What do we mean by food security?

Food security has been a dominant element in recent debates on agricultural policy, not least the recent discussions on CAP reform. But what do we actually understand by food security? There are a number of standard definitions out there, but in fact various actors interpret the term for their own purposes. An important article in Food Policy by Jeroen Candel, Gerard Breeman, Sabina Stiller and Catrien Termeer, identifies six different interpretations or 'framings'.

Not surprisingly, the productionist and environmental frames were dominant, accounting for nearly 70 per cent of uses. Anyone who has followed the CAP debate is familiar with the productionist frame. It is the stock in trade of those who advocate a 'business as usual', 'more of the same' CAP. As the authors note, it 'revolves around a story line that considers food security as one of the key goals of a future Common Agricultural Policy.' World food crises increase the salience of this frame.

The policy conclusion that is drawn is that the CAP should maintain 'a strong first pillar.' Agricultural production and productivity should be stimulated, 'and should be considered as a form of public goods provision, for which a financial compensation is justified.' [Needless to say, I think that this is a spurious argument, but it is certainly widely deployed].

Whilst the productionist frame is the dominant one, the environmental frame accounts for almost a third of all uses. This is of itself interesting as such a prominence would not have been achieved fifteen or twenty years ago and shows how the debate about the CAP has been 'greened'. The provision of environmental services is seen as an integral part of European food production and the emphasis is on long-term sustainability which cannot be achieved by the continuation of current policy.

Interestingly, the third most used frame is the regional one which shows how the notion of food security can be appropriated for a range of purposes. I see this as a very political frame in the sense of securing benefits for a particular set of actors. The argument here is to look after less developed regions which it is argued cannot produce at world market prices. Farmers in these regions perform an important function as caretakers of the countryside. The Scottish Highlands and Islands are a good example. Although a continuation of the CAP is supported, the present distribution of funds is seen as unfair.

The free trade frame argues that food security is best achieved by free trade. The development frame critiques the impact of the CAP on developing countries. The food sovereignty frame offers a radical critique of traditional conceptions of food security and focuses attention on people's right to food. Historically, notions of equity did feature in the debate in terms of closing the gap in the standard of living between rural and urban areas, but this framing covers both consumers and farmers and is underpinned by notions of global solidarity.

Interestingly, the European Commission uses multiple framings, invoking various frames simultaneously. My take would be that various interpretations of food security can be utilised to justify whatever line the Commission has chosen to take. The consequence, the authors argue, is that a clear vision of the relationship between the CAP and food security is lacking and policy makers may need to develop a more coherent vision [although I would add that CAP decision-making processes rarely facilitate clear strategic thinking].

Not only is this article a very useful, empirically based overview of how the term 'food security' has been used in policy debates, it also provokes thought about where we might go in the future.

Lib Dems lack say in farm policy-making

Defra is just one of three government departments that does not include a Lib Dem minister. Moreover, all the ministers in the department have strong farming links, inclining them towards a productionist agenda.

Lib Dem farm spokesman Andrew George, the MP for West Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, has criticised the Conservative stranglehold on posts. Differences have emerged on the proposed badger cull and the decision to abolish the Agricultural Wages Board.

Mr George has been trying to work with the Secretary of State, Caroline Spelman, to have some say about how budget cuts are made. However, he has admitted that he was 'not yet in the inner circle of Defra ministers'.

Most disagreements are likely to be over matters of domestic policy such as the two that arisen already, rather than attitudes towards the CAP where both parties share a relatively liberal, market oriented stance. However, the Lib Dems are particularly attuned to the concerns of smaller farmers from whom they receive electoral support.

Productivism by any name

Vaasa, Finland: Geoff Lawrence told delegates at the ESRS conference today that one should be careful about terms like neo-productionism and post-productivism that had been used at the conference. Liked productivism, they amounted to a triumph of output over sustainability.

He emphasised the way in which the financialisation of the world food regime has encouraged speculative trading which in turn had resulted in more volatile prices. In 2003 $13bn have been spent on agricultural futures trading and it had soared to $260bn in 2006 as traders saw an opportunity as prices rose.

This theme was emphasised by Peter Feindt and Terry Marsden who argued that short-term and long-term resource shortfalls fuelled speculation. They also drew attention to the carbon dependant nature of the current world food regime.

Unfortunately, the articulation of sustainability concerns often di not got beyond reports, leading to an incoherent articulation which did not change policy. Cracks in the current regime offered up real opportunities for change, but more attention needed to be paid to the politics of transitions.

Mark Tilzey presented an analysis informed by Marxist categories, drawing attention to the attempts of fractions of capital to restore class hegemony. Delegates wondered if they had stumbled into a time warp, but Tilzey argued that the export of productivism through globalisation opened up spaces for the affluent at home. He questioned whether the production of staples could be undertaken by a sustainable rural paradigm, but did not call for machine tractor stations.

In discussion it was argued that supply chains were the dominant form of governance in the current agri-food system. These were potentially highly flexible strategic devices, but did they have the absorptive capacity to deal with challenges like the decreased availability of fossil fuels?

Later discussion emphasised the increasingly close links between food, the environment, energy and finance.

Big Phil Lays It On The Line

Vaasa: Philip Lowe is a leading figure in the rural studies community in the UK and he issues a stark warning about the so-called 'new productivism' in an interview that was issued to delegates at the ESRS Congress where he gave the opening plenary.

Asked if we were moving towards a 'new productivism', the Duke of Northumberland professor at Newcastle University said: 'Much of what I hear sounds like the old productivism. The characteristic of the old productivism that prevailed until the 1990s was that it sought recklessly to boost primary production. Although it claimed to do this with attention to efficiency, this only embraced the so-called factors of production: land, labour and capital.'

The RELU boss continued, 'So we encouraged a form of agriculture that was wasteful in its use of water, energy, soils and caused pollution problems and diminished biodiversity. We must not return to the old-style productivism - of expansion of food production at any cost.'

'No,' Lowe declared, 'the new productivism msut be constructed on the basis of economic and ecological efficiency which thereby protects the capacities of individual ecosystems to deliver a range of valued a life-supporting services.'