomes and ultimately complicates efforts to scale up small-scale local agricultural models that are more sustainable.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
The terms food security and food sovereignty originally emerged as separate terms to describe different things. The former is a concept that describes a condition regarding access to adequate food, while the latter is more explicitly a... more
The terms food security and food sovereignty originally emerged as separate terms to describe different things. The former is a concept that describes a condition regarding access to adequate food, while the latter is more explicitly a political agenda for how to address inadequate access to food and land rights. Over the past decade, the critical food studies literature has increasingly referred to these terms as being oppositional to each rather than relational to one another. This commentary reflects on the emergence and rationale behind this binary and argues that the current oppositional frame within the literature is problematic in several ways. First, critics of food security have inserted a rival normative agenda into what was originally a much more open-ended concept. Second, the grounds on which that normative agenda is assigned to food security are shaky on several points. Given these problems, the commentary argues that the juxtaposition of food security and food sovereignty as competing terms is in many ways more confusing than helpful to policy dialogue on questions of hunger and the global food system.
Research Interests:
This paper probes some of the global economic forces that have contributed to the ongoing precarious global food security situation, especially in the years since the 2007 to 2008 food crisis. Since the crisis hit at a time when global... more
This paper probes some of the global economic forces that have contributed to the ongoing precarious global food security situation, especially in the years since the 2007 to 2008 food crisis. Since the crisis hit at a time when global food production per capita was rising, it is important that policies addressing hunger incorporate dimensions beyond food production. There has been some acknowledgement of the role of global economic forces in the food crisis by global policymakers, but global food security initiatives still largely emphasize increased food production over other measures. The paper concludes that more needs to be done to ensure that the rules that govern the global economy—especially those regarding international trade, finance, and investment—do not work against the goal of food security.
Research Interests:
This paper provides a new perspective on the political implications of intensified financialization in the global food system. There has been a growing recognition of the role of finance in the global food system, in particular the way in... more
This paper provides a new perspective on the political implications of intensified financialization in the global food system. There has been a growing recognition of the role of finance in the global food system, in particular the way in which financial markets have become a mode of accumulation for large transnational agribusiness players within the current food regime. This paper highlights a further political implication of agrifood system financialization, namely how it fosters ‘distancing’ in the food system and how that distance shapes the broader context of global food politics. Specifically, the paper advances two interrelated arguments. First, a new kind of distancing has emerged within the global food system as a result of financialization that has (a) increased the number of the number and type of actors involved in global agrifood commodity chains and (b) abstracted food from its physical form into highly complex agricultural commodity derivatives. Second, this distancing has obscured the links between financial actors and food system outcomes in ways that make the political context for opposition to financialization especially challenging.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Con el objetivo de abrir la perspectiva para el diseno de politicas estrategicas en el combate contra el hambre a nivel mundial, este ensayo realiza un balance critico cuestionando las serias limitaciones que para medirla derivan del... more
Con el objetivo de abrir la perspectiva para el diseno de politicas estrategicas en el combate contra el hambre a nivel mundial, este ensayo realiza un balance critico cuestionando las serias limitaciones que para medirla derivan del metodo que emplea la FAO. Muestra que, al reves de lo que ha planteado este organismo internacional, no se esta avanzando en el camino que llevaria a cumplir el Objetivo del Milenio de reducir el hambre en el mundo para 2015 a la mitad en referencia a su medida de 1996. Incluso, al contrario, aqui se demuestra que el total de personas que padecen hambre en el orbe, corresponde a mas del 50% por encima de la magnitud que calcula la FAO. Desde esta evaluacion historica, se plantean propuestas de politicas estrategicas alternativas en el combate del hambre mundial.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Page 1. The Political Economy of the Global Environment sm Page 2. Page 3. Page 4. HIS comprehensive and accessible text fills the need for a political economy view of global environmental politics, focusing on the ways key economic... more
Page 1. The Political Economy of the Global Environment sm Page 2. Page 3. Page 4. HIS comprehensive and accessible text fills the need for a political economy view of global environmental politics, focusing on the ways key economic processes affect environmental ...
Research Interests: Finance, Sociology, Human Geography, Political Economy, Globalization, and 15 morePoverty, Political Science, Politics, Environmental Management, International Finance, Environmental Change, Environmental Governance, Case Study, Developing World, Environmental Effect, Transnational Corporations, International Agreements, Social Science, Environment, and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND MANAGEMENT
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
The COVID‐19 pandemic, its impact on the global economy, and current delays in the negotiation of the post‐2020 global biodiversity agenda of the Convention on Biological Diversity heighten the urgency to build back better for... more
The COVID‐19 pandemic, its impact on the global economy, and current delays in the negotiation of the post‐2020 global biodiversity agenda of the Convention on Biological Diversity heighten the urgency to build back better for biodiversity, sustainability, and well‐being. In 2019, the Intergovernmental Science‐Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) concluded that addressing biodiversity loss requires a transformative change of the global economic system. Drawing on the IPBES findings, this policy perspective discusses actions in four priority areas to inform the post‐2020 agenda: (1) Increasing funding for conservation; (2) redirecting incentives for sustainability; (3) creating an enabling regulatory environment; and (4) reforming metrics to assess biodiversity impacts and progress toward sustainable and just goals. As the COVID‐19 pandemic has made clear, and the negotiations for the post‐2020 agenda have emphasized, governments are indispensable in guiding...
Research Interests: Ecosystem Services, Political Science, Policy, Metrics, Negotiation, and 15 moreRegulation, Biodiversity, Multidisciplinary, Trade, Biodiversity Conservation, Green Finance, Conservation letters, Incentive, Convention on Biological Diversity, Incentives, Biodiversity policy, Subsidies, Transformative Change, Economic systems, and Sustainability
Research Interests: Business and Agriculture
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
What are the potential consequences when a relatively small number of large firms come to dominate markets within the global food system? This Perspective examines the implications of corporate concentration and power in the global seed... more
What are the potential consequences when a relatively small number of large firms come to dominate markets within the global food system? This Perspective examines the implications of corporate concentration and power in the global seed and agrochemical industry, a sector that has become more consolidated in recent years. It outlines the pathways via which concentrated firms in this sector have the potential to exert power in food systems more broadly—both directly and indirectly—in ways that matter for food system outcomes. Specifically, concentrated firms can shape markets, shape technology and innovation agendas, and shape policy and governance frameworks. This Perspective makes the case that a range of measures are needed to ensure that corporate concentration and power do not undermine key goals for food systems, such as equitable livelihoods, sustainability and broad-based participation in food system governance. These include measures to strengthen competition policies, to bolster public sector support for diverse food systems, and to curb corporate influence in the policy process. Corporate concentration and power can shape markets, technology and innovation agendas, and policy and governance frameworks. Issues, implications and mitigating measures to take in food systems are discussed here using the agricultural inputs industry as an example.
Research Interests: Business and Food Systems
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
The Civil Society Mechanism (CSM) warmly welcomes the initiation of a CFS collective process to reflect on and engage with the critical issue of reshaping the global narrative towards 2030 by rethinking how our food is produced and how... more
The Civil Society Mechanism (CSM) warmly welcomes the initiation of a CFS collective process to reflect on and engage with the critical issue of reshaping the global narrative towards 2030 by rethinking how our food is produced and how food systems are operated. The V0 draft of this HLPE report presents us with a few evidence elements of the different production, governance and agency models and gives us a basis to assess what steps are needed towards the real transformation of food systems so urgently needed. As CSM, we have been the strongest advocates for the CFS to take on workstreams that aim to reshape and transform current dysfunctional food systems. We take this opportunity to put forward once again this urgent call for change, while putting forward the perspectives of the most affected and reaffirm our commitment to engage comprehensively, and with the full scope of our diverse constituencies, with this report process and the policy engagement that will follow.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
This article is provided, with permission, from Munk School of Global Affairs: Faculty of Law © 2015
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
This article analyzes the rise of precision technologies for agriculture—specifically digital farming and plant genome editing—and their implications for the politics of environmental sustainability in the agrifood sector. We map out... more
This article analyzes the rise of precision technologies for agriculture—specifically digital farming and plant genome editing—and their implications for the politics of environmental sustainability in the agrifood sector. We map out opposing views in the emerging debate over the environmental aspects of these technologies: while proponents see them as vital tools for environmental sustainability, critics view them as antithetical to their own agroecological vision of sustainable agriculture. We argue that key insights from the broader literature on the social effects of technological change—in particular, technological lock-in, the double-edged nature of technology, and uneven power relations—help to explain the political dynamics of this debate. Our analysis highlights the divergent perspectives regarding how these technologies interact with environmental problems, as well as the risks and opportunities they present. Yet, as we argue in the article, developments so far suggest tha...
Research Interests:
Abstract The growing use of chemical herbicides for weed control has become a dominant feature of modern industrial agriculture and a major environmental and health concern in agricultural systems worldwide. This paper seeks to explain... more
Abstract The growing use of chemical herbicides for weed control has become a dominant feature of modern industrial agriculture and a major environmental and health concern in agricultural systems worldwide. This paper seeks to explain how and why glyphosate-based agricultural herbicides have become so entrenched in modern agriculture. It shows that a complex interplay among technological, market, and regulatory developments have encouraged a lock-in of glyphosate linked technologies in agricultural systems. These are: (1) the repurposing of glyphosate for use with genetically modified crops; (2) the rise of the generic glyphosate market, which globalized the chemical’s use and encouraged new agricultural uses; (3) new technologies such as digital agriculture and genome editing that interface with glyphosate use; and (4) growing corporate market power and declining public investment in agricultural research programs that constrained innovation in non-herbicide weed control technologies.
Research Interests:
Research Interests: History, Economics, Higher Education, Life Sciences, Economic policy, and 11 moreClimate, Biodiversity, Transition Economies, Social Science Research Network, Transition to sustainable economies, Transformative Change, Medicine and Health Sciences, Integration of Climate Policy In Economic, Biodiversity Policies, CoVid, and Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
The agricultural input industry has become more concentrated in the wake of recently announced corporate mergers in the sector. This article examines the environmental implications of corporate concentration in the agricultural input... more
The agricultural input industry has become more concentrated in the wake of recently announced corporate mergers in the sector. This article examines the environmental implications of corporate concentration in the agricultural input sector and outlines the challenges of establishing effective international policy and governance on this issue. The article makes two arguments. First, corporate concentration matters for food system sustainability. Consolidation in the global seed and agro-chemical industries has been deeply entwined with the rise of industrial agriculture, which has been associated with a host of environmental problems including an increase in agro-chemical use and the loss of agricultural biodiversity. Second, although corporate concentration has important sustainability implications, there is little recognition of the potential connection between these issues in international governance measures. The article outlines a number of factors that discourage the developme...