Running Head: CRITICAL ANALYSIS

Key Policy Barriers to Food and Water Sovereignty

[Name of Student]

[Name of the Institute]

[Date]
 Critical Analysis 2

Table of Contents

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 3
Discussion ....................................................................................................................................... 4
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................... 9
References ..................................................................................................................................... 11
 Critical Analysis 3

Key Policy Barriers to Food and Water Sovereignty

Introduction

In recent years, the development of international trade in agricultural products has

increased enthusiasm for food security. In post-war countries, the agricultural production

structure had priority over national independence, for some reason that interfered with the war

effort, and the construction of an exceptionally integrated international food supply chain blurred

the shadows. In states with high malnutrition and passion, a professional food safety system has

been developed for professional reasons (Kristkova et al., 2017). In response to the new concept

of complementary food security, the development of the international community is increasing to

strengthen food sovereignty, not safety. The development of food sovereignty, including a

network of non-governmental organisations, requires the expulsion of horticulture from the

international exchange structure to support the limited production of food and the protection of

all local occupations that support agricultural biotechnology (Stehfest et al., 2019).

It also discusses the concepts of food security and sovereignty change presented by the

“Food and Agriculture Organisation” of the “United Nations”, non-governmental organisations

and social development in defence of food sovereignty (Rhouati et al., 2018). The current

international exchange structure dated back to the Bretton Woods group in July 1944. In support

of building economic relations between countries, the International Monetary Fund, the

“International Bank for Reconstruction and Development”, became the “Organisation of

International Commerce” (Sassi, Sassi and Acocella, 2018). The IMF was expected to administer

the IMF by managing prices and commercial premiums. IBRD granted loans to the government

mainly through bonds proposed in support of European and Japanese reconstruction bills, and
 Critical Analysis 4

ITO assumed that it would handle the principles and rules for variable exchange. Although the

“International Monetary Fund” and the “International Bank for Reconstruction and

Development” were founded, only one component of the General Agreement on Tariffs and

Trade was developed (Gomiero, 2016).

Discussion

Food security has been characterised in 200 different ways (Norer and Preisig, 2016).

The term is sometimes distinguished by the reference to a range of food safety for households to

local, national and global food safety. The scope of food security is different. This may include

concerns about total import/export or the maintenance of local employment. Internal food

security encompasses a variety of factors that include socioeconomic aspects, land, production,

consumption, reproduction, skills, communications and customs. Families are integrating food

security as a unit of detection and intervention in a fascinating social care network. For food,

vitality and terrorism, security is regularly linked at the national level (Kung and Liu, 2017).

The study examined the connection between British food security and national nutritional

independence. It is recommended that three elements of the food supply policy (strategies that

affect the proportion of food import consumption) constitute a measure of national sovereignty:

predictability, health and safety (Halewood and Lapeña, 2016). Forecasts are predictions about

future food import costs, and safety is a concern to reduce the severity of food costs (Halewood

and Lapeña, 2016).

The current international political economy of food security accepts more significant

benefits from the regulation of agricultural costs. This is due to the reduction recommended in

budgetary support, export allocation and better market access. In the European Union and the
 Critical Analysis 5

United States, family subsidies are moving from production premiums and direct premiums and

premiums to the creation of significant open economies. Still, agriculture in these two incredible

trade associations remains fully guaranteed. The objective of these changes is to create a

changing business environment for agricultural products, often called unhindered trade. One

commenter announced that another diet was introduced, which included individual controls on

food security and an open response as food sovereignty (Bandyopadhyay, 2018).

According to the study food security is a more professional concept and the right to food

is a legitimate concept, but food sovereignty is an inherently political concept (McMichael,

2016). Food sovereignty was developed in 1996 as a legislative framework and a conference,

mainly in response to the inclusion of horticulture in the global structure of exchange by the

concerned departments. Its foundation is based on the international development of the so-called

agriculture and workers of Campesina, an organisation founded in 1992 at the National Farmers

Livestock Conference and coordinates groups in Africa, North, Central, South and South

America Asia, the Caribbean and Europe often do this. Partial meetings at “Villa Campesina”

include the “Family Farmers Association”, the “Bayesian Confederation”, the “Bharatiya Kisan

Federation”, the Landless Workers Movement, the “National Family Farmers Coalition” and the

“United Nations Movement”. Concern about the wave of importance of food security in the

liberalisation of horticultural exchange is an essential element of food sovereignty (Rhouati et

al., 2018).

In an article on food sovereignty and liberalisation, the “Institute of Agricultural Trade

Policy” discovered that only 10% of world food production was disproportionately controlled by

international trade. This apparent contradiction is an essential concept of food sovereignty, but

focusing on international exchanges is not enough (Halewood and Lapeña, 2016). Proponents of
 Critical Analysis 6

food sovereignty claim that this structure is a “perfect package”, the four pillars of the fabric

cannot be separated, and a central change is required for agriculture and agrarian reform. In his

speech at the “Young Farmers Conference” in 2003, changed the food sovereignty of Jack Shirak

and at the same time aspired to national independence and the promotion of neighbouring

agriculture (Stehfest et al., 2019). This analysis was derived from the evolution of food

sovereignty, backed by the rejection of the possibility of a political agreement with Western

leaders. Improvement of production, access to valuable goods and application of human rights

concerning food (Norer and Preisig, 2016).

From February 23 to 27, 2007, Mali organised a world forum on food sovereignty. This

meeting sought to explain the points and procedures for the development of food sovereignty

(Rhouati et al., 2018). Seven issues were discussed: exchange and market strategies,

neighbourhood information and innovation, access and management of shared assets, inter-

sectoral participation, conflict and disaster management, migration and production models. With

regard to exchange agreements, there are concerns in view of a radical change in the guidelines

for the agro-food industry at the international level, the exclusion of the WTO and a neo-liberal

model of relevant regional and exchange concepts and approaches Approach Economic

improvements to the concentration of farmers, fishermen, food and agriculture to marketable

products. In terms of production technology, the objective is to promote the use (Kristkova et al.,

2017). Small, managed ecological production strategies diversified and high-quality fisheries in

all regions. Foods inaccessible at the time of returning a clear set New Recommendation on

Sovereignty Structure.

Agro ecology offers an extraordinary opportunity to meet the needs and prevent someone

from leaving. By focusing on smallholders, including smallholders, indigenous groups,

 Critical Analysis 7

fishermen, farmers and ranchers, the agricultural environment tends to change food and farming

structures and is usually the leading cause of problems (Halewood and Lapeña, 2016). It

provides comprehensive and long-term solutions involved in the creation, participation and

innovation of information, including the combination of adjacent traditional functional

information with interdisciplinary science. Although not an independent concept, current agro

ecology captures the global conspiracy of a variety of actors as a strong response to

environmental changes, the associated difficulties in food structure and the discovery of

expressions in the work of food manufacturers. In general, social norms, practices and

management policies are open to many countries around the world. Many agro ecological

productive approaches have been expanded to support public strategies, information exchange

networks, strengthen rural institutions and improve access to business (Stehfest et al., 2019).

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organisation) commitment unites agro ecology by

integrating essential information, limitations and experiences of various stakeholders, including

the government, and examining popular communities, manufacturing organisations, international

organisations and the private sector. Combining action and cooperation, and each partner has a

critical mission to develop ecology further and contribute to a higher world. With a favourable

institutional framework that focuses on sectoral approaches, organisations and speculation, agro

ecology can contribute to national improvement goals (Halewood and Lapeña, 2016). FAO

continues to work with other countries to fulfil the essential tasks of bringing partners together to

develop an approach and use conferences to promote and expand the agricultural environment.

The farm environment reflects the objectives of the 2030 Agenda, of appetite, dissatisfaction,

response to imbalances, response to environmental change, protection of biodiversity and more

exceptional nutritional options. The ecological approach focuses on the individual, the earth and
 Critical Analysis 8

the three. Aspects of sustainable development: promotion of the careers of small food producers,

indigenous peoples, women and youth from a social, economic and environmental point of view

(Bandyopadhyay, 2018).

Agroecological agriculture makes a legitimate contribution to many sustainable

development goals through integrated practices that overlap in many regions. Agroecology,

together with the SDGs, can help you understand the points of the “Paris Climate Agreement”,

the “Convention on Biological Diversity” and the “United Nations Convention on

Desertification” (McMichael, 2016). The right to food is an integral part of the vision of a world

without hunger and can strengthen all children, women and men. It is a human right formally

provided by most states. There is consensus on this vision, but the state has postponed the

development of this training in human rights. But the right to food is far from being slogans and

theories of scientific improvement. These are concrete measures and logical solutions. Some of

these areas are intergovernmental and include the main stakeholders, from individuals to

unmanaged organisations, the academic world, the media, United Nations human rights

organisations and the private sector (Kristkova et al., 2017).

Since 2004, the FAO Council has adopted voluntary guidelines that support the dynamic

implementation of satisfactory food rights as part of national food security. Individuals and

organisations have begun to place food rights. Meals in education through promotion, policies,

legislation, monitoring, evaluation and institutional development (Sassi, Sassi and Acocella,

2018). Knowledge, meetings and lessons learned were announced and reviewed at the FAO

Forum on Food Rights from October 1 to 3, 2008 (Kristkova et al., 2017). The right to

satisfactory nutrition was first considered in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948

as a characteristic of the right to a traditional way of life. Adequate livelihoods for the well-being
 Critical Analysis 9

and prosperity of themselves and their families, including their food. When the “International

Covenant on Economic”, “Social and Cultural Rights” was enforced in 1976, this law became

legal (Halewood and Lapeña, 2016).

It turned out to be limited. Since then, many international concepts have recognised the

right to food, including the convention on the elimination of all discrimination against Women of

1979 and the “Convention on the Rights of the Child” (Gomiero, 2016). Each country agrees

with international agreements on economic, social and cultural rights and is legally bound by its

provisions. Economic, social and cultural rights mean that the State party seeks the right to a life

satisfactory to itself and its families. This demonstrates the existence of a central right for those

who are free from hunger. The release of desire is a fundamental level that should be reviewed

for all. It has nothing to do with improvement (Kristkova et al., 2017).

The right to food is not just about satisfying hunger. The Committee on Economic, Social

and Cultural Rights explained the right to food in General Note 12 as follows: Consistent

physical and economic access to appropriate food or food in a network of women and children,

alone or with others. Besides, the Commission noted that the right to adequate nutrition is

unlimited and highly deciphered, as are the baseline levels of calories, protein, etc. of specific

nutrients (Norer and Preisig, 2016). Essential elements of nutritional preparation and concerns,

for example; nursing, food rights structure, implementation and monitoring (Kristkova et al.,

2017).

Conclusion

On a fundamental level, the human rights approach to meet needs is to empower the poor.

The introduction of the legal concept is strengthened by the introduction of legal privilege
 Critical Analysis 10

(which is enthusiastic and malnourished by the right to adequate nutrition) and the legal

responsibilities of the previous responsible person. Concerning food rights, it is a voluntary

directive in which key regions remember approaches, systems, access to goods, resources,

nutrition and support to impotent communities. Focusing on the poor and bankruptcy to

strengthen them is focused. On increased spending on the malnutrition, provide support to

people and the way in which management is granted is strongly influenced by the call for a better

approach and bad networks related to the control of these management methods.
 Critical Analysis 11

References

Bandyopadhyay, D., 2018. Plant Variety Protection and Farmers’ Rights. In Securing Our

Natural Wealth (pp. 45-58). Springer, Singapore.

Gomiero, T., 2016. Soil degradation, land scarcity and food security: Reviewing a complex

challenge. Sustainability, 8(3), p.281.

Halewood, M. and Lapeña, I., 2016. Farmers’ varieties and farmers’ rights: Challenges at the

crossroads of agriculture, taxonomy and law. In Farmers’ Crop Varieties and Farmers’

Rights (pp. 15-38). Routledge.

Kristkova, Z.S., Grace, D. and Kuiper, M., 2017. The economics of food safety in India: a rapid

assessment. Wageningen University & Research.

Kung, J.K.S. and Liu, S., 2017. Farmers’ preferences regarding ownership and land tenure in

post-Mao China: unexpected evidence from eight counties. In Key Papers on Chinese

Economic History Since 1949 (4 vols) (pp. 469-502). BRILL.

McMichael, P., 2016. Commentary: Food regime for thought. The Journal of Peasant Studies,

43(3), pp.648-670.

Norer, R. and Preisig, C., 2016. Genetic Technology in the Light of Food Security and Food

Safety–General Report. In Genetic Technology and Food Safety (pp. 1-70). Springer,

Cham.

Rhouati, A., Hayat, A., lle Catanante, G. and Marty, J.L., 2018. Selection and Characterization of

Aptamers for Food Contaminant Monitoring. Food Safety and Protection, p.157.

Sassi, M., Sassi and Acocella, 2018. Understanding Food Insecurity. Springer.
 Critical Analysis 12

Stehfest, E., van Zeist, W.J., Valin, H., Havlik, P., Popp, A., Kyle, P., Tabeau, A., Mason-

D’Croz, D., Hasegawa, T., Bodirsky, B.L. and Calvin, K., 2019. Key determinants of

global land-use projections. Nature communications, 10(1), p.2166.