Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The troubled path to food sovereignty in Nepal: ambiguities in agricultural policy reform

  • Published:
Agriculture and Human Values Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The food sovereignty movement arose as a challenge to neoliberal models of agriculture and food and the corporatization of agriculture, which is claimed to have undermined peasant agriculture and sustainability. However, food sovereignty is an ambiguous idea. Yet, a few countries are institutionalizing it. In this paper, we argue that food sovereignty possesses the attributes of a ‘coalition magnet’ and, thus, brings together policy actors that support agricultural reform, but have diverse and often opposing interests, in a loose coalition. This facilitates agenda setting, but there may be problems in policy formulation and implementation stages due to the ambiguous nature of the idea. Consequently, despite including food sovereignty in a country’s constitution and/or legislation, policies and programs related to food and agriculture exhibit the status quo, which is not expected under an alternative food paradigm. We examine this argument in a case study of Nepal, where food sovereignty has been instituted as a fundamental right in the Constitution.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Multi-vocality refers to the capacity of an idea to be understood in multiple ways, combining shared and unshared interpretations (Parsons 2016).

  2. ANPFa is a member of La Vía Campesina.

  3. ANPFa-R only provided moral support in the beginning as it was an underground organization along with its parent party until the political movement concluded after which it joined the coalition.

  4. In May 2018, CPN (UML) and CPN (Maoist) merged to form a single party, the Communist Party of Nepal (CPN).

  5. Issues such as unequal access to land, a lack of access to agricultural credit, the unavailability of quality agricultural inputs on time have been long-standing issues in Nepal. .

  6. http://anpfa.org.np/index.php/about-anpfa/membership-and-networking, viewed on 5 November 2016.

  7. http://un.org.np/node/10500, viewed on 5 November 2016.

  8. A new Constitution was written by the Constituent Assembly and it replaced the Interim Constitution on 20 September 2015. The new Constitution is 186 pages long, and is divided into 35 parts, 308 articles and nine schedules. It has been criticised by some for its length and details. The new Constitution also stipulates food sovereignty as a fundamental right of every Nepali citizen.

  9. See, for example, “Twelve-point understanding reached between the seven political parties and Communist Party of Nepal (Maoists)”, http://www.peace.gov.np/uploads/files/1_GoV.pdf, viewed on 20 December 2016.

  10. “Comprehensive Peace Agreement concluded by the Government of Nepal and the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoists)”, http://www.peace.gov.np/uploads/files/14_Gov.pdf, viewed on 20 December 2016.

  11. In the early 2000s, ANPA was restructured into ANPFa by bringing together 23 commodity-specific producer organizations under its umbrella. It claims to be an umbrella organization of entire Nepali peasants fighting against feudalism, imperialism and neo-liberalism since its inception six decades ago. It has also been active in mobilising the masses, especially peasants, in democratic movements time and again, http://anpfa.org.np/index.php/about-anpfa/who-we-are, viewed 12 January 2017.

  12. http://www.anpfa.org.np/index.php/about-anpfa/membership-and-networking, viewed 12 January 2017.

  13. Personal interview.

  14. Personal interview.

  15. Personal interview.

  16. Personal interview.

  17. Personal interviews with civil society leaders who have long advocated food sovereignty.

  18. Personal interview.

  19. Personal interviews with the Chairman of the NPA, a senior agricultural policy analyst, and an activist.

  20. Personal interview.

  21. Personal interviews with the Secretary of the ANPFa-R and the General Secretary of the ANPFa.

  22. Since the mid-1950 s, Nepal has been planning its development, producing periodic plans that cover a period of three or five years.

  23. The ADS is the main document to guide Nepal’s agricultural development for a 20-year period from 2015 to 2035.

  24. Personal interview.

  25. Personal interview.

  26. Personal interview.

  27. Author’s translation.

  28. Personal interview.

  29. Personal interview.

  30. Based on discussions with several stakeholders during fieldwork.

Abbreviations

ADS:

Agriculture Development Strategy

ANPA:

All Nepal Peasants’ Association

ANPFa:

All Nepal Peasants’ Federation

ANPFa-R:

All Nepal Peasants’ Federation Revolutionary

CPN:

Communist Party of Nepal

CPN (UML):

Communist Party of Nepal (United Marxist and Leninist)

NPA:

Nepal Peasants’ Association

PMAMP:

Prime Minister Agriculture Modernization Project

SAPC:

South Asian Peasant Coalition

TRIPs:

Agreement on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights

TYIP:

Three Year Interim Plan

WTO:

World Trade Organization

References

  • Adhikari, J. 2014. Seed sovereignty: Analysing the debate on hybrid seeds and GMOs and bringing about sustainability in agricultural development. Journal of Forest and Livelihood 12 (1): 33–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adler, C., D. McEvoy, P. Chhetri, and E. Kruk. 2013. The role of tourism in a changing climate for conservation and development: A problem-oriented study in the Kailash Sacred Landscape. Nepal Policy Sciences 46 (2): 161–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agarwal, B. 2014. Food sovereignty, food security and democratic choice: Critical contradictions, difficult conciliations. Journal of Peasant Studies 41 (6): 1247–1268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ANPA. 2006. Janatako khadhya samprabhuta baré (About people’s food sovereignty). Kathmandu: All Nepal Peasants’ Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arce, A., S. Sherwood, and M. Paredes. 2015. Repositioning food sovereignty: Between Ecuadorian nationalist and cosmopolitan politics. In Food sovereignty in international context: Discourse, politics and practice of place, ed. A. Trauger, 125–142. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Béland, D., and R.H. Cox. 2016. Ideas as coalition magnets: Coalition building, policy entrepreneurs, and power relations. Journal of European Public Policy 23 (3): 428–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernstein, H. 2014. Food sovereignty via the ‘peasant way’: A sceptical view. Journal of Peasant Studies 41 (6): 1031–1063.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beuchelt, T.D., and D. Virchow. 2012. Food sovereignty or the human right to adequate food: Which concept serves better as international development policy for global hunger and poverty reduction? Agriculture and Human Values 29 (2): 259–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borras Jr., S., and J. Franco. 2012. Global land grabbing and trajectories of agrarian change: A preliminary analysis. Journal of Agrarian Change 12 (1): 34–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brass, T. 1997. The agrarian myth, the ‘new’populism and the ‘new’right. Journal of Peasant Studies 24 (4): 201–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burnett, K., and S. Murphy. 2014. What place for international trade in food sovereignty? Journal of Peasant Studies 41 (6): 1065–1084.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Claeys, P. 2013. From food sovereignty to peasants’ rights: An overview of Via Campesina’s struggle for new human rights. In La via Campesina’s open book: Celebrating 20 years of struggle and hope. Jakarta: Via Campesina.

  • Claeys, P. 2015. Human rights and the food sovereignty movement: Reclaiming control. London and New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cockburn, J. 2014. Bolivia’s food sovereignty & agrobiodiversity: Undermining the local to strengthen the state? Theory in Action 7 (4): 67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dangal, P.P. 2013. Agriculture policy and food sovereignty: A case of Nepal. PhD Dissertation, Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu.

  • Daugbjerg, C., A. A. Farsund, and O. Langhelle. 2015. Challenging agricultural normalism in the global food security debate? Paper presented at the ICPP Conference, Milan, 1–4 July.

  • Desmarais, A. 2002. Peasants speak–the vía Campesina: Consolidating an international peasant and farm movement. Journal of Peasant Studies 29 (2): 91–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eakin, H., J.C. Bausch, and S. Sweeney. 2014. Agrarian winners of neoliberal reform: The ‘maize boom’of Sinaloa, Mexico. Journal of Agrarian Change 14 (1): 26–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edelman, M. 2014. Food sovereignty: Forgotten genealogies and future regulatory challenges. Journal of Peasant Studies 41 (6): 959–978.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edelman, M., T. Weis, A. Baviskar, S.M. Borras Jr., E. Holt-Giménez, D. Kandiyoti, and W. Wolford. 2014. Introduction: Critical perspectives on food sovereignty. Journal of Peasant Studies 41 (6): 911–931.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • FAO. 2017. The right to food around the globe: Egypt. http://www.fao.org/right-to-food-around-the-globe/countries/egy/en/. Accessed 25 Feb 2017.

  • Fouilleux, E., N. Bricas, and A. Alpha. 2017. ‘Feeding 9 billion people’: Global food security debates and the productionist trap. Journal of European Public Policy 24 (11): 1658–1677.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grey, S., and R. Patel. 2015. Food sovereignty as decolonization: Some contributions from Indigenous movements to food system and development politics. Agriculture and Human Values 32 (3): 431–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gysel, A. 2016. Food sovereignty and the role of the state: The case of Bolivia. https://ethz.ch/content/dam/ethz/special-interest/gess/nadel-dam/documents/mas/mas-essays/MAS%20Cycle%202014%20-%202016/Essay_Andrea%20Gysel_FINAL.pdf. Accessed 12 Jan 2017.

  • Hachhethu, K. 2007. Nepali politics: People-parties interface. In Resistance and the state: Nepalese experiences, ed. D.N. Gellner, 133–176. Oxford: Berghahn Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heller, C. 2013. Food, farms, and solidarity: French farmers challenge industrial agriculture and genetically modified crops. North Carolina: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hospes, O. 2014. Food sovereignty: The debate, the deadlock, and a suggested detour. Agriculture and Human Values 31 (1): 119–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howlett, M., M. Ramesh, and A. Perl. 2009. Studying public policy: Policy cycles and policy subsystems. Toronto: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Interim Constitution of Nepal. 2007.

  • Ishiyama, J., and A. Batta. 2011. Swords into plowshares: The organizational transformation of rebel groups into political parties. Communist and Post-communist Studies 44 (4): 369–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kappeler, A. 2013. Perils of peasant populism: Why redistributive land reform and ‘food sovereignty’can’t feed Venezuela. Paper presented at the International Conference on ‘Food Sovereignty: A Critical Dialogue’, Yale University, 14–15 September.

  • Laclau, E. 1996. Emancipation(s). London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • LVC. 1996. The right to produce and access to land. http://www.acordinternational.org/silo/files/decfoodsov1996.pdf. Accessed 22 Dec 2016.

  • LVC. 2002. Declaration NGO Forum FAO Summit Rome + 5. https://viacampesina.org/en/index.php/main-issues-mainmenu-27/food-sovereignty-and-trade-mainmenu-38/398-declaration-ngo-forum-fao-summit-rome5. Accessed 13 June 2017.

  • LVC. 2006. South Asia regional meeting declaration https://viacampesina.org/en/south-asia-regional-meeting-declaration/. Accessed 12 July 2018.

  • Martinez-Torres, M.E., and P.M. Rosset. 2010. La Vía Campesina: The birth and evolution of a transnational social movement. Journal of Peasant Studies 37 (1): 149–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, J.F., and K. Obidzinski. 2017. Framing the food poverty question: Policy choices and livelihood consequences in Indonesia. Journal of Rural Studies 54: 344–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKay, B., R. Nehring, and M. Walsh-Dilley. 2014. The ‘state’of food sovereignty in Latin America: Political projects and alternative pathways in Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia. Journal of Peasant Studies 41 (6): 1175–1200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMichael, P. 2006. Peasant prospects in the neoliberal age. New Political Economy 11 (3): 407–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMichael, P. 2014. Historicizing food sovereignty. Journal of Peasant Studies 41 (6): 933–957.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MoAD. 2015. Agriculture development strategy 2015 to 2035: Part I. Kathmandu: Government of Nepal, Ministry of Agricultural Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • MoAD. 2016. Project document of Prime Minister Agriculture Modernization Project (PM-AMP). Kathmandu: Ministry of Agricultural Development, Government of Nepal.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neilson, J., and J. Wright. 2017. The state and food security discourses of Indonesia: Feeding the Bangsa. Geographical Research 55 (2): 131–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NPC. 2007. Three year interim plan. Kathmandu: Government of Nepal, National Planning Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • NPC. 2010. Twelfth plan. Kathmandu: Government of Nepal, National Planning Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pandey, P.R., R. Adhikari, and S. Waglé. 2014. Nepal’s accession to the World Trade Organization: Case study of issues relevant to least developed countries. In CDP Background Paper. New York: United Nations, Department of Economic & Social Affairs.

  • Parsons, C. 2016. Ideas and power: Four intersections and how to show them. Journal of European Public Policy 23 (3): 446–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patel, R. 2009. Food sovereignty. Journal of Peasant Studies 36 (3): 663–706.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peña, K. 2013. Institutionalizing food sovereignty in Ecuador. Paper presented at the International Conference on ‘Food Sovereignty: A Critical Dialogue’, Yale University, September 14–15.

  • Rajkarnikar, P.R. 2005. The role of an NGO in support of accession. In Managing the challenges of WTO participation, ed. P. Gallagher, P. Low, and A.L. Stoler, 420–429. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sassen, S. 2013. Land grabs today: Feeding the disassembling of national territory. Globalizations 10 (1): 25–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schiavoni, C. 2015. Competing sovereignties, contested processes: Insights from the Venezuelan food sovereignty experiment. Globalizations 12 (4): 466–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schiavoni, C. 2017. The contested terrain of food sovereignty construction: Toward a historical, relational and interactive approach. Journal of Peasant Studies 44 (1): 1–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skogstad, G. 2017. Policy feedback and self-reinforcing and self-undermining processes in EU biofuels policy. Journal of European Public Policy 24 (1): 21–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The Nyéléni International Steering Committee. 2007. Nyéléni 2007: Forum for food sovereignty. www.nyeleni.org. Accessed 13 Jan 2016.

  • Tilzey, M. 2018. Political ecology, food regimes, and food sovereignty: Crisis, resistance, and resilience. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Van der Ploeg, J.D. 2014. Peasant-driven agricultural growth and food sovereignty. Journal of Peasant Studies 41 (6): 999–1030.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Windfuhr, M., and J. Jonsén. 2005. Food sovereignty: Towards democracy in localized food systems. Rugby: ITDG Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wittman, H. 2011. Food sovereignty: A new rights framework for food and nature? Environment and Society: Advances in Research 2 (1): 87–105.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This paper is a revised version of a paper presented at the ICPP General Conference at the National University of Singapore in June 2017. We would like to thank the discussant Peter Feindt and the participants in this event, and the Editor and three reviewers of this journal for their helpful comments. The first author would like to thank the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Australia, for providing funding under the Australia Awards Scholarship to undertake this research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. South Asia Watch on Trade, Economics and Environment (SAWTEE), Baluwatar, Kathmandu, 44600, Nepal

    Puspa Sharma

  2. Department of Food and Resource Economics, University of Copenhagen, Rolighedsvej 25, 1958, Frederiksberg C, Denmark

    Carsten Daugbjerg

Authors
  1. Puspa Sharma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Carsten Daugbjerg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Puspa Sharma.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sharma, P., Daugbjerg, C. The troubled path to food sovereignty in Nepal: ambiguities in agricultural policy reform. Agric Hum Values 37, 311–323 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-019-09988-1

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-019-09988-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation