The global political economy of climate change, agriculture and food systems

Clapp, Jennifer; Newell, Peter; Brent, Zoe W.

doi:10.1080/03066150.2017.1381602

Cited by 164 publications

(87 citation statements)

References 17 publications

(14 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Within this market framing, agri-businesses have advanced attention to food safety through phytosanitary measures, while discussions of food security, diet-related NCDs and climate-sensitive agriculture have been largely excluded from the discourse 66,[71][72][73] . Analyses of trade policy in Australia, for example, demonstrates that the dominance of a 'productivist' paradigm which emphasises agricultural exports and market growth over nutrition objectives has influenced the continuing low salience of nutrition in trade policy 67 .…”

Section: The Political Economy Of Tradementioning

confidence: 99%

The nexus between international trade, food systems, malnutrition and climate change

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

F ood systems, which are at the heart of pressing societal challenges including malnutrition and climate change, are heavily influenced by trade-related changes to domestic policy and product environments-in both positive and negative ways. This interaction between trade, malnutrition and climate change has been amplified in the last decades by the shift towards industrial food systems, with global supply chains owned and operated by large or transnational agribusinesses, manufacturers, retailers and food service chains 1 . If global malnutrition and climate change are to be addressed, it is vital to understand their link with trade agreements and how these can be improved to support a nutritious, equitable and environmentally sustainable food system. While there is a growing body of evidence related to trade, food systems and malnutrition, what remains absent from the literature is an examination of the current understanding of the ways in which the technical and political aspects of trade agreements interact with food systems to affect malnutrition and climate change. Here, we review the literature connecting trade and food systems to show how major technical and political aspects of such relationships may affect malnutrition and climate change ( Fig. 1). We aim to elucidate how the technicalities of trade, through different types of agreements and provisions, sit alongside the political economy of trade policy. In doing so, we also highlight the opportunities and challenges of creating nutrition-and climate-sensitive trade policy.The Review starts with an overview of the global food trade regime and the technicalities of how trade agreements interact with policies aimed at improving malnutrition and climate change. It then focuses on the political and policy processes surrounding trade agreements that can enable or constrain attention to malnutrition and climate change. Global and national policy windows for connecting trade, nutrition and climate change mitigation are highlighted at the end, as well as how public interest actors must work to ensure policy coherence towards those goals. The global trade regimeEstablished in 1995, the World Trade Organization (WTO) governs the multilateral trade rules among its 164 member countries 2 and presides over 24 multilateral trade agreements. These agreements cover a wide range of binding obligations on issues including trade in services (General Agreement on Trades in Services; GATS), Trade-Related aspects of Intellectual Property rights (TRIPS), Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT), agriculture (the Agreement on Agriculture; AOA) and a dispute settlement system 3 .Through these trade agreements, member states are required to open their markets, including agri-food markets, by reducing tariffs and non-tariff barriers to imports, reducing subsidies for exports and reducing domestic agricultural support. WTO rules promote the global integration of markets and provide a favourable operating environment for the private sector. These liberalization policies and agreements hav...

show abstract

Section: The Political Economy Of Tradementioning

confidence: 99%

The nexus between international trade, food systems, malnutrition and climate change

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, several EU members states were among those who actively supported the endorsement of the VGGT which, while despite some weaknesses, is a promising progressive global governance instrument that can be (re)interpreted from various competing perspectives (Franco & Monsalve Suárez, 2018). At the same time, the EU and some of the other state supporters of the VGGT, are key actors supportive of the problematic notion of CSA (Borras & Franco, 2018;Clapp, Newell, & Brent, 2018) and/or maintain a position within the UNFCCC Conference of Parties that leans towards pro-corporate framing of climate change mitigation and adaptation. This approach involves governance initiatives that have global implications, such as the EU's mandatory biofuel blending policy, which have resulted in 'green grabbing'or the intersection of land grabs and corporate-shaped climate change mitigation and adaptation measures (such as biofuels) (Fairhead, Leach, & Scoones, 2012;Franco & Borras, 2019;Tramel, 2016).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Transnational land investment web: land grabs, TNCs, and the challenge of global governance

Borras

Mills

Seufert³

et al. 2019

Globalizations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite international media's waning attention, research and political debates on global land grabbing have not subsided. We argue the importance of understanding the 'transnational land investment web' of corporate and state actors and institutions, which are not always immediately visible. Focusing on transnational corporations (TNCs) based in the European Union (EU), we examine five sets of actors and institutional spheres through which these actors are able to grab lands beyond Europe. It is crucial to understand these not as individual sets of actors or institutions, but as interconnected sets, comprising a web. These are EU-based: (1) Private companies using regular institutional platforms; (2) Finance capital companies; (3) Public-private partnerships; (4) Development Finance Institutions; and (5) Companies using EU policies to gain control of land through the supply chain. One implication of this complex web is that democratic governance in the context of land grabs becomes an even more daunting challenge.

show abstract

“…The CSA paradigm has gained such momentum that it has become the key concept for organizations working at the nexus of climate change, agriculture, and development (Taylor 2018;Clapp et al 2018). Despite the undoubted value of trying to locate projects that help reduce rural poverty, and to do so in a way that is less carbon intensive and more resilient to the effects of climate change, the paradigm of CSA has received significant critique.…”

Section: Food and Agriculture In A Warming Worldmentioning

confidence: 99%

Governing Food and Agriculture in a Warming World

Newell¹,

Taylor²,

Touni³

2018

Global Environmental Politics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding how, why, and whether the trade-offs and tensions around simultaneous implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals are resolved both sustainably and equitably requires an appreciation of power relations across multiple scales of governance. We explore the politics and political economy of how the nexus around food, energy, and water is being governed through initiatives to promote climate-smart agriculture (CSA) as it moves from the global to the local. We combine an analysis of how these interrelationships are being governed (and ungoverned) by key global institutions with reflection on the consequences of this for developing countries that are being targeted by CSA initiatives. In particular, we look at Kenya as a country heavily dependent on agriculture, but also subject to some of the worst effects of climate change and which has been a focus for a range of bilateral and multilateral donors with their preferred visions of CSA. We draw on strands of literature in global environmental politics, political ecology, and the political economy of development to make sense of the power dynamics that characterize the multiscalar politics of how CSA is translated, domesticated, and operationalized in practice.We currently lack global governance institutions and processes in the area of food and agriculture capable of addressing the interrelationships between the global food system, on one hand, and environmental challenges around water, energy, and climate change, on the other. Instead, fragmentation persists across institutions and agencies with responsibility for these areas, despite growing acknowledgment of the complex interlinkages that characterize the nexus around water, energy, and food (WEF) in particular. The urgency of addressing these issues is underscored by the recognition that the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) cannot be achieved in isolation from one another. To simultaneously and effectively achieve goals 2 (hunger), 6 (water), 7 (energy), 13 (climate change), and 15 (life on land) presupposes an institutional capacity and willingness to act on and govern those relationships in more integrated ways across all levels of governance from the local to the global, crossing scales and sectors (United Nations Environment Programme 2007).

show abstract

The global political economy of climate change, agriculture and food systems

Cited by 164 publications

References 17 publications

The nexus between international trade, food systems, malnutrition and climate change

The nexus between international trade, food systems, malnutrition and climate change

Transnational land investment web: land grabs, TNCs, and the challenge of global governance

Governing Food and Agriculture in a Warming World

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About