Roles of Rural Areas in Sustainable Food System ...

7 downloads 28582 Views 252KB Size Report
multiple food systems exist in parallel, with actors buying and selling from ... sourced through global value chains (from the Global Industrial domain) yet also seek ... is on individuals to re-‐invest, not on the companies that benefit from cheap, ...
Roles  of  Rural  Areas  in  Sustainable  Food  System  Transformations     Molly  D.  Anderson   Email:  [email protected]   Running  Header:  Sustainable  Food  System  Transformations   (Accepted  for  publication  in  Development  Journal,  2016)     Abstract:  Rural  areas  and  their  people  have  not  received  appropriate  appreciation  for   their  necessary  contributions  to  sustainable  cities  and  achievement  of  the  Sustainable   Development  Goals.  Food  systems  in  rural  and  urban  areas  are  undergoing  major   transformations,  due  to  drivers  that  are  not  always  affected  by  population  density.    The   health  and  well-­‐being  of  rural  agroecosystems  and  communities  are  interlinked   inextricably  with  the  well-­‐being,  resilience  and  food  security  of  cities.    The  goals  of  food   sovereignty  for  autonomy,  localized  markets,  political  participation  in  decisions  affecting   producers  and  agroecological  production  will  serve  the  right  to  food  of  both  urban  and   rural  people.     Keywords:  sustainable  food  system,  rural  transformation,  food  sovereignty,  Sustainable   Development  Goals     Introduction   Rural  areas  are  often  defined  by  what  they  are  not  (i.e.,  urban)  instead  of  what  they  are.  For   example,  the  US  Department  of  Agriculture  uses  nine  different  ways  to  classify  ‘rural’  in  contrast   to  ‘metro’  (ERS,  2015),  reflecting  some  ambiguity  or  vagueness  in  use  of  the  term.  Urban  areas   have  been  perceived  for  some  time  as  having  superior  amenities,  including  education,  cultural   and  employment  opportunities,  and  health  care.  This  perception  has  driven  rural  to  urban   migration  over  the  past  century  at  least,  such  that  in  2014,  54  percent  of  the  world’s  population   lived  in  urban  areas  and  by  2050,  66  percent  is  projected  to  be  urban  (UN  Department  of   Economic  and  Social  Affairs,  2014).  The  inevitability  of  increasing  urbanization  seems  largely   unquestioned,  reflected  in  the  presence  of  an  entire  Sustainable  Development  Goal  (SDG  11)  in   the  2030  Sustainable  Development  Agenda  devoted  to  cities:  ‘Make  cities  and  human   settlements  inclusive,  safe,  resilient  and  sustainable’.  The  SDGs  have  little  explicit  to  say  about   rural  areas,  although  increasing  focus  and  investment  in  cities  is  sure  to  rebound  on  the  rural.       Throughout  more  than  two  centuries  since  the  Industrial  Revolution,  many  people  have  written   about  the  negative  aspects  of  cities,  such  as  crime,  squalor,  crowding,  disease,  poor  air  and   water  quality.  Under  development  scenarios  in  which  people  are  able  to  secure  decent   livelihoods  and  achieve  human  rights  outside  cities,  rural  areas  may  be  preferred  places.  Health   benefits  of  contact  with  nature  and  ‘green’  areas  have  only  recently  been  documented  (Bowler   et  al.,  2010);  and  rural  areas  are  richer  in  most  natural  amenities.  In  the  US,  there  has  been  a   trend  of  people  moving  back  from  cities  to  rural  places  upon  retirement  or  as  opportunities   open  to  telecommute,  although  this  flow  is  not  sufficient  to  counteract  declining  birth  rates,   aging  populations  and  out-­‐migration  from  rural  areas.  In  nearly  half  of  US  rural  counties,  more   people  moved  out  than  in  during  every  decade  since  1950  (Cromartie  et  al.,  2015).  Globally,   youth  have  fled  from  rural  areas:  many  of  the  perceived  amenities  of  cities  are  especially   appealing  to  young  people.  The  World  Bank  (2007)  reported  that  youth  are  40  percent  more  

 

1  

likely  to  migrate  from  rural  areas  or  across  urban  areas  than  older  people  are.  These  trends  have   led  to  a  ‘hollowing  out’  of  rural  communities  and  aging  farm  populations.     The  viability  of  rural  livelihoods  is  especially  critical  for  farming  and  fishing  communities,  whose   assets  are  often  tied  to  rural  areas.  Migration  to  cities  for  people  from  these  communities   means  abandoning  land  or  traditional  fishing  territories,  traditions,  extended  family,  burial   grounds,  and  the  places  where  their  skills  and  knowledge  can  best  be  converted  to  livelihoods.   Livelihoods  reliant  on  food  production  and  processing,  largely  rural  activities,  have  always  been   vulnerable  to  weather;  but  they  are  increasingly  vulnerable  to  strategic  decisions  made  in   boardrooms  far  removed  from  any  accountability  to  rural  communities.  Farmers  and  fishers   have  very  little  control  over  the  prices  that  their  products  bring,  and  little  say  over  land-­‐grabs  or   ocean  grabs  that  preclude  their  ability  to  continue  accessing  land  and  other  resources  on  which   their  livelihoods  depend.  Yet  retaining  a  vital  rural  population  is  in  a  country’s  interest.   Retraining  rural  migrants,  building  infrastructure  and  providing  services  for  them  are  costly;  the   failure  to  provide  such  services  has  its  own  drawback  of  urban  slums.  Retaining  the  capacity  to   produce  a  significant  amount  of  a  country’s  food  provides  a  buffer  against  price  volatility  of   global  markets,  demonstrated  during  the  ‘food  crisis’  of  2007-­‐2008  when  countries  that  had   become  net  food  importers  were  hardest  hit.  Slowing  down  migration  by  restoring  options  for   decent  livelihoods  in  rural  areas,  especially  in  the  most  rapidly  urbanizing  countries—India,   China  and  Nigeria  (United  Nations  Department  of  Economic  and  Social  Affairs,  2014)—would   reduce  the  sustainability  challenges  imposed  by  urbanization  and  help  to  ensure  food  security.     What  is  therefore  the  future  of  rural  areas?  Are  they  the  backwater  in  an  unstoppable  river  of   urbanization,  flowing  toward  glittering  and  increasingly  ‘sustainable’  cities?  Or  is  the  concept  of   city  sustainability  even  possible,  without  thriving  rural  areas?  The  aim  of  this  article  is  to  explore   the  particular  contributions  that  rural  areas  can  make  to  sustainable  food  systems,  and  to  argue   that  they  deserve  focused  attention  to  avoid  becoming  the  residue  of  sustainable-­‐city  initiatives.   Cities  are  likely  to  meet  their  food  needs  most  effectively  and  sustainably  through  the   development  of  regional  clusters  comprising  the  surrounding  rural  and  peri-­‐urban  areas,   maintained  and  strengthened  to  mutual  benefits  with  the  urban  area  and  not  merely  as   periphery-­‐core  satellites.  That  is,  based  on  the  current  challenges  to  sustainability,  promoting   further  city  development  without  concomitant  rural  investment  is  extremely  short-­‐sighted.     The  rural  role  in  food  systems  today   Food  systems  consist  of  all  of  the  activities  from  the  production  of  inputs  (energy,  seeds,   fertilizer,  etc.)  to  food  consumption,  including  inputs  and  waste  management  from  all  activities   and  the  regulatory  mechanisms  that  determine  how  these  activities  are  conducted.  Food   systems  are  constantly  in  flux  in  response  to  changing  natural  and  social  circumstances;  and   multiple  food  systems  exist  in  parallel,  with  actors  buying  and  selling  from  different  systems.  In  a   recent  article  (Anderson,  2015),  I  depicted  a  typology  of  food  system  ‘domains’  categorized  by   the  extent  to  which  they  are  globalized  and  responsive  to  multifunctional  signals  (i.e.,  demands   for  fairness,  environmental  quality,  animal  welfare,  decent  livelihoods,  etc.).  Using  these   dimensions,  I  distinguished  four  major  types  of  food  systems  (Table  1):        

 

2  

Table  1.  Food  system  domains     Focused  primarily  on  making  profits  

Focused  on  achieving  multiple   outcomes   Global     I  -­‐  Global  Industrial:  Vertically  integrated   IV  -­‐  "Fair  Trade":       processors,  distributors  and  retailers   Triple-­‐bottom-­‐line  certified  products   selling  products  grown  under  contract  at   that  guarantee  added  values,  sold   the  lowest  cost  possible  to  the  highest   globally     paying  customers     Decentralized     II  -­‐  Independent  Commercial:   III  -­‐  Local  &  Sustainable:   Independent  growers,  processors,   Independent  producers,   distributors  and  retailers  selling  their   intermediaries  and  sales  venues  that   products  in  whatever  markets  they  can   offer  "value  bundles"  to  their   access,  but  generally  out-­‐competed  from   customers  through  short  supply  chains   global  markets   Source:  Anderson,  2015.     The  names  of  each  domain  depict  the  end-­‐points  of  dimensions,  and  food  systems  may  fall   anywhere  on  the  typology.  So,  for  example,  a  regional  retail  chain  may  stock  foods  primarily   sourced  through  global  value  chains  (from  the  Global  Industrial  domain)  yet  also  seek  out  local   organic  products  (from  the  Local  &  Sustainable  domain)  to  attract  customers  who  want  to   support  organic  and  local  values.     All  food  system  activities  can  and  do  take  place  across  the  rural  to  urban  spectrum,  but   population  density  (one  of  the  primary  ways  of  categorizing  an  area  as  rural)  determines   whether  certain  options  are  possible  within  each  activity.  Large-­‐scale  production  of  grains  or   slaughterhouses  are  not  suited  to  urban  areas  because  large  undeveloped  tracts  are  not   available,  property  costs  are  high  (as  they  are  also  in  rural  areas  dependent  on  tourism)  and   neighbours  are  likely  to  object  to  smells  and  noise  associated  with  agricultural  activity.  However,   labour-­‐intensive  production  of  fruits  and  vegetables  may  be  a  good  choice  on  abandoned  or   relic  undeveloped  tracts  in  urban  and  peri-­‐urban  areas,  especially  if  people  in  the   neighbourhood  appreciate  ‘local’  produce  and  buy  it  preferentially  or  have  limited  access  to   other  markets.  Global  yields  of  urban  and  peri-­‐urban  fruit,  vegetable  and  small  animal   production  are  high,  estimated  by  the  UN  Food  and  Agriculture  Organization  (2007)  to  provide   15-­‐20  percent  of  the  world’s  food.     Rural  areas  are  the  places  with  the  most  potential  for  increased  food  production.  They  have  also   been  the  ‘sacrifice  areas’  for  the  Global  Industrial  food  system  and  extractive  economies  such  as   mining  (Freudenberg,  1992).  Especially  when  their  populations  are  politically  marginalized  due   to  poverty  or  ethnicity,  they  are  the  places  where  wastes  have  been  dumped  and  Confined   Animal  Feeding  Operations  (‘factory  farms’)  built.  They  bear  the  brunt  of  the  Global  Industrial   system’s  externalization  of  costs  for  the  sake  of  efficiency.       Rural  areas  can  also  be  human  sinks:  places  for  people  who  cannot  fit  into  the  demands  of   modernization  or  the  more  rapid  pace  of  city  life.  For  international  labour  flows,  rural  areas  in   developing  countries  have  been  an  essential  source  of  labour,  especially  for  jobs  that  citizens  of   industrialized  countries  do  not  want.  For  example,  Mexican  and  Jamaican  migrants  in  the  US   tend  to  work  much  harder  than  US  natives  and  take  jobs  in  harvesting  and  processing  food  that   few  US  natives  are  willing  to  do,  especially  for  minimum  wages.  Similar  trends  holds  across  

 

3  

western  industrialized  countries  (Constant,  2014).  Just  as  with  the  extraction  of  natural   resources,  labour  flows  from  rural  areas  have  been  exploitative.  Re-­‐investment  comes  through   remittances  from  family  members  who  have  taken  jobs  in  industrialized  countries;  but  the  onus   is  on  individuals  to  re-­‐invest,  not  on  the  companies  that  benefit  from  cheap,  compliant  and   often  well-­‐trained  labour.       Although  rural  areas  are  usually  associated  with  production  and  processing,  changes  throughout   the  food  system  affect  production  and  processing  decisions.  Those  decisions  are  driven   increasingly  by  global,  not  specifically  rural,  factors  and  trends.  The  drivers  of  the  Global   Industrial  food  system  are  neoliberal  economic  decisions,  which  have  facilitated  its   externalization  of  environmental  and  social  costs  in  a  ruthless  search  for  short-­‐term  profits.     Drivers  of  food  system  transformation,  and  relationship  with  population  density   Major  trends  and  factors  driving  changes  in  the  food  system  can  be  separated  into  those   internal  to  food  system  activities,  and  those  arising  outside  the  food  system  yet  having  impacts   on  it.  Some  drivers,  such  as  climate  change,  are  both  internal  and  external  (i.e.,  food  system   activities  release  significant  amounts  of  greenhouse  gases  but  production  and  productivity  are   adversely  affected  by  climate  change).  Figure  1  shows  the  effects  of  some  of  these  drivers,   which  lead  to  constant  jockeying  for  market  share  among  businesses  that  operate  primarily  in   different  domains.  The  arrows  show  by  their  thickness  the  relative  strength  of  pressures  pushing   food  system  activities  from  the  assumptions  and  standard  operations  of  one  domain  into   another.  For  example,  the  ability  of  global  vertically-­‐integrated  supply  chains  (domain  I)  to   source  from  wherever  costs  are  lowest  and  sell  wherever  prices  are  highest  gives  them  a  strong   advantage  over  the  Independent  Commercial  domain  (II);  and  the  disappearance  of  local  and   regional  infrastructure  (independent  packers,  processors,  distributors)  means  that  growers  have   relatively  few  places  to  sell  or  process  their  crops  and  livestock.  Thus,  the  Independent   Commercial  domain  is  being  rapidly  consumed  by  the  Global  Industrial  domain’s  growth.   Greater  concentration  in  every  food  system  activity  is  a  self-­‐reinforcing  trend:  as  the  food   system  becomes  more  concentrated,  with  power  vested  in  fewer  and  fewer  hands,  companies   at  the  top  use  their  influence  to  thwart  anti-­‐trust  legislation  and  buy  politicians  who  will  not   weaken  their  oligopoly.  These  measures  help  to  lock  in  concentration.  In  the  ’Fair  Trade’  domain   (IV),  increasing  competition  among  certifiers  and  standard  systems  are  pushing  companies  into   becoming  more  concentrated,  while  at  the  same  time  consumer  demands  for  products  certified   to  be  organic,  humanely  raised,  produced  with  fair  wages  to  farmworkers  or  other  guarantees  of   added  value  push  actors  in  the  Global  Industrial  domain  to  comply  with  new  standard  systems.        

 

4  

Figure  1.  Dynamics  of  food  system  domains  (From  Anderson  2015)    

 

 

    How  does  rurality  fit  into  this  typology?  Although  food  needs  of  urban  areas  are  increasingly   serviced  by  a  few  global  corporations  in  poor  as  well  as  wealthy  countries  (Tandon  et  al.,  2011;   Howard,  2016),  the  popularity  of  local  products  from  rural  areas  and  direct  marketing  between   farmers  and  their  customers  has  also  grown  in  industrialized  countries  such  as  the  US,  where   the  shift  to  Big  Food  happened  sooner.  Sometimes  this  interest  in  local  food  is  explicitly  aimed   at  supporting  local  rural  economies;  sometimes  it  emerges  because  of  fears  about  the  quality  of   food  and  the  cost-­‐cutting  practices  used  by  global  corporations  in  their  quest  for  efficiency   (Winter,  2003;  Martinez  et  al.,  2010).  Local  food  systems,  located  toward  the  bottom  of  this   diagram,  have  distinct  advantages  with  respect  to  several  of  the  drivers  of  food  system   transformation.  Chief  among  these  is  climate  change,  with  its  associated  water  shortages  and   heat  extremes.  While  the  Global  Industrial  domain  may  seem  more  resilient  to  climate  change   due  to  its  ability  to  source  from  anywhere,  it  depends  on  long  supply  chains  that  can  break   down  in  extreme  weather  events.  Furthermore,  without  government  subsidies  for  infrastructure   (e.g.,  highways,  trains)  and  fossil  fuels  to  support  those  supply  chains,  the  costs  of   transportation  and  handling  the  complex  logistics  of  a  global  chain  would  be  prohibitive.       Other  trends  leading  to  food  system  transformation  that  lead  to  greater  support  for   decentralized  food  systems  are  the  rising  prevalence  of  foodborne  and  animal  vector-­‐borne   diseases  with  globalization  (Kim,  2016)  and  growing  interest  in  direct  relationships  between   farmers  and  customers.  In  addition,  there  are  interesting  debates  about  whether  small-­‐scale   localized  farmers  have  greater  innovation  capacity  than  global  corporations,  with  the  claim  

 

5  

made  that  the  size  of  global  corporations  renders  them  rigid  and  unable  to  shift  direction   quickly,  as  well  as  being  so  focused  on  advertising  or  patent  battles  to  maintain  their  market   share  that  they  have  little  to  invest  in  research  and  development  of  truly  new  products  and   ways  of  meeting  their  customers’  tastes  (Mooney,  2015;  Reich,  2015).       A  final  trend  that  reinforces  the  power  of  local  food  systems  is  the  growth  of  social  movements   calling  for  food  sovereignty,  the  antithesis  in  many  ways  of  the  Global  Industrial  domain.  Central   tenets  of  food  sovereignty  include  decentralization,  both  through  prioritizing  local  production   and  markets  and  by  resisting  global  food  trade.  A  food  sovereign  future  for  rural  areas  is  likely  to   have  networked  but  largely  autonomous  communities  that  provide  for  more  of  their  own  food   needs  and  trade  with  other  communities  only  for  what  they  cannot  produce.     Other  food  system  trends  may  benefit  the  Global  Industrial  food  system  disproportionately  and   hurt  rural  areas:  resource  constraints  such  as  ‘peak  soil’  and  ‘peak  water’  make  rural  resources   more  highly  prized,  and  those  with  abundant  financial  and  political  capital  can  swoop  in  and   appropriate  resources  from  poor  communities.  Rising  demands  for  meat  among  those  who   enjoy  higher  incomes,  and  the  increasing  popularity  of  luxury  and  convenience  foods,  are  more   cheaply  met  by  a  system  with  few  compunctions  about  cutting  corners  on  quality  to  offer  lower   prices.     In  the  typology  above,  movement  toward  the  right  side  generally  means  movement  toward   greater  environmental  and  social  sustainability.  Food  systems  on  that  side  function  equally  well   under  conditions  of  high  and  low  population  density.  If  anything,  higher  educational  levels  in   urban  zones  would  tend  to  favour  awareness  and  support  of  multiple  outcomes  from  food   systems.  However,  retaining  small-­‐scale  and  mid-­‐scale  farmers  on  their  farms,  keeping  youth  on   farms,  and  increasing  the  numbers  of  farmers  are  also  goals  in  the  public  interest.  Producers   contribute  to  public  goods  of  fulfilling  the  right  to  food  through  abundant  high-­‐quality,  diverse   foods  for  everyone;  and  producers  using  agroecological  practices  support  biodiversity  and   environmental  quality.  The  knowledge  that  farmers,  pastoralists,  fishers  and  gatherers  have   about  their  land,  forest,  or  waters  and  what  they  can  produce  is  irreplaceable  and  best  shared   from  generation  to  generation  or  among  peers.  Therefore,  movement  toward  the  bottom  of  the   typology  also  supports  sustainable  food  systems.     Rural  role  in  transformations  toward  sustainability  and  the  SDGs     Sustainable  food  systems  require  healthy  soil  and  clean  water;  skilled  farmers  and  other  food   producers;  secure  intergenerational  transfer  of  resources  and  knowledge  and  dispersed,   decentralized  food  and  energy  production.  This  set  of  attributes  is  most  likely  to  be  found  in   rural  areas.  At  the  same  time,  stable  markets  that  can  pay  prices  that  afford  decent  livelihoods   for  farmers  are  more  likely  to  be  found  in  areas  with  high  population  density.  The  urban  and   rural  are  fully  complementary,  not  ‘modern’  and  ‘backward’  or  ‘future’  and  ‘past’.  Cities  must   have  stable  supplies  of  nutritious  food,  and  despite  various  technological  promises  that  seem  to   divorce  food  production  from  land,  such  as  vertical  farming  or  3-­‐D  food  printing,  the  strongest   guarantee  of  reliable,  nutritious  food  supplies  is  a  healthy  rural  population  with  strong   motivation  to  produce  food.  This  means  a  guarantee  of  decent  livelihoods  (fair  wages  and  good   working  conditions)  in  food  system  activities  concentrated  in  rural  areas,  i.e.,  food  production   and  processing.  It  also  means  autonomy  and  the  right  of  rural  people  to  determine  their  own  

 

6  

future  through  political  participation,  rather  than  domination  by  the  interests  of  urban   populations.  In  short,  it  means  movement  toward  food  sovereignty.       This  is  not  the  sort  of  future  that  the  SDGs  encompass  or  are  likely  to  facilitate.  Given  the   absence  of  a  strong  human  rights  foundation  to  the  SDGs  and  the  need  to  pass  through  a   gauntlet  of  corporate  interests  to  be  approved,  the  rights  of  producers  to  stay  on  their  land  and   gain  decent  livelihoods  from  food  production  and  other  food  system  activities  are  not   highlighted.  While  food  security  and  the  eradication  of  hunger  are  very  present  in  the  SDGs,  and   commendably  so,  where  the  food  comes  from  and  how  producers  are  compensated  for  it  are   not  addressed.  These  are  vital  questions  to  producers  and  the  social  movements  that  represent   them,  but  also  to  increasing  numbers  of  consumers.  They  should  be  vital  questions  for  those   developing  plans  to  implement  the  SDGs  as  well:  small-­‐scale  farmers  using  agroecological   practices  can  produce  the  food  necessary  for  diversified,  nutritious,  sustainable  diets,  while   protecting  environmental  resources  from  further  degradation.  Furthermore,  small-­‐scale   producers  make  up  over  half  of  the  world’s  undernourished  people  at  present  (WFP,  2016;  by   creating  incentives  for  agroecological  production,  removing  the  numerous  disincentives  and   ensuring  stable  markets  for  producers  in  nearby  cities  (for  example,  by  contracts  with  schools   and  other  institutions),  progress  can  be  made  toward  several  SDG  goals  simultaneously.  This  will   require  attention  to  synergies  across  goals  and  to  the  voices  of  small-­‐scale  producers,  who  seek   decent  livelihoods  and  control  over  their  resources  and  future  through  food  sovereignty.  Stable   markets  and  compensation  that  covers  their  cost  of  food  production  will  go  a  long  way  toward   making  rural  areas  sufficiently  attractive  that  they  are  not  forsaken,  especially  by  young  people   who  are  most  likely  to  migrate  to  cities  yet  are  desperately  needed  in  rural  areas  as  future   producers  of  the  cities’  food  supply.     References   Anderson,  Molly  DelCarmen  (2015)  ‘The  role  of  knowledge  in  building  food  security  resilience   across  food  system  domains’,  Journal  of  Environmental  Studies  and  Sciences  5(4):  543-­‐559.     Bowler,  Diana  E.,  Lisette  M.  Buyung-­‐Ali,  Teri  M.  Knight  and  Andrew  S.  Pullin  (2010)  ‘A  systematic   review  of  evidence  for  the  added  benefits  to  health  of  exposure  to  natural  environments’,   BMC  Public  Health  10(1):  456-­‐466.   Constant,  Amelie  (2014)  ‘Do  migrants  take  the  jobs  of  native  workers?’,  IZA  World  of  Labor  10:   1-­‐10.  http://wol.iza.org/articles/do-­‐migrants-­‐take-­‐the-­‐jobs-­‐of-­‐native-­‐workers   Cromartie,  John,  Christiane  von  Reichert  and  Ryan  Arthun  (2015)  Factors  affecting  former   residents'  returning  to  rural  communities.  Economic  Research  Report  No.  ERR-­‐185.  US   Department  of  Agriculture.   Economic  Research  Service  (ERS)  (2015)  Identifying  nine  rural  definitions,   http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-­‐products/rural-­‐definitions/data-­‐documentation-­‐and-­‐ methods.aspx   Food  and  Agriculture  Organization  (FAO)  (2007)  ‘Profitability  and  sustainability  of  urban  and   peri-­‐urban  agriculture’.  Agriculture  Management,  Marketing  and  Finance  Occasional  Paper   19.  Rome:  Food  and  Agriculture  Organization.   Freudenberg,  William  (1992)  ‘Addictive  economies:  Extractive  industries  and  vulnerable   localities  in  a  changing  world  economy’,  Rural  Sociology  57(3):  305-­‐332.   Howard,  Philip  H.  (2016)  Concentration  and  power  in  the  food  system:  Who  controls  what  we   eat?,  London:  Bloomsbury  Academic    

 

7  

Kim,  Anne  (2016)  ‘Lettuce  pray’,  Washington  Monthly  January/February.   http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/januaryfebruary_2016/features/lettuce_pr ay059158.php?page=all   Martinez,  Steve,  Michael  Hand,  Michelle  Da  Pra,  Susan  Pollack,  Katherine  Ralston,  Travis  Smith,   Stephen  Vogel,  Shellye  Clark,  Luanne  Lohr,  Sarah  Low  and  Constance  Newman  (2010)  Local   food  systems:  concepts,  impacts,  and  issues,  Economic  Research  Report  No.  97,  US   Department  of  Agriculture.     Mooney,  Pat  (2015)  Mega-­‐mergers  in  the  Global  Agricultural  Inputs  Sector.  Webinar   Presentation  by  ETCGroup.   Reich,  Robert  B.  (2015)  Saving  Capitalism  for  the  Many,  Not  the  Few,  New  York:  Alfred  A.  Knopf.   Tandon,  Sharod,  Maurice  R.  Landes  and  Andrea  Woolverton  (2011)  ‘The  Expansion  of  Modern   Grocery  Retailing  and  Trade  in  Developing  Countries’,  Economic  Research  Report  No.  122.   US  Department  of  Agriculture.   United  Nations,  Department  of  Economic  and  Social  Affairs  (2014)  World  urbanization   prospects:  The  2014  revision.  ST/ESA/SER.A/352.   Winter,  Michael  (2003)  ‘Embeddedness,  the  new  food  economy  and  defensive  localism’,  Journal   of  Rural  Studies  19(1):  23-­‐32.   World  Bank  (2007)  World  development  report  2007:  Development  and  the  next  generation,   Washington,  DC:  The  World  Bank.   World  Food  Project  (WFP)  (2016)  Who  Are  the  Hungry?,  http://www.wfp.org/hunger/who-­‐are.  

 

8