3.2 Elementos aerodinámicos en un Fórmula 1
3.2.7 Pontones
The Nyéléni Declaration, made in Mali, defines food sovereignty as:
the right of peoples to healthy and culturally appropriate food produced through ecologically sound and sustainable methods, and their right to define their own food and agriculture systems. It puts those who produce, distribute and consume food at the heart of food systems and policies rather than the demands of markets and corporations. … Food sovereignty prioritises local and national economies and markets and empowers peasant and family farmer-driven agriculture … and food production, distribution and consumption based on environmental, social and economic sustainability. … It ensures that the rights to use and manage our lands, territories, waters, seeds, livestock and biodiversity are in the hands of those of us who produce food.
(Nyéléni, 2007) There are six pillars of food sovereignty as shown in Box 7.1.
Food sovereignty as a concept attempts to build locally managed food systems, using
Box 7.1. The six pillars of food sovereignty
The six pillars of food sovereignty developed at Nyéléni are as follows (Nyéléni, 2007):
1.Focuses on food for people: Food sovereignty puts people, including those who are hungry, under occu- pation, in conflict zones and marginalized, at the centre of food, agriculture, livestock and fisheries policies, ensuring sufficient, healthy and culturally appropriate food for all individuals, peoples and communities; and rejects the proposition that food is just another commodity or component for international agribusiness. 2. Values food providers: Food sovereignty values and supports the contributions, and respects the rights of women and men, peasants and small-scale family farmers, pastoralists, artisanal fisherfolk, forest dwellers, indigenous peoples and agricultural and fisheries workers, including migrants, who cultivate, grow, harvest and process food; and rejects those policies, actions and programmes that undervalue them, threaten their livelihoods and eliminate them.
3. Localizes food systems: Food sovereignty brings food providers and consumers closer together; puts providers and consumers at the centre of decision making on food issues; protects food providers from the dumping of food and food aid in local markets; protects consumers from poor quality and unhealthy food, inappropriate food aid and food tainted with genetically modified organisms; and resists governance structures, agreements and practices that depend on and promote unsustainable and inequitable international trade and give power to remote and unaccountable corporations.
4. Puts control locally: Food sovereignty places control over territory, land, grazing, water, seeds, livestock and fish populations on local food providers and respects their rights. They can use and share them in socially and environmentally sustainable ways which conserve diversity; it recognizes that local territories often cross geopolitical borders and ensures the right of local communities to inhabit and use their territories; it promotes positive interaction between food providers in different regions and territor- ies and from different sectors that helps resolve internal conflicts or conflicts with local and national authorities; and rejects the privatization of natural resources through laws, commercial contracts and intellectual property rights regimes.
5. Builds knowledge and skills: Food sovereignty builds on the skills and local knowledge of food providers and their local organizations that conserve, develop and manage localized food production and harvesting systems, developing appropriate research systems to support this and passing on this wisdom to future generations; and rejects technologies that undermine, threaten or contaminate these (e.g. genetic engineering).
6.Works with nature: Food sovereignty uses the contributions of nature in diverse, low external input agroecological production and harvesting methods that maximize the contribution of ecosystems and improve resilience and adaptation, especially in the face of climate change; it seeks to heal the planet so that the planet may heal us; and, rejects methods that harm beneficial ecosystem functions, that depend on energy-intensive monocultures and livestock factories, destructive fishing practices and other industrialized production methods, which damage the environment and contribute to global warming.
agroecological principles, with an emphasis on stimulating the local economy. Where possible, this means supporting local production in both rural and urban contexts.
Posern (2016) reports that the need for food sovereignty in SA was reported at a food sovereignty assembly in Johannesburg in March 2015 referring to the fact that SA ranks ninth on the Global Hunger Index 2012; ‘malnutri- tion’ includes both undernutrition and un- healthy consumption of empty calories. Posern reported that the World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that 59% of men are over- weight and 21% obese, while women show a higher percentage (72% overweight and 41%
obese), and that 29% of deaths in SA can be at- tributed to problems of malnutrition.
In her research with gardeners in George, Western Cape Province, SA (mostly from the Kos en Fynbos groups in Blanco and Rosedale), Posern (2016) tested the following three hypotheses: 1. The involvement in urban gardening increases food sovereignty with respect to dietary diversity. 2. The involvement in urban gardening in- creases food sovereignty with respect to eco- logical sustainability.
3. The involvement in urban gardening increases food sovereignty with respect to community solidarity.
She found that members of Kos en Fynbos ap- preciated the fact that they received training in gardening (both in Blanco and in Rosedale), and they also greatly appreciated the exposure in the local newspaper (The George Herald), and the various competitions with accompanying prizes.
She found that dietary diversity is a better in- dicator of health than quantity of food consumed, and used a dietary diversity score (DDS) to measure dietary diversity. She analysed nutritional diversity with respect to the different subsample groups, and found that a more balanced diet and a better health status were found for gardeners in contrast to non-gardeners. She concludes:
For the area of dietary diversity H1, stating that there is a difference between gardeners and non-gardeners in terms of nutrition, is accepted. The hypothesis has been confirmed by the statistically significant difference found for gardeners and non-gardeners within Rosedale [her evidence does not support this conclusion for Kos en Fynbos members]. In that context it needs to be added that the consequences of urban gardening on the dietary diversity depend on how urban gardening is performed.
(Posern, 2016) She concludes that there is no difference between gardeners and non-gardeners in terms of ecological sustainability, for Kos en Fynbos in particular. She comes to this conclusion in spite of Kos en Fynbos members actively making com- post and separating waste. She also accepts that there are differences between gardeners and non-gardeners with respect to community soli- darity and comments that three of the four items that measured the solidarity of the re- spondents revealed a significantly higher soli- darity for gardeners. It may be important to link gardening activities to local ecological activities such as river clean-up campaigns, recycling and school environmental action clubs, as was done in the Mlazi River Catchment Management Pro- gramme (Auerbach, 1999).
Additionally, she found that the third aspect that investigated the willingness and motivation to invest more time in the community is signifi- cantly higher for Kos en Fynbos members who form a specific and important part of the group of gardeners in general. She concludes that urban gardening increases food sovereignty with respect to the dietary diversity of gardeners, as
well as in terms of solidarity shown between the gardeners. She warns of the dangers of depend- ence on prizes and inputs from the George Muni- cipality, and comments that the older gardeners at Blanco seem more aware of this danger than the community at Rosedale.
Finally, she states:
To be specific, urban gardening in this study turned out to enable its activists to realise their right to a healthy and diverse nutrition as well as to enhance the solidarity between gardeners, giving them in this way more power to realise their rights. This detected contribution of urban gardening towards food sovereignty is a particularly important and positive result for two reasons: … urban food security policies in general are still lacking and … a positive influence of alternative nutrition strategies is … needed in SA. This is clearly illustrated from the fact that Sub-Saharan Africa is one of the most rapidly urbanising areas in the world and is confronted with the double burden of disease, namely hunger and undernutrition … and … non-communicable diseases.
(Posern, 2016)
School Food Gardens
Gardens at schools can contribute to learner aware- ness on a range of issues (Auerbach, 1999). Set- ting up school gardens as part of the Mlazi River Catchment Management Programme was part of a broader environmental education initiative; annual school competitions covered control of invasive alien plants, planting of trees, rainwater harvesting, recycling of rubbish and school gar- dens. This was part of addressing a research ques- tion: ‘Can School Environmental Action Clubs effectively involve schoolchildren in caring for their local environment?’ The study concluded that:
[project] activities at schools consitutute an important platform building activity, and involving both teachers and students has far-reaching spin-off effects, as teachers are an important and respected resource in the community, and students carry the message to their homes, and will later impart these values to their own children.
(Auerbach, 1999, p.165) However, the study found that both gardens and an environmental ethic only developed at schools where there was effective leadership.
A study of the National School Nutrition Programme (NSNP) found that there is great unexploited potential to use school food gar- dens and nutrition education in schools to improve food security in South Africa. Almost all of the NSNP budget is allocated to school meals, leaving too little for investment in food gardens at most schools (Devereux and Waidler, 2017). Linking school gardens to food sovereignty requires a food systems approach, combining education of scholars concerning healthy food choices, and local organic food production initiatives.