Food Sovereignty Discourse in Southeast Asia: Helpful or Disruptive?

 

 

 

 

 

Food Sovereignty and Political Attractiveness

The operationalisation of the food sovereignty concept, however, is not without difficulties. One of the debates is on where to locate the sovereignty (whether at citizens or states level), for which the concept requires a clearer definition. Indonesian Food Bill 8/2012 recognises the rights of the state and the nation to determine food policy which ensures people’s right to food and provides rights for the people to determine food systems that is appropriate with local resources. President Jokowi’s adoption of food sovereignty has been much clearer at the level of production and the governance of food sovereignty but is still less clear on how to sustain food access and nutrition security and food stability.

 

Food sovereignty can be politically attractive to strong nationalistic regimes (as seen e.g. in Bolivia and other countries) that can capitalise on the concept to win the hearts and the minds of the voters especially in the large agrarian economies. In the rice production regions of Southeast Asia, the movement arises from organised action among rice farmers where some simply meant rice sovereignty rather than food sovereignty. However, over time, there has been an expansion of the food sovereignty concept to include diverse types of food commodities and food systems.

 

In today’s neoliberal economic context, some have argued that food sovereignty can be used as a counter narrative to confront global land grabbing problems as well as unsustainable practices in local and international food systems.

 

Can Food Sovereignty Save The World?

The question is can food sovereignty save the world? Scientists have argued that amid the continuous trend of reduced agricultural land, population change, climate change and the search for new technology to feed nine billion people in 2050, recent and future bio-technology may offer greater possibility for having the second green revolution with a vision of ecological sustainability. Concern, however, remains that if the concept is endorsed without critical review, it may defect from the future of food security.

 

The proponents of food sovereignty may be resistant to science-based innovation especially when it comes to genetically modified foods and related food biotechnology. It can be a challenge to future security because food sovereignty policy narrative embeds risk-averse behaviour into market and new bio-technological experiments, which in turn may give little space for future innovation. However, food sovereignty critique of GM foods remains valid as it concerns not only with food safety and risk but also the control over inputs and seeds.

 

In addition, concerns remain whether the framework may reinforce more food trade protection and endorse inefficient food self-sufficiency policy. Whether or not food sovereignty can offer better outcome for Indonesia, a more systematic study is recommended concerning cost and benefit of existing and alternative food security framework and policy options for a more rational policy of food sovereignty and security.

 

 

Jonatan A. Lassa and Maxim Shrestha are researchers with the Centre for Non-Traditional Security (NTS) Studies at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University.