JOSE LUIS VIVERO POL PhD Research Fellow in Food GovernanceCentre for Philosophy of Law/Earth & Life Institute

Food values & policy beliefs in collective actions for food in Belgium

Jose Luis Vivero Pol, Philippe Baret, Tom Dedeurwaerdere & Olivier de Schutter

EUROPEAN AGROECOLOGICAL PRACTICESAction-research for a transformative role

24-25 May 2016, Brussels

What do we want to know?

Is the consideration of food (normative value) correlated

to food policy beliefs and political attitudes in the

transition food landscape? Comparing a global sample

with Belgian case

Tradable Good(Commodity)

Commons

Culture

How is food regarded/valued? Mono VS Multi-dimensional Food

Human Need

Human Right

Natural resource

Food valuations to be explored

• MONO-DIMENSIONAL: economic dimensions prevail over non-economic ones.

• Value-in-exchange over value-in-use • This food concept can be regarded as a commodity.

• MULTI-DIMENSIONAL: the economic dimension, however important it may be, is not dominant over the non-economic ones.

• This food concept can be considered as a commons

Multi-level Perspective on socio-technological transitions Geels (2002)

Exploring narratives in the landscape Food-related professionals as agents of change (N=95)

Global food system: crisis & transition • Rising Obesity / Steady Hunger (2.3 billion): We eat badly• Inefficient (wasting one third, yields stagnated, few crops)• The way we produce/eat food is main driver of climate

change & moving beyond planetary boundaries• Population as a threat but world produces enough food for all• Diet transition towards more meat (less efficient, less healthy)

Food kills peopleOBESITY: 3.4 million deaths annually, 1120 million people by 2030 (Ng et al. 2014; Kelly et al. 2008)

HUNGER: largest contributor to maternal-child mortality worldwide, 3.1 million children (Black et al. 2013).

Commodification (C) of food as major driver

• (C) dominant force since XIX (Polanyi, 1944; Sandel, 2013; Sraffa, 1960)

• (C): development of traits that fit with mechanized processes• Human-induced social construct that denies non-economic

attributes of food in favour of its tradable features (durability, external beauty, standardisation, cheap calories, food miles)

• (C) crowds out non-market values and the idea of food as something worth caring about (Sandel, 2012).

• (C) root cause of crisis (Magdoff, 2010; Zerbe, 2009; Kloppenburg, 2004).

• Food speculation as ultimate alienation of food from its primary value-in-use (feeding people)

• Metabolic rift between consumers and distant producers• Food agency restricted “sovereign act of consuming”

Describing the Global Sample • 725 questionnaires (104 responses, July 2014-January

2015)• Questionnaire sent via Twitter• VIRTUAL COMMUNITY OF PRACTICE (Dubé et al. 2005): Food-

related professionals active in Twitter (21 countries, 85 different institutions, aware food consumers, committed food activists)

• Public sector (33.7%), Not-for profit third sector (48.4%).• Main weakness: low representation of for-profit Sector

(only 17.9%). No agri-food companies

THREE variables of “individual agency in food system transitions”

(a) Position in the food system transition landscape (REGIME – NICHES)

(b) Political stance vis a vis the (existing) food system (REFORMERS – TRANSFORMERS)

(c) Valuation of different food dimensions (MONO- & MULTI-DIMENSIONAL)

Reformers gradually improve imbalances without questioning structural causes. Transformers seek profound-disruptive change in the way we produce, process and consume food. Two attitudinal stances (Holt-Gimenez & Shattuck, 2011; Akram-Lodhi, 2013).

a) Counter-hegemonic (radical): struggling against dominant food regime, denouncing the flaws and trying to change radically the way it works.

b) Alter-hegemonic (progressive): being aware of major faultlines but recognising the impossibility to change the dominant regime. Therefore, detached attitude to confront and building a different food system instead that satisfies aspirational goals.

Mono-dimensional respondents that opted for market-minded or for-profit sentences when forced to choose (economic dimensions of food are dominant over non-economic). Multi-dimensional respondents preferred public-minded or not-for-profit sentences and hence we assume that non-economic dimensions of food are dominant.

Regime/niches not significantly correlated to political stance or valuation food

• Valuation of food is significantly correlated with the political stance vis a vis the food system.

• Gradual reformers are positively correlated to the mono-dimensional valuation of food

• Transformers are significantly correlated to the multi-dimensional valuation of food

• Strongly mono-dimensionals (not mildly) are significantly correlated to gradual reformers

• Multi-dimensionals are positively correlated to counter-hegemonic transformers but not to alter-hegemonic

NO CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP

Differences in preferred food policy beliefs (17) are significant (different levels) in JUST:

Two beliefs among the three groups that value food dimensions differently

SO…no significant differences in food policy beliefs between different normative food valuations

REGRESSION

Food valuation + sector of activity + few policy beliefs explain political

attitude

Age, gender, food-related experience or personal

involvement in food activities have

NO explanatory power to determine political attitude

vis a vis the existing food system and the valuation of

food dimensions

Valuation of food is correlated to political attitudes in food transitions

• The way food activists value food is related to the political attitude with regard to the existing food system and its transition trajectories (gradual reformers or transformers) regardless the position in the transition landscape of the global food system (regime or niches).

• The sector (public, for-profit, not-for-profit) plays also a role but further research needs to be undertaken

Multiples “loci of resistance” with shared food valuations

• The institutional diversity of this research shows there is a multiplicity of “loci of resistance” with counter-hegemonic attitudes to challenge the existing food system, and they have a convergent regard of food as a multi-dimensional resource (life-sustaining element, human right, natural resource, cultural determinant and tradable good), a multi-dimensionality that prevails over the mono-dimensionality of gradual reformers

Describing the Belgian sample • Members of food buying groups (N=58) in 6 urban areas of Belgium:

Antwerpen (11), Leuven (15), Limbourg (2), Bruxelles (8), Ottignies-LLN (10) and Liege (12).

Mostly considered as a Social Movement (by default)• AMAP (Associations to support Peasants’ Agriculture). They are a sort of

Community-Supported Agriculture • GASAP (Solidarity Purchasing Groups with Peasants’ Agriculture). local

name used for Community-Supported Agriculture in the Brussels region. • GAS (Solidarity Purchasing Group). This specific named is only used within

the Grez in Transition Network, an initiative that may be a hybrid between GASAPs and GACs.

Mostly considered as a social enterprise (by default)• GAC (Joint Purchasing Groups) in Walloon region• Voedselteams (Joint Purchasing Groups) in Flandre region.

THREE variables of “individual agency in food system transitions”

(A) Prevailing socio-economic orientation (FBG as a social movement – as a social enterprise by self-description)

(B) Political stance vis a vis the (existing) food system (REFORMERS – NON POLITICAL TRANSFORMERS – RELATIONAL POLITICAL – ISOLATIONIST POLITICAL TRANSFORMERS)

(C) Valuation of different food dimensions (MONO- & MULTI-DIMENSIONAL)

NON POLITICAL TRANSFORMERS (N=16): Aimed at transforming the existing food system by doing things with no political dimension

RELATIONAL POLITICAL TRANSFORMERS (N=20): Aimed at transforming the existing food system by interacting with existing policies and governmental authorities, either implementing better existing policies or showing innovative practices to policy makers.

ISOLATIONIST POLITICAL TRANSFORMERS (N=19): Aimed at building a different food system by creating a new agri-food system independently of any political evolution (no contacts with authorities).

N=60

Strongly Mono-dimensional

At least 2 out of 4

economic dimensions

7

Mildly Mono-dimensional

Only 1 out of 4

economic dimensions

15

Multi-dimensional

None of 4

38

REFORMERS

Aimed at improving the existing food system with no or soft political dimension undertaken either by implementing existing policies or showing innovative practices 5 0

(0%)1

(20%)4

(80%)

NON POLITICAL TRANSFORMERS

Aimed at transforming the existing food system by doing things with no political dimension

16 3(18.8%)

5(31.2%)

8(50%)

RELATIONAL POLITICAL

TRANSFORMERS

Aimed at transforming the existing food system by implementing better existing policies or showing innovative practices to policy makers

20 3(15%)

5(25%)

12(60%)

ISOLATIONISTS POLITICAL

TRANSFORMERS

Aimed at building a different food system by creating a new agri-food system independently of any political evolution 19 1

(5.3%)4

(21%)14

(73.7%)

Non Political TransformerPolitical Transformer

Mono-dimensional 0.1558 -0.1558Strongly mono-dimensional (SMD) 0.1157 -0.1157Mildly mono-dimensional (MMD) 0.0852 -0.0852Multi-dimensional (MTD) -0.1558 0.1558Implementing existing policies (IEP) -0.1538 0.1538Show innovative practices (SIP) -0.4284* 0.4284*Create new food system(CNF) -0.4653* 0.4653*Counter-hegemonic (CHT)

0.1801 -0.1801

Alter-hegemonic (AHT) -0.1801 0.1801

FBG as Social Movement (by self-priority) (SM)-0.2631* 0.2631*

FBG as Social Enterprise(by self-priority) (SE)0.3087* -0.3087*

FBG social movement by default (AMAP+GASAP+GAS)-0.0986 0.0986

FBG social enterprise by default (Voedselteams+GAC)0.0986 -0.0986

Correlations amongst the split agency variables BELGIAN FOOD BUYING GROUP (N=55, the five reformers out)* Correlations significant at 95% level

Food dimensions not so significative

• The way members of food buying groups (alternative niches in food transitions) value food is not strongly correlated to the prevailing socio-economic orientation or political attitude vis a vis the existing food system.

• And yet, Non-political transformers (NonPT) are more likely to value food as a commodity than Isolationist Political Transformers (IsoPT)

Transformative VS Political FBG • The political stance is however strongly correlated to

the prevailing socio-economic orientation: • FBGs working as social enteprises (by self-definition)

have non-political attitudes to transform the existing food regime. That is not extrapolated to FBG-Social Enterprises by default

• FBGs as Social Movement (self-defined) have a political goal in their food-related activities, although it cannot be extrapolated to all FBG-Social Enterprises by default

Next steps

• What kind of Food Policy Beliefs are associated to political and non-political attitudes of transformative FBGs working in niches?

• Factors to explain the different correlations between the Gloobal and Belgian case study