Advertisement

Food Security

, Volume 7, Issue 2, pp 383–391 | Cite as

Food security and trade: reconciling discourses in the Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Trade Organization

  • Arild Aurvåg FarsundEmail author
  • Carsten Daugbjerg
  • Oluf Langhelle
Original Paper

Abstract

A contested issue in the international debate on food security is the role of trade in safeguarding food security at the global and national level. This paper explores how the issue of food security and trade has been discursively framed in two international organizations, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs World Trade Organization (GATT/WTO), from 1945 to 2014. We argue that there are identifiable shifts in FAO’s positions on food security and trade in the 1980s and 1990s towards trade liberalization as advocated by the WTO. The official view of the WTO secretariat and many of its member states (proponents of trade liberalization in agriculture) is that trade liberalization is both necessary and conducive for food security. The FAO has adopted this discourse. Although this is the dominant discursive framing, counter-framings of the food security - trade problem has played an important role in the deadlock of the Doha Round negotiations. We consider how this may influence the global food trading regime.

Keywords

Discourses analysis Trade Food security WTO FAO Food sovereignty 

Notes

Acknowledgments

An earlier version was presented at the IPSA World Congress, Montreal, 19–24 July 2014. We thank Frode Veggeland and the two anonymous reviewers of this journal for constructive and helpful comments. This article forms part of the research project ‘Food Security and Trade Policy Making’. Funding from the Norwegian Research Council’s BIONÆR program is gratefully acknowledged.

This paper was part of a workshop sponsored by the OECD Co-operative Research Programme on Biological Resource Management for Sustainable Agricultural Systems.

References

  1. Bernal, L. E. (2004). South-South Cooperation in the Multilateral Trading System: Cancun and Beyond, South Centre: Working Papers. Trade-Related Agenda, Development, and Equity (T.R.A.D.E.).Google Scholar
  2. Brooks, J. (2014). Policy coherence and food security: the effects of OECD countries’ agricultural policies. Food Policy, 44(1), 88–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Candel, J. (2014). Food security governance: a systematic literature review. Food Security, 6(4), 585–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Candel, J., Breeman, G. E., Stiller, S. J., & Termeer, C. J. A. M. (2014). Disentangling the consensus frame for food security: the case of the EU Common Agricultural Policy reform debate. Food Policy, 44(1), 47–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Daugbjerg, C., & Swinbank, A. (2009). Ideas, institution and trade. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dryzek, J. (1997). The politics of the earth: Environmental discourses. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. FAO (1996). Rome Declaration on World Food Security. 13–17 November, Rome.Google Scholar
  8. FAO (2002). Declaration of the World Food Summit: Five Years Later. 10–13 June, Rome.Google Scholar
  9. FAO. (2003). Trade reforms and food security: Conceptualizing the linkages. Rome: FAO.Google Scholar
  10. FAO. (2008). The State of food and agriculture: Biofuels: prospects, risk and opportunity. Rome: FAO.Google Scholar
  11. FAO (2009). Declaration of the World Food Summit on Food Security. 16–18 November, Rome.Google Scholar
  12. FAO/ICTSD (2013). G-33 proposal: early agreement on elements of the draft Doha accord to address food security, Information note, September 2013.Google Scholar
  13. Fischer, F., & Gottweis, H. (2012). The argumentative turn revisited: Public policy as communicative practice. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. GATT (1986). Punta del Este Declaration. http://www.sice.oas.org/trade/Punta_e.asp. Accessed 6/11/2014.
  15. Gonzales, H. (2010). Debates on food security and agrofood world governance. International Journal of Food Science and Technology, 45, 1345–1352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hajer, M. A. (1995). The politics of environmental discourse: ecological modernization and the policy process. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  17. Hajer, M., & Versteeg, W. (2005). A decade of discourse analysis of environmental politics. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 7(3), 175–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Huang, H., Legg, W., & Cattaneo, A. (2010). Climate change and agriculture: the policy challenge for the 21st century? EuroChoices, 9(3), 9–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jarosz, L. (2009). The political economy of global governance and the world food crisis: the case of the FAO. Review: A Journal of the Fernand Braudel Center for the Study of Economies, Historical Systems, and Civilizations, 32(1), 37–60.Google Scholar
  20. Josling, T., Tangermann, S., & Warley, T. K. (1996). Agriculture in the GATT. Basingstoke: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Langhelle, O. (Ed.) (2014). International trade negotiations and domestic politics: The Intermestic politics of trade liberalization. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Lee, R. P. (2013). The politics of international agri-food policy: discourses of trade-oriented food security and food sovereignty. Environmental Politics, 22(2), 216–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Margulis, M. (2013). The regime complex for food security: implications for the global hunger challenge. Global Governance, 19(1), 53–67.Google Scholar
  24. Narlikar, A., & Tussie, D. (2004). The G20 at the Cancun ministerial: developing countries and their evolving coalitions in the WTO. The World Economy, 27(7), 947–966.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. OECD/FAO (2012). OECD-FAO agricultural outlook 2012, OECD Publishing. DOI:  10.1787/agr_outlook-2012-en.
  26. Pinstrup-Andersen, P. (2009). Food security: definition and measurement. Food Security, 1(1), 5–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rutz, C., Dwyer, J., & Schramek, J. (2013). More New Wine in the Same Old Bottles? The evolving nature of the CAP reform debate in Europe and prospects of the future. Sociologia Ruralis. doi: 10.1111/soru.12033.Google Scholar
  28. Shaw, D. J. (2007). World food security: A history since 1945. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Stone, D. (2002). Policy paradox. The art of political decision making. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. Revised Edition.Google Scholar
  30. Sutherland, P. (2010). A future for the world trade organization? The 2010 Jan Tumlir Lecture. Brussels: European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE). Jan Tumlir Policy Essays, No. 1.Google Scholar
  31. Tellmann, S. M. (2012). The constrained influence of discourses: the case of Norwegian climate policy. Environmental Politics, 21(5), 734–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Termeer, C. J. A. M. (2013). Aiming for food security. In M. Kropff, J. A. M. Arendonk, & H. J. M. Löffler (Eds.), Food for all: sustainable nutrition security (pp. 128–131). Wageningen: Wageningen UR.Google Scholar
  33. Toye, R. (2012). The international trade organization. In A. Narlikar, M. Daunton, & R. M. Stern (Eds.), The oxford handbook on the world trade organization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. WTO (2001). Doha WTO Ministerial 2001: Ministerial Declaration. WT/MIN(01)/DEC/1.Google Scholar
  35. Zulauf, C., & Orden, D. (2014). U.S. Agricultural Act of 2014: Reaffirming Countercyclical Support. http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/Zulauf%20and%20Orden%20Narrative%20FINAL%20Synopsis%20to%20Accompany%20Policy%20Seminar%20PowerPoint%20-%20July%2021%202014.pdf. Accessed 1/10/2014.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht and International Society for Plant Pathology 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Arild Aurvåg Farsund
    • 1
    Email author
  • Carsten Daugbjerg
    • 2
  • Oluf Langhelle
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Media, Culture and Social SciencesUniversity of Stavanger and International Research Institute of StavangerStavangerNorway
  2. 2.Crawford School of Public PolicyThe Australian National UniversityCanberraAustralia
  3. 3.Department of Media, Culture and Social SciencesUniversity of StavangerStavangerNorway

Personalised recommendations