Content uploaded by Carmen Gonzalez
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Carmen Gonzalez on Dec 13, 2013
Content may be subject to copyright.
Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1756914
Seattle University School of Law Legal Paper Series # 1
1
-
19
Published
in
Fordham Environmental Law
Review
, Vol. 22 (2011)
C
LIMATE
C
HANGE
,
F
OOD
S
ECURITY
,
AND
A
GROBIODIVERSITY
:
T
OWARD A
J
UST
,
R
ESILIENT
,
AND
S
USTAINABLE
F
OOD
S
YSTEM
Carmen Gonzalez
Professor of Law
R
EMEDIES AND
T
his paper can be downloaded without charge from
the
Social Science Research Network Electronic Paper Collection
Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1756914
493
ARTICLES
CLIMATE CHANGE, FOOD SECURITY, AND
AGROBIODIVERSITY: TOWARD A JUST, RESILIENT, AND
SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEM
Carmen G. Gonzalez*
The global food system is in a state of profound crisis. Decades of
misguided aid, trade, and production policies have generated record
levels of world hunger despite bountiful harvests and soaring profits
for the transnational corporations that dominate the global food
supply.1 The rapid expansion of industrial agriculture has produced
an unprecedented loss of plant genetic diversity,2 making the world’s
food supply dangerously vulnerable to wide-spread crop failure akin
to that of the Irish potato famine.3 In addition, climate change
threatens to wreak havoc on food production by increasing the
frequency and severity of extreme weather events, depressing
agricultural yields, reducing the productivity of the world’s fisheries,
and placing additional pressure on scarce water resources.4
*Professor of Law, Seattle University School of Law.
1. ERIC HOLT-GIMENEZ & RAJ PATEL WITH ANNIE SHATTUCK, FOOD
REBELLIONS! CRISIS AND THE HUNGER FOR JUSTICE 1, 6, 20 (2009).
2. CARY FOWLER & PAT MOONEY, SHATTERING: FOOD, POLITICS, AND THE
LOSS OF GENETIC DIVERSITY 63-76 (1990) (providing qualitative and quantitative
information about the loss of crop genetic diversity and attributing this loss to the
expansion of industrial agriculture); U.N. FOOD & AGRIC. ORG. (FAO), BUILDING
ON GENDER, AGROBIODIVERSITY AND LOCAL KNOWLEDGE: A TRAINING MANUAL,
3-5 (2005), available at ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/009/y5956e/y5956e00.pdf
[hereinafter BUILDING ON GENDER](discussing the extent and the causes of
declining agrobiodiversity).
3. See FOWLER & MOONEY, supra note 2, at 43-45, 82-83.
4. Anthony Nyong, Climate Change Impacts in the Developing World:
Implications for Sustainable Development, in CLIMATE CHANGE AND GLOBAL
494 FORDHAM ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REVIEW [VOL. XXII
This Article examines the underlying causes of the global food
crisis and recommends specific measures to address the distinct but
related problems of food insecurity, loss of genetic resources, and
climate change. Part I introduces the seldom-discussed crisis of
agrobiodiversity, and explains the threats that genetic uniformity
poses to the world’s food supply. Part II explores the historic and
current causes of widespread food insecurity, and analyzes the
common roots of food insecurity and loss of agrobiodiversity. Part
III examines the threat posed by climate change to global agricultural
production and the role of agriculture in mitigating and adapting to
climate change. Part IV argues that small-scale sustainable
agriculture has the potential to address the interrelated climate, food
and agrobiodiversity crises, and suggests specific measures that the
international community might take through law and regulation to
promote socially just and environmentally sustainable agricultural
production.
The Article concludes that the root cause of the global food crisis is
corporate domination of the food supply and the systemic destruction
of local food systems that are healthy, ecologically sustainable, and
socially just. As the devastating social and environmental
consequences of industrial agriculture become increasingly apparent,
social movements in the Global North and the Global South are
calling for sustainable food systems that minimize greenhouse gas
emissions, rely on local inputs, strengthen rural economies, and
connect farmers and consumers.5 By threatening widespread
destruction of the natural resources necessary for food production, the
climate crisis and the biodiversity crisis may spark a broad-based
political movement to redirect resources toward food production
POVERTY: A BILLION LIVES IN THE BALANCE? 47-51 (Lael Brainard et al, eds.,
2009).
5. See HOLT-GIMENEZ & PATEL, supra note 1, at 159-75 (describing
movements in the United States and Europe to promote local, ecologically
sustainable, and socially just food production and consumption); Marne Coit,
Jumping on the Next Bandwagon: An Overview of the Policy and Legal Aspects of
the Local Food Movement, 4 J. FOOD L. & POL’Y 45, 48-55 (2008) (examining the
multiple objectives of the local food movement in the United States); Susan A.
Schneider, Reconnecting Consumers and Producers: On the Path Toward a
Sustainable Food and Agriculture Policy, 14 DRAKE J. AGRIC. L. 75, 83-85 (2009)
(discussing growing interest in local and organic foods among U.S. consumers);
Annie Shattuck & Eric Holt-Gimenez, Moving from Food Crisis to Food
Sovereignty, YALE HUM. RTS. & DEV. L. J. 421-23, 431-33 (2010) (describing the
food sovereignty and agroecology movements in the Global South).
2011] CLIMATE CHANGE AND GLOBAL FOOD 495
systems that sequester carbon, promote agrobiodiversity, and support
the livelihoods of small farmers.
I. THE CRISIS OF AGROBIODIVERSITY
While the reality of climate change has finally penetrated the
popular psyche, another environmental crisis – the dramatic loss of
agrobiodiversity – silently threatens the world’s food supply.6
Agrobiodiversity consists of the biological resources that are
important for food production, including the diverse varieties of
animals, plants, and micro-organisms that sustain the functioning of
agro-ecosystems.7 This Article focuses on one aspect of
agrobioversity – the planet’s food crop diversity.
Over the last fifty years, much of the world’s agriculture has
transitioned into industrial agriculture, which requires greater inputs
of water, synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, and fossil fuel-based
energy than traditional peasant agriculture.8 This model of
agricultural production has triggered a wide range of environmental
problems, including deforestation, increased reliance on dwindling
stocks of fossil fuels, soil degradation, agrochemical contamination
of water supplies, depletion of aquifers, and the release of greenhouse
gases.9 The impact on genetic diversity, however, has been
particularly devastating.10
6. See FOWLER & MOONEY, supra note 2, at ix.
7. BUILDING ON GENDER, supra note 2, at 1-2 (defining agrobiodiversity as:
[t]he variety and variability of animals, plants and micro-organisms that
are used directly or indirectly for food and agriculture, including crops,
livestock, forestry and fisheries. It comprises the diversity of genetic
resources (varieties, breeds) and species used for food, fodder, fiber, fuel
and pharmaceuticals. It also includes the diversity of non-harvested
species that support production (soil micro-organisms, predators,
pollinators), and those in the wider environment that support agro-
ecosystems (agricultural, pastoral, forest, and aquatic) as well as the
diversity of the agro-ecosystems.) Id. at 2 (Box 2).
8. See THOMAS PRUGH WITH ROBERT CONSTANZA ET AL., NATURAL CAPITAL
AND HUMAN ECONOMIC SURVIVAL 80 (1995).
9. See id. at 79-84; JULES N. PRETTY, REGENERATING AGRICULTURE: POLICIES
AND PRACTICES FOR SUSTAINABILITY AND SELF-RELIANCE 58-80 (1995)
(describing the environmental consequences of industrial agriculture).
10. See FOWLER & MOONEY, supra note 2, at ix (describing the loss of genetic
diversity in agriculture as a “devastating time bomb . . . . leading us to a rendezvous
with extinction”).
496 FORDHAM ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REVIEW [VOL. XXII
According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture
Organization, 75% of the world’s food crop diversity was lost in the
twentieth century as farmers abandoned local varieties in favor of
genetically uniform high-yielding crops.11 Although thousands of
crops have been cultivated since the dawn of agriculture,12 twelve
crops currently supply 80% of the world’s plant-based dietary
energy.13 Just four crops – rice, wheat, potato, and maize – supply
nearly 60% of plant-derived calories and protein.14
In addition to relying on a small number of crops, the world’s food
supply also relies on an alarmingly narrow genetic base.15
Genetically uniform, high-yielding varieties have supplanted
traditional varieties for 70% of the world’s maize;16 50% of the
wheat in Asia, Africa, and Latin America;17 and 75% of Asian rice.18
While Indian farmers cultivated 30,000 wild varieties of rice in 1950,
only fifty varieties are projected to remain by 2015.19
The dangers posed by the genetic uniformity of the world’s food
crops can best be illustrated by the Irish potato famine of the 1840s.20
Native to the Andes, the potato was introduced into Spain in 1570
and into England and Ireland in approximately 1590.21 For over two
centuries, all of the potatoes cultivated in Europe descended from
these two introductions.22 The Irish potato famine was caused by a
fungus known as phytophthora infestans.23 Due to the genetic
11. U.N. FOOD & AGRIC. ORG., First Fruits of Plant Gene Pact, (June 21,
2009), http://www.fao.org/news/story/0/item/20162/icode/en/. [hereinafter First
Fruits].
12. FOWLER & MOONEY, supra note 2, at 86.
13. First Fruits, supra note 11.
14. Id.
15. Miguel A. Altieri & Paul Rogé, The Ecological Role and Enhancement of
Biodiversity in Agriculture, in AGRICULTURE, BIODIVERSITY AND MARKETS:
LIVELIHOODS AND AGROECOLOGY IN COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE 15, 17 (Stewart
Lockie & David Carpenter, eds., 2010) (discussing the “genetic homogeneity that
exists within some of the most commonly planted crops”).
16. Christopher M. Picone & David Van Tassel, Agriculture and Biodiversity
Loss: Industrial Agriculture, in LIFE ON EARTH: AN ENCYCLOPEDIA OF
BIODIVERSITY, ECOLOGY, AND EVOLUTION 100 (Niles Eldredge ed., 2002).
17. Id.
18. Id.
19. Id.
20. See FOWLER & MOONEY, supra note 2, at 43-45, 81-82.
21. Id. at 43.
22. Id.
23. Id.
2011] CLIMATE CHANGE AND GLOBAL FOOD 497
uniformity of the Irish potato crop, a single infestation was sufficient
to produce widespread devastation.24 The Irish potato famine lasted
for five years, and resulted in the death of as many as 2,000,000
people and the migration to the United States of a comparable
number.25 Eventually, potato varieties resistant to phytophthora
infestans were discovered among the thousands of distinct potato
varieties in the Andes and in Mexico, thus enabling potato cultivation
to recover in Ireland.26 If some of these resistant potato varieties had
originally been planted in Ireland along with the more vulnerable
varieties, then the Irish potato famine might have been averted.27
The Irish potato famine is a tragic example of the vulnerability of
genetically uniform crops to pests and disease. Unable to rely on their
own natural defenses, genetically uniform crops typically require
significant agrochemical inputs to survive.28 However, pesticides kill
beneficial organisms as well as target pests, and typically lead to the
resurgence of pests, outbreaks of new pests, and pesticide
resistance.29 In contrast, genetically diverse crops are more resilient
than genetically uniform monocultures because some varieties are
able to resist pests, disease, and adverse weather conditions to which
other varieties might succumb.30 Indeed, cultivating different crops
and different crop varieties has historically served as an insurance
policy for farmers — a means of protecting their livelihoods in the
24. Id. at 43-45.
25. Id. at 45.
26. Id.
27. Gerald Moore, Multilateral and National Regulatory Regimes for
Agrobiodiversity, in AGRICULTURE, BIODIVERSITY AND MARKETS 48 (Stewart
Lockie & David Carpenter eds., 2010).
28. FOWLER & MOONEY, supra note 2, at 46-47 (describing how certain crops
would not have survived without pesticides or fertilizers).
29. See Jules N. Pretty, Agroecology in Developing Countries: The Promise of a
Sustainable Harvest, 45 ENV’T SCI. & POL’Y SUSTAINABLE DEV. 9, 16 (2003).
Pesticides often destroy the natural enemies of pests and thereby produce pest
resurgences. They can also generate outbreaks of new pests by killing the natural
enemies of species that were not previously pests. In addition, pests that survive
the application of pesticides can transfer genetic pesticide resistance to their
offspring, causing an entire insect population to develop resistance to pesticides.
PRETTY, REGENERATING AGRICULTURE, supra note 9, at 64-65; FOWLER &
MOONEY, supra note 2, at 47-50.
30. See FOWLER & MOONEY, supra note 2, at 47.
498 FORDHAM ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REVIEW [VOL. XXII
face of climate variations, pathogen infestations, price fluctuations,
and socio-political disruptions.31
Regrettably, agrobiodiversity is under threat world wide – along
with the local knowledge and skills required to cultivate and utilize
different wild and harvested plant species and varieties.32 The main
reasons for this global crisis are the rapid expansion of industrial
agriculture, the Green Revolution, the globalization of the food
system and consequent marginalization of small-scale farmers, and
the replacement of local crop varieties by “improved” non-native
varities.33 Local cultivation practices often disappear due to the
intrusion of foreign technology that promises farmers short-term
gains in the form of higher yields.34 High-yielding crop varieties may
thrive under favorable weather conditions, but they can also fail
spectacularly under adverse conditions.35 It is therefore vitally
important to protect and preserve the skills, customs, traditions, and
technologies of small farmers as these skills form one component of
an integrated system of agricultural knowledge.36
The diverse plant varieties under the stewardship of the world’s
small farmers are vital to global food security, not only for their
ability to ward off catastrophic crop failure, but also as a source of
the raw germplasm used by plant breeders to develop crops that can
withstand environmental shocks, including those that may be
31. BUILDING ON GENDER, supra note 2, at 2.
32. Id. at 3.
33. Id. at 4-5. The Green Revolution was a public sector initiative designed to
combat world hunger by breeding and distributing new varieties of staple crops
(primarily cereals) that produced high yields in response to the application of
fertilizer and irrigation. While the Green Revolution was extremely successful from
the standpoint of food production, it accelerated the loss of traditional crops and
crop varieties. See FOWLER & MOONEY, supra note 2, at 56-60. By the 1990s,
Green Revolution crop varieties comprised approximately 70% of the world’s
maize, over half of the wheat produced in Asia and Latin America, and nearly 75%
of the rice cultivated in Asia. FRANCES MOORE LAPPE ET AL., WORLD HUNGER:
TWELVE MYTHS 58-59 (2d ed., 1998).
34. BUILDING ON GENDER, supra note 2, at 10 (describing how higher yielding
sorghum varieties were introduced in Ethiopia to “increase food security and
income” for rural farmers).
35. See id. (describing how the higher yielding sorghum varieties were
successful when weather conditions were favorable, but failed in drought
conditions).
36. See id.; Stewart Lockie & David Carpenter, Agriculture, Biodiversity and
Markets, in AGRICULTURE, BIODIVERSITY AND MARKETS: LIVELIHOODS AND
AGROECOLOGY IN COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE, supra note 15, at 5.
2011] CLIMATE CHANGE AND GLOBAL FOOD 499
associated with climate change.37 Historically, plant breeders have
used the diverse characteristics of traditional crops to select particular
traits, such as drought resistance, tolerance for heat and cold, and
resistance to specific pests and diseases.38 Because traditional crops
have survived in farmers’ fields for thousands of years amidst pests
and diseases without chemical inputs, they usually possess a wealth
of valuable characteristics.39 If traditional varieties cannot supply the
needed traits, plant breeders typically turn to “wild relatives” – wild
or weedy plants closely related to cultivated crops.40 Plant breeders
have used wild relatives to breed many cultivated crops, including
sugarcane, strawberries, black pepper, peanuts, potatoes, tomatoes,
tobacco, maize, wheat, and cacao.41 Sadly, wild relatives are
increasingly at risk as a consequence of the loss, degradation and
fragmentation of natural habitats, and the continuing industrialization
of agriculture.42
Genetic diversity also has value beyond the ability to fight pests
and disease. As weather patterns become less predictable and
agricultural yields decline, plants that currently have little or no
economic value may become very important as sources of food and
medicine.43 Although the planet contains at least 75,000 edible
plants, humans have historically consumed only 3,000 plant species,
only 150 of which have been cultivated on a large scale.44 Similarly,
while one fourth of all medicines and pharmaceuticals are derived
37. See Carmen G. Gonzalez, The Global Food Crisis: Law, Policy, and the
Elusive Quest for Justice, 13 YALE HUM. RTS. & DEV. L.J. 462, 468 (2010); see
also FOWLER & MOONEY, supra note 2, at 42.
38. FOWLER & MOONEY, supra note 2, at 46; GORDON CONWAY, THE DOUBLY
GREEN REVOLUTION: FOOD FOR ALL IN THE 21ST CENTURY 141 (1997).
39. See FOWLER & MOONEY, supra note 2, at 42-43, 60.
40. Id. at 50; UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME [UNEP], THE
ENVIRONMENTAL FOOD CRISIS: THE ENVIRONMENT’S ROLE IN AVERTING FUTURE
FOOD CRISES 74 (Christian Nellemann et al. eds., 2009) [hereinafter UNEP, THE
ENVIRONMENTAL FOOD CRISIS].
41. FOWLER & MOONEY, supra note 2, at 51-52.
42. See UNEP, THE ENVIRONMENTAL FOOD CRISIS, supra note 40, at 74.
43. See generally Climate Change Project, The Use of Agrobiodiversity by
Indigenous and Rural Communities (Platform for Agrobiodiversity Research,
Briefing Paper), available at http://www.agrobiodiversityplatform.org/blog/wp-
content/uploads/2009/09/PAR_climate-change_briefing_web.pdf.
44. Norman Myers, Biodiversity’s Genetic Library, in NATURE’S SERVICES:
SOCIETAL DEPENDENCE ON NATURAL ECOSYSTEMS 255, 259 (Gretchen C. Daily
ed., 1997).
500 FORDHAM ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REVIEW [VOL. XXII
from plants, animals, and microorganisms (including analgesics,
tranquilizers, contraceptives, diuretics, and cancer-fighting
compounds),45 only 3% of the world’s flowering plant species have
been tested for medicinal properties.46 Regrettably, the dangerous
decline in the genetic diversity of the world’s cultivated crops is
taking place at a time when the planet is losing wild plant and animal
species at a rate 100 to 1,000 times the historical average – a rate of
extinction unparalleled since the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction sixty-
five million years ago that resulted in the disappearance of
dinosaurs.47
In sum, the expansion of industrial agriculture has narrowed the
genetic base of the world’s food supply, and has increased the
likelihood of catastrophic crop failure in the event of drought, heavy
rains, and outbreaks of pest and disease. In addition, the loss of
genetic resources and the loss of local knowledge about traditional
agricultural practices compromise the ability of farmers and plant
breeders to develop plants that will resist future environmental
shocks, including those associated with climate change. All of this is
transpiring at a time of unprecedented extinction of wild plants and
animals.48 Because the agrobiodiversity crisis and global food
insecurity have similar roots, the following section examines the
common causes underlying these problems.
II. GLOBAL FOOD INSECURITY AND LOSS OF AGROBIODIVERSITY:
ROOT CAUSES
The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization estimates
that in 2009 1.02 billion people were chronically malnourished
worldwide — a figure that represents one sixth of the world’s
population.49 At least one billion of the world’s malnourished people
reside in the Global South.50 The majority are peasants who produce
45. Id. at 263.
46. See PRUGH, supra note 8, at 65.
47. Biodiversity Conference Starts in Japan, N.Y. TIMES, Oct. 18, 2010, at A9;
Ian Sample, Human Activity is Driving Earth’s “Sixth Great Extinction Event,”
GUARDIAN (July 28, 2009), http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/
2009/jul/28/species-extinction-hotspots-australia.
48. See supra notes 6-7.
49. U.N FOOD & AGRIC. ORG. (FAO), THE STATE OF FOOD INSECURITY IN THE
WORLD 4, 11 (2009), available at ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/012/i0876e/
i0876e.pdf.
50. Id. at 11 fig.4.
2011] CLIMATE CHANGE AND GLOBAL FOOD 501
at least seventy percent of the world’s food and whose survival
depends on marketing their agricultural output.51 These small farmers
are also the custodians of the genetically diverse crop varieties that
may prove vital to the sustainability of the global food system.52
Food insecurity is a function of poverty rather than food scarcity.53
Global food production has outstripped global population growth for
several decades,54 and there is currently more than enough food to
eliminate world hunger.55 People go hungry because they are too
poor to grow or purchase food.56 Nations are food insecure because
they lack the ability to produce or purchase sufficient food to satisfy
domestic nutritional needs.57
51. See ACTION GROUP ON EROSION, TECH. & CONCENTRATION (ETC GROUP),
WHO WILL FEED US?: QUESTIONS FOR THE FOOD AND CLIMATE CRISES 1 (Nov.
2009), available at http://www.etcgroup.org/upload/publication/
pdf_file/ETC_Who_Will_Feed_Us.pdf ; see generally KEVIN WATKINS & JOACHIM
VON BRAUN, TIME TO STOP DUMPING ON THE WORD’S POOR 2 (2003-2003),
available at http://www.ifpri.org/pubs/books/ar2002/ar02e1.pdf (discussing
inability of small farmers to successfully markets their agriculture output in global
market due to developed countries’ trade restrictions and subsidies).
52. See ALESSANDRA GIULANI, DEVELOPING MARKETS FOR
AGROBIODIVERSITY: SECURING LIVELIHOODS IN DRYLAND AREAS 8 (2007).
53. WORLD BANK, POVERTY AND HUNGER: ISSUES AND OPTIONS FOR FOOD
SECURITY IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES v, 1 (1986). The food crisis of 2008, for
example, coincided with record grain harvests in the world’s major food producing
nations and with record profits for the transnational corporations that dominate
global food markets. ERIC HOLT-GIMENEZ, FOODFIRST: INST. FOR FOOD & DEV.
POL’Y, THE WORLD FOOD CRISIS: WHAT’S BEHIND IT AND WHAT WE CAN DO
ABOUT IT 1-6 (2008), available at http://www.foodfirst.org/sites/www.foodfirst.org
/files/pdf/PB%2016%20World%20Food%20Crisis.pdf.
54. HOLT-GIMINEZ & PATEL, supra note 1, at 7; see LAPPE ET AL., supra note
33, at 9.
55. HOLT-GIMENEZ & PATEL, supra note 1, at 7; U.N. FOOD & AGRIC. ORG.
(FAO), HUNGER IN THE FACE OF CRISIS (2009), ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/012/
ak541e/ak541e00.pdf; WORLD AGRICULTURE: TOWARDS 2015/2030: AN FAO
PERSPECTIVE 136 (Jelle Bruinsma ed., 2003), http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/
user_upload/esag/docs/y4252e.pdf.
56. See HOLT-GIMENEZ & PATEL, supra note 1, at 16-17; HUNGER IN THE FACE
OF CRISIS, supra note 55; WORLD AGRICULTURE, supra note 55, at 136.
57. See Carmen G. Gonzalez, Trade Liberalization, Food Security, and the
Environment: The Neoliberal Threat to Sustainable Rural Development, 14
TRANSNAT’L L. & CONTEMP. PROBS. 419, 430 (2004)
The least food-secure states are those that combine inadequate domestic
food production with heavy reliance upon one or two agricultural export
commodities for a significant portion of foreign exchange earnings. Poor
harvests or sudden declines in world market prices for exports can deprive
502 FORDHAM ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REVIEW [VOL. XXII
The root cause of food insecurity and loss of agrobiodiversity is a
corporate-dominated food production and distribution system that
marginalizes small farmers and places developing countries at a
structural disadvantage in world agricultural trade. This food
production and distribution system was imposed on the Global South
in several successive stages outlined below.
A. The Colonial Legacy
Food insecurity in the Global South has its origins in colonialism.58
As a consequence of the colonial division of labor, most developing
countries entered the world economy as producers of raw materials
and consumers of manufactured products.59 Agricultural export
specialization is economically disadvantageous due to the volatility
of world market agricultural prices, to the declining terms of trade for
agricultural commodities in relation to manufactured goods, and to
the vulnerability of agricultural production to vicissitudes of weather
and climate.60 The genetic uniformity of export crops also makes
them highly vulnerable to periodic crop failure due to pests and
disease.61
Not surprisingly, food insecurity is concentrated in developing
countries that dedicate high quality agricultural lands to export
production, do not produce enough food for domestic consumption,
and rely on a small number of agricultural exports to earn the foreign
exchange with which to import food.62 Adverse weather and market
volatility depresses export earnings and creates chronic food
shortages or famines.63 To guarantee a reliable food supply,
these countries of the foreign exchange earnings necessary to purchase
essential foodstuffs. Likewise, increases in the world market price of
imports can make it difficult to obtain the food necessary to satisfy
domestic nutritional needs. Id.
58. See LIZ YOUNG, WORLD HUNGER, 41-42 (1997).
59. Id.
60. See Gonzalez, supra note 57, at 422, 430.
61. See id. at 438.
62. Id. at 423-35, 465-67. Among the most vulnerable are the forty-three
developing countries in sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean that
generate over half of their export revenues from agricultural exports and rely on
one agricultural commodity for over twenty percent of these revenues. See THE
STATE OF FOOD INSECURITY IN THE WORLD, supra note 49, at 17.
63. See U.N. FOOD & AGRIC. ORG. (FAO), THE STATE OF AGRICULTURAL
COMMODITY MARKETS 32-34 (2009), ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/012/
i0854e/i0854e.pdf.
2011] CLIMATE CHANGE AND GLOBAL FOOD 503
developing countries must invest in the domestic agricultural sector,
protect the livelihoods of small farmers, and develop a more
diversified economic base capable of generating stable and robust
revenue streams to finance the importation of food and other goods
not produced domestically.64
The trade and aid policies of industrialized countries in the
aftermath of World War II undermined food security in the Global
South by promoting dependence on imported food, devastating the
livelihoods of small farmers, and depriving developing countries of
the revenues with which to finance economic diversification. In the
post-war period, agricultural producers in the United States and
Western Europe, buttressed by state price supports and generous
agricultural subsidies, disposed of surplus agricultural production in
developing countries as food aid or dumped the food on the market at
low prices.65 This practice depressed agricultural commodity prices,
discouraged food production in the Global South, impoverished small
farmers, and generated dependence on cheap, imported food.66 At
the same time, the tariffs and other import barriers maintained by the
United States and other industrialized countries diminished the export
earnings available to developing countries to finance economic
diversification and industrialization.67
The 1947 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (“GATT”) did
little to restrict agricultural subsidies and import barriers of the
Global North.68 Various GATT exemptions permitted industrialized
countries to heavily subsidize domestic agricultural exporters and to
restrict the importation of agricultural products from the Global
South.69 Although the GATT was amended several times in response
64. See Gonzalez, The Global Food Crisis, supra note 37, 474-75.
65. HOLT-GIMENEZ & PATEL, supra note 1, at 24; Gonzalez, Trade
Liberalization, supra note 57, at 435-36.
66. Gonzalez, Trade Liberalization, supra note 57, at 436.
67. See Carmen G. Gonzalez, Markets, Monocultures, and Malnutrition:
Agricultural Trade Policy Through an Environmental Justice Lens, 14 MICH. ST. J.
INT’L L. 345, 361 (2006).
68. See Carmen G. Gonzalez, Institutionalizing Inequality: The WTO
Agreement on Agriculture, Food Security, and Developing Countries, 27 COLUM. J.
ENVTL. L. 433, 440-46 (2002).
69. YONG-SHIK LEE, RECLAIMING DEVELOPMENT IN THE WORLD TRADING
SYSTEM 107-10 (2006); Gonzalez, Institutionalizing Inequality, supra note 68, at
440-46. For a description and analysis of the GATT negotiations prior to the Doha
Round, see generally Faizel Ismail, Rediscovering the Role of Developing
Countries in GATT Before the Doha Round, 1 L. & DEV. REV. 49 (2008).
504 FORDHAM ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REVIEW [VOL. XXII
to developing country demands for greater access to markets in the
Global North,70 these amendments were typically drafted in non-
binding language and often excluded agricultural products, textiles,
and clothing – the major export products of developing countries.71
Thus, notwithstanding the GATT, trade barriers in the Global North
continued to deprive developing countries of the export revenues
needed to finance industrialization while Northern agricultural
subsidies depressed world market agricultural commodity prices,
harmed small farmers, and increased dependence food imports.72
B. The Green Revolution
The next major event in the history of the global food system was
the Green Revolution, which sought to reduce world hunger by
increasing agricultural yields.73 With funding from the Ford and
Rockefeller Foundations, international crop breeding institutions
developed and disseminated new varieties of rice, wheat, and maize
that produced higher yields than traditional varieties in response to
synthetic fertilizers and controlled irrigation.74
While the Green Revolution dramatically increased global food
production, it also perpetuated food insecurity in the Global South by
increasing poverty and inequality.75 The Green Revolution generally
favored wealthy farmers because poor farmers lacked the resources to
purchase the synthetic fertilizers, chemical pesticides, and irrigation
equipment required to produce high yields.76 Furthermore, by
increasing global food production, the Green Revolution caused
agricultural commodity prices to plummet, thereby impoverishing
small farmers.77 As one commentator observed, the Green Revolution
“led in India, Thailand, Mexico and elsewhere to the concentration of
70. Ismail, supra note 69, at 65-67.
71. Id. at 66, 71; Lee, supra note 69, at 37.
72. Gonzalez, Trade Liberalization, supra note 57, at 456-57.
73. CONWAY, supra note 38, at 44; KEITH GRIFFIN, ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES
FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 144 (1989).
74. CONWAY, supra note 38, at 51-55.
75. FOWLER & MOONEY, supra note 2, at 58-59; KEITH GRIFFIN, THE POLITICAL
ECONOMY OF AGRARIAN CHANGE: AN ESSAY ON THE GREEN REVOLUTION 51
(1974) (describing how Green Revolution technologies favored landlords,
strengthening the landlord class and increasing inequities); Young, supra note 58,
at 72.
76. Gonzalez, Trade Liberalization, supra note 57, at 442-43. .
77. See id.; see also GRIFFIN, supra note 73, at 158.
2011] CLIMATE CHANGE AND GLOBAL FOOD 505
land among those with the most capital, and to a veritable army of
landless peasants.”78 A study reviewing over 300 published reports
on the Green Revolution spanning a thirty-year period confirmed this
assessment, concluding that the Green Revolution generally increased
rural inequality.79
The Green Revolution’s most significant environmental impact
was a staggering worldwide loss of genetic diversity.80 The Green
Revolution displaced ecologically sustainable biodiverse agricultural
practices, and promoted reliance on genetically uniform seeds,
chemical fertilizers, and synthetic pesticides manufactured by
transnational corporations based in the industrialized world.81 The
consequences of this dramatic shift to industrial agriculture included
a loss of crop genetic diversity, heightened vulnerability to pests and
disease, loss of soil fertility, pollution of water supplies by pesticides
and fertilizers from agricultural runoff, depletion of aquifers for
irrigation, loss of traditional food crops, loss of ecosystem
biodiversity, and increased pesticide-related illness.82
In sum, the Green Revolution transformed peasant-based
agricultural systems into large-scale commercial monocultures, and
thereby accelerated the worldwide loss of genetic diversity. The
Green Revolution also increased poverty and inequality – the
underlying causes of food insecurity.83
C. Structural Adjustment and the WTO
The debt crisis of the 1980’s initiated the final stage in the
transformation of Southern agriculture. When the Organization of
Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) raised oil prices in the early
1970s, developing countries borrowed money from Northern
commercial banks to pay for imported fuel and petroleum-based
78. MARIA MIES & VERONIKA BENNHOLDT-THOMSEN, THE SUBSISTENCE
PERSPECTIVE: BEYOND THE GLOBALISED ECONOMY 82 (Patrick Camiller et al.,
trans., 1999).
79. See generally Donald K. Freebairn, Did the Green Revolution Concentrate
Incomes? A Quantitative Study of Research Reports, 23 WORLD DEV. 265 (1995).
80. See FOWLER & MOONEY, supra note 2, at 54-79 (describing the Green
Revolution and its impact on agrobiodiversity).
81. Id. at 75-76.
82. CONWAY, supra note 38, at 48, 88, 91; FOWLER & MOONEY, supra note 2,
at 63-83; PRETTY, REGENERATING AGRICULTURE, supra note 9, at 69-72.
83. See generally Freebairn, supra note 79.
506 FORDHAM ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REVIEW [VOL. XXII
agricultural inputs.84 When subsequent oil price shocks in 1979-80
coincided with soaring interest rates and declining prices for
agricultural commodities, many debtor nations in the Global South
were unable to repay their loans.85 In exchange for new loans or for
the restructuring of existing debt, the World Bank and the
International Monetary Fund imposed a standard recipe of free
market reforms (known as “structural adjustment”) on these indebted
nations that included elimination of subsidies to the agricultural
sector, opening up their markets to foreign competition by reducing
tariffs and other trade barriers, and promoting agricultural exports in
order to service the foreign debt.86 These policies bankrupted small
farmers by depriving them of state support and by placing them in
direct competition with highly subsidized U.S. and EU agricultural
producers.87 As domestic food production declined, much of the
Global South became dependent on food imports.88 Africa, for
example, was a net food exporter during the 1960s.89 As a
consequence of declining agricultural investment and the influx of
cheap food imports, Africa currently imports twenty-five percent of
its food and suffers from recurrent famines and food emergencies.90
Ironically, the export-oriented policies favored by the World Bank
and the IMF caused the foreign exchange earnings of many
developing countries to decline as world markets were glutted with
competing agricultural exports from a variety of countries in the
Global South.91 Because wealthy countries were not required to
reduce subsidies or eliminate import barriers,92 structural adjustment
introduced a double standard in international agricultural trade that
84. See SUSAN GEORGE, A FATE WORSE THAN DEBT 28-29 (1988); RICHARD
PEET ET AL., UNHOLY TRINITY: THE IMF, WORLD BANK AND WTO 71 (2003).
85. Gonzalez, The Global Food Crisis, supra note 37, at 468-69.
86. Id.
87. Gonzalez, Markets, Monocultures, and Malnutrition, supra note 67, at 364-
65.
88. See HOLT-GIMENEZ & PATEL, supra note 1, at 44; Anuradha Mittal, United
Nations Conference on Trade and Development, Geneva, Switz., Sept. 8-9, 2008,
The 2008 Food Price Crisis: Rethinking Food Security Policies, G-24 Discussion
Paper Series 14 (June 2009).
89. HOLT-GIMENEZ & PATEL, supra note 1, at 45.
90. See id. at 46.
91. See Gonzalez, Markets, Monocultures, and Malnutrition, supra note 67, at
365.
92. See id. at 364-65.
2011] CLIMATE CHANGE AND GLOBAL FOOD 507
continues to the present day: open markets for the poor and
protectionism for the wealthy.93
Structural adjustment exacerbated food insecurity in the Global
South and accelerated the loss of agrobiodiversity. To increase the
revenues available to service the foreign debt, developing countries
were obligated to expand agricultural commodity exports – often at
the expense of food production.94 The emphasis on agricultural
export production shifted land and other resources from food crops to
cash crops, increased dependence on food imports, eroded crop
genetic diversity, and produced a wide range of environmental harms
associated with industrial agriculture, including excessive extraction
of groundwater for irrigation, contamination of water resources, and
higher levels of pesticide-related illnesses.95
The WTO Agreement on Agriculture (“Agreement”) purported to
address the structural inequities in global agricultural trade and to
create a “fair and market-oriented agricultural trading system.”96
However, the Agreement contained numerous ambiguities that
enabled wealthy countries to subsidize and protect the domestic
agricultural sector while constraining the ability of developing
countries to utilize tariffs to protect their small farmers from
economically devastating surges of cheap imported food.97 In effect,
the Agreement institutionalized the inequities that permit agricultural
producers in the U.S. and the E.U. to destroy the livelihoods of
millions of farmers in the developing world by dumping agricultural
commodities on world markets at prices that are below the cost of
production.98
93. See id. 364.
94. See GEORGE, supra note 84, at 59-60; JOHN MADELEY, FOOD FOR ALL: THE
NEED FOR A NEW AGRICULTURE 117 (2002); YOUNG, supra note 58, at 43.
95. See Gonzalez, Trade Liberalization, Food Security, and the Environment,
supra note 57, at 469-70; STRUCTURAL ADJUSTMENT PARTICIPATORY REV.
INITIATIVE, THE POLICY ROOTS OF ECONOMIC CRISIS AND POVERTY: A MULTI-
COUNTRY PARTICIPATORY ASSESSMENT OF STRUCTURAL ADJUSTMENT 124-26
(2002), available at http:www.saprin.org/SAPRI_Findings.pdf.
96. Uruguay Round Agreement, Agreement on Agriculture, ¶ 2 (April 15,
1994), available at http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/14-ag.pdf.
97. See Gonzalez, Institutionalizing Inequality, supra note 68, at 459-68, 478-80
(2002).
98. See SOPHIA MURPHY ET AL., INSTITUTE FOR AGRICULTURAL TRADE &
POLICY, WTO AGREEMENT ON AGRICULTURE: A DECADE OF DUMPING 1 (2005),
available at http://www.tradeobservatory.org/library.cfm?RefID=48532;
ACTIONAID, THE IMPACT OF AGRO-EXPORT SURGES IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES 8
508 FORDHAM ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REVIEW [VOL. XXII
In short, the policies imposed by the post-World War II trade, aid,
and financial institutions increased hunger in the Global South by
increasing poverty, eliminating social safety nets, depressing food
production, and driving small farmers off the land.99 These policies
also produced an unprecedented decline in agrobiodiversity, as small-
scale peasant-based agriculture was replaced by the large-scale
commercial cultivation of genetically uniform crops.100
The primary beneficiaries of this dramatic and ongoing
transformation of world agriculture are the large transnational
corporations headquartered in the Global North that dominate an
increasingly globalized food sector.101 Supported by decades of
government subsidies, overseas food aid programs, and public sector
agricultural research, these multinational grain traders, agrochemical
corporations, seed manufacturers, and supermarket chains wield
unprecedented market power.102 Two grain companies control 75%
of the world’s grain trade.103 Six agrochemical corporations control
75% of global agrochemical sales and also dominate seed markets.104
Ten corporations control 67% of proprietary seed sales, nearly 90%
of the agrochemical market, and 40% of retail grocery sales.105 This
market power enables a handful of transnational corporations to pay
farmers relatively low prices for crops even when prices spike on
regional and international markets and to charge farmers high prices
for inputs such as seeds and fertilizers.106 In 2008, for example,
(2008), available at http://www.actionaid.org/docs/
cheap%20imports%20and%20protection%20of%20ag.pdf.
99. See Gonzalez, Trade Liberalization, Food Security, and the Environment,
supra note 57, at 465-69.
100. See id. at 450, 465-69.
101. See HOLT-GIMENEZ & PATEL, supra note 1, at 20.
102. See id.; see generally BILL VORLEY, UNITED KINGDOM FOOD GROUP, FOOD,
INC.: CORPORATE CONCENTRATION FROM FARM TO CONSUMER, available at
http://www.ukfg.org.uk/docs/UKFG-Foodinc-Nov03.pdf; MOLLY ANDERSON,
AGRIBUSINESS ACTION INITIATIVES, A QUESTION OF GOVERNANCE: TO PROTECT
AGRIBUSINESS PROFITS OR THE RIGHT TO FOOD? (2009), available at
http://www.agobservatory.org/library.cfm?refID=107086; MARY HENDRICKSON ET
AL., THE GLOBAL FOOD SYSTEM AND NODES OF POWER (2008), available at
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1337273.
103. VORLEY, supra note 102, at 39.
104. ETC GROUP, WHO OWNS NATURE? 15 (2008), available at http://
www.etcgroup.org/upload/publication/707/01/etc_won_report_final_color.pdf.
105. Id. at 4.
106. See generally, Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Agribusiness and
the Right to Food, 5, Human Rights Council, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/13/33 (Dec. 22,
2011] CLIMATE CHANGE AND GLOBAL FOOD 509
soaring food prices yielded windfall profits for transnational food
conglomerates while swelling the ranks of the world’s malnourished
people and sparking food riots throughout the Global South.107
However, small farmers did not benefit from these skyrocketing
prices because agricultural input prices rose as well and because most
small farmers sell their agricultural output to intermediaries rather
than directly on world markets.108 Even if the Global North’s
agricultural subsidies were eliminated, the quasi-monopoly power of
transnational corporations over the global food chain would continue
to distort agricultural markets to the disadvantage of small farmers
and consumers.109
By disregarding the market distortions caused by the concentration
in the food production and distribution chains while imposing free
market reforms that constrain the ability of governments in the
Global South to protect the livelihoods of small farmers, international
trade and financial institutions reinforce the dominance transnational
agribusiness at the expense of the poor in the developing world.110
2009); PETER M. ROSSET, FOOD IS DIFFERENT: WHY WE MUST GET THE WTO OUT
OF AGRICULTURE 46-48 (2006); SOPHIA MURPHY, MANAGING THE INVISIBLE
HAND: MARKETS, FARMERS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE 21-29, 32 (2002),
available at http://www.tradeobservatory.org/library.cfm?RefID=25497; RAJ
PATEL & SANAZ MEMARSADEGHI, FOOD FIRST POLICY BRIEF NO. 6,
AGRICULTURAL RESTRUCTURING AND CONCENTRATION IN THE UNITED STATES:
WHO WINS? WHO LOSES? 34-36 (2003), available at http://www.foodfirst.org/
sites/www.foodfirst.org/files/pdf/pb6.pdf; Timothy A. Wise, The Paradox of
Agricultural Subsidies: Measurement Issues, Agricultural Dumping, and Policy
Reform 8 (Global Dev. & Envtl. Inst., Working Paper No. 04-02, 2004), available
at http://www.ase.tufts.edu/gdae/Pubs/wp/04-02AgSubsidies.pdf.
107. See HOLT-GIMENEZ & PATEL, supra note 1, at 6-7 (discussing the world-
wide “food riots” in 2008 in response to skyrocketing food prices); THE STATE OF
AGRICULTURAL COMMODITY MARKETS, supra note 63, at 6, 9 (describing the
record increases in global food prices and in global food insecurity in 2006-2008);
GRAIN, Corporations are Still Making a Killing from Hunger, 22-23 (April 2009) ,
available at http://www.grain.org/seedling_files/seed-09-04-4.pdf (reporting the
profits of the world’s largest agri-food corporations during the 2008 global food
price shocks).
108. See THE STATE OF AGRICULTURAL COMMODITY MARKETS, supra note 63, at
34-35 (explaining why small farmers did not benefit from the global food price
increases of 2006-2008).
109. See Gonzalez, Trade Liberalization, Food Security and the Environment,
supra note 57, at 490-91; Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, supra note 106,
at ¶ 9; MURPHY, supra note 106, at 21-29, 32.
110. See Gonzalez, Markets, Monocultures, and Malnutrition, supra note 67, at
369-70.
510 FORDHAM ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REVIEW [VOL. XXII
These agribusiness giants, in turn, use their considerable economic
and political influence to perpetuate trade, aid and development
policies that impoverish small farmers, hasten the demise of
biodiverse, environmentally benign farming practices, and threaten
the integrity of the world’s food supply.111 To make matters worse,
the alarming decline in agrobiodiversity and the rising levels of food
insecurity are occurring at a time when climate change threatens to
wreak havoc on global food production.
III. CLIMATE CHANGE
After decades of denial, the risks posed by climate change can no
longer be ignored. As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (“IPCC”) observed in a recent report, “warming of the
climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observation of
increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread
melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.”112 The
average number of weather related-disasters has increased six-fold in
recent decades — from 120 per year in the 1980s to 500 per year
currently.113 As the population increases, more people will
experience catastrophic weather-related losses, and the poor will be
disproportionately affected by climate-induced disasters.114
Climate change poses significant threats to food production.115
Even if extremely aggressive mitigation measures are adopted, global
temperatures are predicted to rise by at least two degrees Centigrade
above pre-industrial levels during the 21st century.116 Changes in
111. See ROSSET, supra note 106, at 41-51; HOLT-GIMENEZ & PATEL, supra note
1, at 81.
112. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC], Climate Change
2007: The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 5 (2007),
available at http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf.
113. U.N. FOOD & AGRIC. ORG. (FAO), CLIMATE CHANGE AND FOOD SECURITY:
A FRAMEWORK DOCUMENT 20 (2008), available at ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/
fao/010/a1508e/a1508e00.pdf.
114. See id.
115. See JULIAN CRIBB, THE COMING FAMINE: THE GLOBAL FOOD CRISIS AND
WHAT WE CAN DO TO AVOID IT 136-37 (2010).
116. Jodie Keane et al., Climate Change and Developing Country Agriculture:
An Overview of Expected Impacts, Adaptation and Mitigation Challenges, and
Funding Requirements, INT’L CTR. FOR TRADE AND SUSTAINABLE DEV. AND INT’L
2011] CLIMATE CHANGE AND GLOBAL FOOD 511
temperature and rainfall, as well as increasing frequency and severity
of droughts, floods, and pest infestations, threaten the livelihoods of
poor farmers and jeopardize global food security.117 According to the
IPCC, yields for rain fed farming could decrease by as much as 50%
in large areas of Africa by 2020 as the climate becomes hotter and
drier.118 By 2080, agricultural output could decline by as much as
28% in Africa, 24% in Latin America, and 19% in Asia.119
Agricultural output in India could decline by as much as 38%,120 and
some African countries could experience declines in excess of
50%.121 Climate change is also anticipated to severely impact
biodiversity by causing the significant extinction of species and the
loss of ecosystem services essential to food production.122
Ironically, agriculture is also one of the greatest contributors to
global warming. Agriculture is responsible for approximately 13.5%
of global greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions, primarily methane and
nitrous oxide.123 Changes in land use (such as conversion of forests
and other native vegetation to crop land) contribute an additional
17.4% of GHG emissions, mainly in the form of carbon dioxide.124
In addition, agriculture contributes to global warming through
indirect emissions arising from the manufacture of agricultural inputs
(such as nitrogen fertilizer, synthetic pesticides, and fossil fuels used
for agricultural machinery) and from the processing, packaging and
transportation of food.125 If all of these agriculture-related GHG
FOOD & AGRIC. TRADE POL’Y COUNCIL, Issue Brief No. 2, 1 (2009), available at
http://ictsd.org/downloads/2009/12/j-keane-web_final.pdf.
117. INT’L CTR. FOR TRADE AND SUSTAINABLE DEV. AND INT’L FOOD & AGRIC.
TRADE POL’Y COUNCIL, ICTSD-IPC Platform on Climate Change, Agriculture and
Trade: Considerations for Policymakers 1 (Oct. 2009), available at
http://www.agritrade.org/documents/IPC_PlatformForWeb_final.pdf.
118. IPCC, Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report 50 (2007), available at
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf.
119. WILLIAM R. CLINE, GLOBAL WARMING AND AGRICULTURE: ESTIMATES BY
COUNTRY 79 (2007).
120. See id.
121. See id. at 67-71, tbl.5.8.
122. See Nyong, supra note 4, at 50-51.
123. See IPCC, Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report (2007), supra note 118,
at 36, fig.2.1.
124. See id.
125. See generally INTERNATIONAL TRADE CENTRE (UNCTAD/WTO) &
RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF ORGANIC AGRICULTURE (FiBL), ORGANIC FARMING AND
CLIMATE CHANGE 2 (2007) [hereinafter, ORGANIC FARMING AND CLIMATE
CHANGE], available at http://www.ifoam.org/growing_organic/
512 FORDHAM ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REVIEW [VOL. XXII
emissions are taken into account, agriculture’s total contribution to
global warming may be as high as 32.2%,126 making agriculture the
single largest source of anthropogenic GHG emissions.127
However, recent studies suggest that agriculture has significant
potential to mitigate climate change, which could transform the role
of agriculture from a major emitter to a much smaller emitter or even
a net sink.128 While industrial agriculture is one of the largest sources
of greenhouse gases, small-scale sustainable agriculture can play a
key role in climate change mitigation and adaptation while
conserving agrobiodiversity and promoting food security.129
Sustainable agricultural production is a goal rather than a rigid set
of practices. In general, sustainable agriculture seeks to integrate
natural pest, nutrient, soil, and water management technologies into
the production process while reducing the use of synthetic fertilizers
and pesticides.130 It combines the knowledge and skill of farmers
with the latest scientific innovations to promote farmer self-reliance
and to minimize dependence on costly external inputs.131 Sustainable
agriculture also strives to enhance and conserve agrobiodiversity,
including plant genetic resources, livestock, insects and soil
organisms.132
Sustainable agriculture can mitigate climate change by reducing
GHG emissions and increasing carbon sequestration in soils.133
Sustainable farming practices reduce fossil fuel-based carbon dioxide
1_arguments_for_oa/environmental_benefits/pdfs/FiBLStudyOrganic_Farming_an
d_Climate_Change.pdf; JESSICA BELLARBY ET AL., COOL FARMING: CLIMATE
IMPACTS OF AGRICULTURE AND MITIGATION POTENTIAL at 15-16 (2008), available
at http://marktcheck.greenpeace.at/uploads/media/Cool_Farming_Report_
Final_web_01.pdf.
126. BELLARBY ET AL, supra note 125, at 16.
127. According to the IPCC, the next largest emitter is the energy supply sector,
which is responsible for 25.9% of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. See
IPCC, Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report, supra note 120, at 36, fig.2.1.
128. See ORGANIC FARMING AND CLIMATE CHANGE, supra note 118, at 4.
129. See WORKING GROUP ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND DEVELOPMENT, OTHER
WORLDS ARE POSSIBLE: HUMAN PROGRESS IN AN AGE OF CLIMATE CHANGE 40-42
(Nov. 2009), available at http://www.iied.org/pubs/pdfs/10022IIED.pdf; ORGANIC
FARMING AND CLIMATE CHANGE, supra note 125, at 21.
130. See PRETTY, REGENERATING AGRICULTURE, supra note 9, at 8-13.
131. JULES N. PRETTY, AGRI-CULTURE: RECONNECTING PEOPLE, LAND AND
NATURE 56 (2002).
132. THRUPP, LINKING BIODIVERSITY AND AGRICULTURE, supra note 81, at 1-4,
10-12.
133. ORGANIC FARMING AND CLIMATE CHANGE, supra note 125, at 7-8.
2011] CLIMATE CHANGE AND GLOBAL FOOD 513
emissions because they consume less fossil fuel per hectare than
industrial agriculture.134 By relying on legumes, manure, and crop
residues to fertilize the soil, sustainable agriculture minimizes the use
of fossil-fuel based nitrogen fertilizers and also reduces nitrous oxide
emissions.135 Furthermore, sustainable farming usually involves
practices such as the use of green and animal manure, crop rotation,
intercropping, and composting that reduce soil erosion and enhance
the ability of soil to sequester carbon.136 Agroforestry promotes the
sequestration of carbon in above-ground vegetation as well as soil.137
Finally, sustainable agriculture simultaneously enhances agricultural
productivity and soil carbon sequestration by restoring soils that have
been degraded by excessive disturbance, erosion, organic matter loss,
salinization and other processes.138
The mitigation potential of agriculture is enormous. Sustainable
agriculture could sequester nearly 40% of annual carbon dioxide
emissions.139 According to the IPCC, soil carbon sequestration alone
is responsible for 89% of agriculture’s mitigation potential.140 The
majority of this carbon sequestration potential (about 70%) is
concentrated in developing countries.141 Moreover, agricultural
mitigation strategies can be implemented at an extremely low cost, as
compared to mitigation options in non-agricultural sectors, such as
energy, transportation and forestry.142
Sustainable agriculture can also play an important role in climate
change adaptation. Sustainable farming practices reduce the
vulnerability of crops to floods and drought by increasing the organic
matter in soils, thereby enhancing the soils’ water retention
134. Id. at 9, 23; BELLARBY ET AL., supra note 125, at 28.
135. ORGANIC FARMING AND CLIMATE CHANGE, supra note 125, at 10, 23;
BELLARBY ET AL., supra note 127, at 29, 35-36.
136. ORGANIC FARMING AND CLIMATE CHANGE, supra note 125, at 13.
137. Id. at 15, 23; BELLARBY ET AL., supra note 125, at 32.
138. See ORGANIC FARMING AND CLIMATE CHANGE, supra note 125, at 18, 23;
BELLARBY ET AL., supra note 125, at 35.
139. TIM J. LASALLE & PAUL HEPPERLY, REGENERATIVE ORGANIC FARMING: A
SOLUTION TO GLOBAL WARMING 1 (2008), http://www.rodaleinstitute.org/files/
Rodale_Research_Paper-07_30_08.pdf.
140. IPCC, CLIMATE CHANGE 2007: MITIGATION, CONTRIBUTION OF WORKING
GROUP III TO THE FOURTH ASSESSMENT REPORT OF THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL
PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE 499, 515 (2007), http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-
report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-chapter8.pdf.
141. Id. at 499.
142. See id.
514 FORDHAM ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REVIEW [VOL. XXII
capacity.143 Farmers practicing sustainable agriculture are better able
to cope with hurricanes, droughts, and other extreme weather events
than conventional farmers.144 Surveys following Hurricane Mitch in
Central America, for example, found that the lands of farmers
practicing sustainable agriculture had 40% more topsoil, greater
levels of moisture, more vegetation, and less erosion than the lands of
conventional farmers.145 Sustainable farming practices can also
restore the productivity of degraded soils in the arid tropics, thus
improving agricultural yields to a greater extent than synthetic
fertilizers.146
Sustainable agriculture utilizes wild and cultivated landscapes and
natural pest control strategies to enhance the resilience of agro-
ecosystems to climate change-related disturbances.147
Agrobiodiverse food production systems can resist climate-related
changes in the geographic range of pests, disease vectors and
invasive species through biological control of weeds, insects, and
pathogens.148 Sustainable agricultural systems rely on the diversity of
crops, fields, landscapes and farm activities to buffer the effects of
natural disasters and to provide alternative sources of food, fuel, and
medicine.149
Finally, sustainable agriculture promotes food security by
protecting the livelihoods of small farmers and indigenous
communities.150 Sustainable farming practices protect and enhance
the traditional knowledge and skills that will play an essential role in
adapting to climate change.151 This knowledge will enable farmers to
adapt to climate change by adjusting the timing and location of crop
cultivation, breeding seeds suitable for changing thermal and
hydrological conditions, changing the timing of irrigation, modifying
143. ORGANIC FARMING AND CLIMATE CHANGE, supra note 125, at 17.
144. Id at 17-18; PAR Climate Change Project, supra note 43, at 5.
145. Eric Holt-Gimenez, Measuring Farmers’ Agroecological Resistance After
Hurricane Mitch in Nicaragua: A Case Study in Participatory, Sustainable Land
Management Impact Monitoring, 93 AGRIC., ECOSYSTEMS AND ENV’T 87, 93
(2002).
146. ORGANIC FARMING AND CLIMATE CHANGE, supra note 125, at 18
147. Id.
148. Id.; PAR Climate Change Project, supra note 43, at 16.
149. ORGANIC FARMING AND CLIMATE CHANGE, supra note 125, at 18; PAR
Climate Change Project, supra note 43 at 9-11.
150. See PAR Climate Change Project, supra note 43, at 5.
151. ORGANIC FARMING AND CLIMATE CHANGE, supra note 125, at 17; PAR
Climate Change Project, supra note 43, at 19.
2011] CLIMATE CHANGE AND GLOBAL FOOD 515
the management of nutrients, and applying water-conserving
technologies.152
IV. INTEGRATED SOLUTIONS TO THE CLIMATE, FOOD AND
AGROBIODIVERSITY CRISES
The food, climate and agrobiodiversity crises described in the
preceding sections highlight the urgent need for reform of global
agricultural policies. Because agriculture both generates and
sequesters GHGs, climate change may serve as a catalyst for
agricultural policy reforms that promote sustainable agriculture as an
integrated solution to the climate, food and agrobiodiversity crises.
Sustainable agriculture produces fewer GHGs emissions than
industrial agriculture, increases the ability of soils to sequester
carbon, protects plant genetic resources, reduces the risks associated
with climate change (such as floods and droughts), preserves
traditional knowledge, and promotes food security by supporting the
livelihoods of small farmers.153
In addition, sustainable agriculture is highly productive.
Sustainable agriculture can produce enough food on a global per
capita basis to sustain both current and projected future populations
without increasing the amount of land devoted to agricultural
production.154 Indeed, sustainable agriculture in the Global South is
at least eighty percent more productive than conventional
agriculture.155 Numerous studies have concluded that sustainable
agriculture has significantly increased agricultural yields in Asia,
Africa and Latin America, increased the incomes of small farmers,
benefited the environment, reduced dependence on external inputs,
and kept alive rural communities’ deep reservoir of traditional
knowledge.156
152. INTERNATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF AGRICULTURAL KNOWLEDGE, SCIENCE
AND TECHNOLOGY FOR DEVELOPMENT (IAASTD), AGRICULTURE AT A
CROSSROADS: SYNTHESIS REPORT 51 (2009), http://www.agassessment.org/reports/
IAASTD/EN/Agriculture%20at%20a%20Crossroads_Synthesis%20Report%20%2
8English%29.pdf.
153. See supra notes 128-52.
154. Catherine Badgley et al., Organic Agriculture and The Global Food Supply,
22 RENEWABLE AGRIC. & FOOD SYS. 86, 94 (2007).
155. See id. at 91; Jules N. Pretty et al., Resource-Conserving Agriculture
Increases Yields in Developing Countries, 40 ENVTL. SCI. & TECH. 1114 (2006).
156. See generally, U.N. CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND DEV. (UNCTAD) & U.N.
ENV’T PROGRAMME (UNEP), ORGANIC AGRICULTURE AND FOOD SECURITY IN
516 FORDHAM ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REVIEW [VOL. XXII
There is an emerging consensus among policy-makers at the
international level that promoting sustainable agriculture is necessary
to address the environmental and food security challenges of the 21st
century.157 Reform of the global food system to promote sustainable
agriculture is a daunting task, but there are a number of concrete
measures that can be taken to address the most glaring inequities and
move toward a more just and sustainable food production system.
First, phasing out agricultural protectionism in the Global North is
an essential step toward protecting the livelihoods of small farmers,
but it is by no means sufficient. An approach to international trade,
aid, and finance that recognizes the primacy of human rights,
including the fundamental right to food, is required. The right to food
is recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the
International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights,
and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.158
Because a healthy environment is itself a human right in addition to
being essential to the fulfillment of the right to food and other human
rights,159 trade and investment agreements should contain a provision
AFRICA (2008), available at http://www.unep-unctad.org/cbtf/publications/
UNCTAD_DITC_TED_2007_15.pdf; INT’L FUND FOR AGRIC. DEV., THE
ADOPTION OF ORGANIC AGRICULTURE AMONG SMALL FARMERS IN LATIN
AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN (2003), available at
http://www.ifad.org/evaluation/public_html/eksyst/doc/thematic/pl/organic.pdf;
NICHOLAS PARROTT & TERRY MARSDEN, THE NEW GREEN REVOLUTION: ORGANIC
AND AGROECOLOGICAL FARMING IN THE SOUTH (2002), available at
http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/MultimediaFiles/Live/FullReport/4526.pdf; Jules N.
Pretty, Reducing Food Poverty by Increasing Sustainability in Developing
Countries, 95 AGRIC. ECOSYSTEMS & ENV’T 217 (2003); Jules N. Pretty & Rachel
Hine, The Promising Spread of Sustainable Agriculture in Asia, 24 NAT.
RESOURCES F. 107 (2000); Jules N. Pretty, Can Sustainable Agriculture Feed
Africa? New Evidence on Progress, Processes and Impacts, 1 ENV’T, DEV. &
SUSTAINABILITY 253 (1999).
157. See IAASTD, AGRICULTURE AT A CROSSROADS: SYNTHESIS REPORT, supra
note 152, at 5; UNEP, THE ENVIRONMENTAL FOOD CRISIS, supra note 40, at 8;
UNCTAD & UNEP, ORGANIC AGRICULTURE AND FOOD SECURITY IN AFRICA,
supra note 156.
158. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. Res. 217A, at 71, U.N.
GAOR, 3d Sess., 1st plen. Mtg., U.N. Doc A/10, art. 25 (Dec. 12, 1948); United
Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, arts. 24 & 27, 1577 U.N.T.S. 3
(Nov. 20, 1989); International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,
G.A. Res. 2200A, art. 11 (Dec. 16, 1966), reprinted in 6 I.L.M. 360 (1967).
159. See e.g., SVITLANA KRAVCHENKO & JOHN E. BONINE, HUMAN RIGHTS AND
THE ENVIRONMENT: CASES, LAW, AND POLICY xxi (2008) (discussing the increasing
recognition by legislatures, courts, and experts that protection of the environment is
2011] CLIMATE CHANGE AND GLOBAL FOOD 517
giving human rights and environmental norms hierarchical priority in
the event of a conflict.
Second, trade and investment agreements should contain broad
human rights and environmental exceptions designed to maximize the
flexibility of governments to regulate in the public interest. Such
provisions would give developing countries the “policy space” to
utilize an appropriate combination of tariffs and subsidies to protect
the livelihoods of small farmers, encourage domestic food
production, support environmentally friendly cultivation techniques,
promote rural development, and protect against devastating surges of
under-priced food imports.
Third, trade and investment agreements must enable developing
countries to use a wide range of protectionist measures to facilitate
the transition from agro-export specialization to a more diverse
economic base. The current rules governing international trade
preclude the Global South from utilizing many of the development
strategies that produced economic prosperity in the United States,
France, Japan, the United Kingdom, Germany, and other wealthy
countries, such as local content requirements, state financing of major
industries, and protection of nascent industries through tariffs and
other import restrictions.160
Fourth, international regulation is necessary to address the
domination of agricultural markets by a handful of transnational
corporations. In the United States, for example, the Justice
Department is in the process of conducting an antitrust investigation
of the seed industry and is also examining the lack of competition in
agricultural markets more generally.161 The European Parliament
recently asked the European Commission to address the abuse of
an enforceable human right and not simply a policy choice); BERTA E.
HERNANDEZ-TRUYOL & STEPHEN J. POWELL, JUST TRADE: A NEW COVENANT
LINKING TRADE AND HUMAN RIGHTS 86-88 (2009) (explaining that the rights to life
and health depend on a clean environment); United Nations Conference on
Environment & Development, Rio de Janeiro, Braz., June 3-14, 1992, Agenda 21,
art. 15.2, U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 151/26 (Vol. II) (June 13, 1992) (explaining that the
loss of biodiversity threatens natural resources vital to the provision of flood,
clothing, medicine, housing, and spiritual nourishment).
160. See LEE, supra note 69, at 9-13.; HA-JOON CHANG, BAD SAMARITANS: THE
MYTH OF FREE TRADE AND THE SECRET HISTORY OF CAPITALISM 40-60 (2008);
HA-JOON CHANG, KICKING AWAY THE LADDER: DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY IN
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE 19-51, 59-66 (2002).
161. William Neuman, Rapid Rise in Seed Prices Draws U.S. Scrutiny, N.Y.
Times, Mar. 11, 2010, at B1.
518 FORDHAM ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REVIEW [VOL. XXII
market power by major supermarket chains operating in the European
Union.162 Given the global scope of the problem, it is essential that
states collaborate to develop and enforce robust competition regimes.
Fifth, governments must re-orient resources toward small farmers
and toward the protection of the natural resource base necessary for
food production. The structural adjustment policies adopted in recent
decades have deprived small farmers of social safety nets, education,
marketing assistance, credit, technology, insurance, input subsidies,
and price supports.163 In recognition of the essential role of small-
scale sustainable agriculture in responding to the food, climate, and
biodiversity crises, a coalition of African governments, with the
support of the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, and various
non-governmental organizations, has proposed that the successor
agreement to the Kyoto Protocol provide the financing, technology,
and research and development necessary to promote climate change
mitigation and adaptation through small-scale sustainable
agriculture.164 While an analysis of this proposal is beyond the scope
of this Article, it is promising that agriculture and food security have
162. See Olivier de Schutter, United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to
Food, Addressing Concentration in Food Supply Chains: The Role of Competition
Law in Tackling the Abuse of Buyer Power, Briefing Note 03 2-3 (Dec. 2010),
available at http://www.srfood.org/images/stories/pdf/ other
documents/20101201_briefing-note-03_en.pdf.
163. Ha-Joon Chang, Rethinking Public Policy in Agriculture: Lessons from
History, Distant and Recent, 36 J. PEASANT STUD. 477, 478, 480-81 (2009).
164. See COMMON MKT. FOR E. & S. AFR. (COMESA), African Bio Carbon
Initiative Background Document, available at http://www.tnrf.org/files/E-
INFO_BioCarbon_Background_Document.pdf; U.N. FOOD & AGRIC. ORG.,
Carbon Finance Possibilities for Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use
Projects in a Smallholder Context (2010), http://www.fao.org/docrep/012/
al060e/al060e00.pdf; WORLD AGROFORESTRY CTR., Africa’s Biocarbon Interests--
Perspectives for a new climate change deal, Policy Brief No. 04 (2009), available
at http://www.worldagroforestry.org/downloads/publications/PDFs/BR09047.PDF;
WORLD AGROFORESTRY CTR., The Case for Investing in Africa’s Biocarbon
Potentia, Policy Brief No. 05 (2009), available at http://www.asb.cgiar.org/
PDFwebdocs/ICRAFPB04-InvestingInAfricasBiocarbonPotential.pdf; INT’L CTR.
FOR TRADE AND SUSTAINABLE DEV. AND INT’L FOOD & AGRIC. TRADE POL’Y
COUNCIL, International Climate Change Negotiations and Agriculture 12-14 (May
2009), available at http://ictsd.org/downloads/2009/11/international-climate-
change-negotiations-and-agriculture.pdf; U.N. FOOD & AGRIC. ORG., Enabling
Agriculture to Contribute to Climate Change Mitigation (2008),
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2008/smsn/igo/036.pdf.
2011] CLIMATE CHANGE AND GLOBAL FOOD 519
at long last been recognized as important issues in the global climate
change negotiations.
Finally, the global food system must be protected against food
commodity speculation and ill-advised biofuels policies that could
result in food price increases, food price volatility, and “land grabs”
in the Global South. It is now widely recognized that one of the key
triggers of the food price crisis of 2008 was the shift of speculative
investment into agricultural commodities in the wake of the collapse
of the U.S. housing bubble.165 Furthermore, the decision by the
United States and the European Union to promote biofuels as the
solution to the climate crisis has driven up food prices and diverted
acreage from food production.166 The biofuels boom and the spike in
food prices, in turn, gave rise to efforts by domestic and foreign
investors to purchase or lease large tracts of agricultural land in the
Global South to guarantee food supplies and to capitalize on the
demand for biofuels through offshore production.167 These so-called
“land grabs” pose a number of risks, including dispossession of small
farmers, interference with domestic food production, and over-
exploitation, degradation, and depletion of land and water resources
needed by local communities.168 Regulation of food commodity
derivatives must be a central part of government strategies designed
to protect the fundamental human right to food.169 Biofuels policy
must be pursued through an integrated approach that takes into
account the impact on food production, biodiversity and human
rights. Foreign acquisition of agricultural lands must be carefully
regulated through domestic legislation and international agreements
165. Peter Wahl, The Role of Speculation in the 2008 Food Price Bubble, in THE
GLOBAL FOOD CHALLENGE: TOWARDS A HUMAN RIGHTS APPROACH TO TRADE
AND INVESTMENT POLICIES 68, 70 (2009), http://www.fian.org/resources/
documents/others/the-global-food-challenge/pdf.
166. STATE OF AGRICULTURE COMMODITY MARKETS, supra note 63, at 19-21.
167. Alexandra Spieldoch & Sophia Murphy, Agricultural Land Acquisitions:
Implications for Food Security and Poverty Alleviation, in LAND GRAB? THE RACE
FOR THE WORLD’S FARMLAND 39, 41-42 (Michael Kugelman & Susan L.
Levenstein eds. 2009), available at http://www.wilsoncenter.org/topics/pubs/
ASIA_090629_Land%20Grab_rpt.pdf.
168. Id. at 43-48.
169. Olivier de Schutter, U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Food
Commodities Speculation and Food Price Crises: Regulation to Reduce the Risks
of Price Volatility, Briefing Note 02 (Sept. 2010), available at
http://www.iaahp.net/uploads/media/20102309_briefing_note_02_en.pdf.
520 FORDHAM ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REVIEW [VOL. XXII
to ensure that these transactions benefit local communities, uphold
the right to food, and use natural resources in a sustainable manner.
In response to the global food crisis, social movements across the
globe are challenging the export-oriented industrial agricultural
model of food production in favor of food sovereignty.170 Developed
originally by the peasant organization La Via Campesina, the concept
of food sovereignty refers to democratic national and local control
over food production, distribution, and marketing in ways that are
socially just and ecologically sustainable.171 As Peter Rosset
explains:
Food sovereignty proponents argue that food and farming
are about more than trade, and that production for local and
national markets is more important than production for
export from various perspectives: broad-based and
inclusive local and national economic development,
addressing poverty and hunger; preserving rural life,
economies, and environments; and managing natural
resources in a sustainable fashion. They argue that every
country and people must have the right and the ability to
define their own food, farming, and agricultural policies; to
protect domestic markets; and to have public sector budgets
for agriculture that may include subsidies provided these do
not lead to greater production, exports, dumping and
damage to other countries. . . . This alternative model also
includes agrarian reform, with limits on maximum farm
size, equitable local control over resources like seeds, land,
water and forests, and firm opposition to patenting seeds.172
Food sovereignty has been embraced by social movements in the
Global North and the Global South,173 has been incorporated into the
domestic legislation of several countries, including Venezuela,
170. See ROSSET, supra note106, at 102-25 (reproducing the statements and
position papers of peasant and farmer organizations from the Global North and the
Global South); SHATTUCK & HOLT-GIMENEZ, supra note 5, at 422, 431.
171. ROSSET, supra note 106, at 34-35; SHATTUCK & HOLT-GIMENEZ, supra note
5, at 422, 431-32.
172. ROSSET, supra note 106, at 34-35.
173. See SHATTUCK & HOLT-GIMENEZ, supra note 5, at 431.
2011] CLIMATE CHANGE AND GLOBAL FOOD 521
Ecuador, Nicaragua, and Bolivia,174 and has served as the basis for
collaboration between the United Nations Food and Agriculture
Organization and farmer and civil society organizations.175 Food
sovereignty is not a one-size-fits-all economic recipe.176 Rather, it is
a framework through which to critique the corporate-dominated food
trade and production system so as to develop more democratic,
localized, just, and sustainable alternatives.177
V. CONCLUSION
Scientists, development experts, farmer organizations, and civil
society groups have long called for equitable and sustainable locally-
controlled food production as an alternative to resource-extractive
industrial agriculture.178 Indeed, rural communities throughout the
world have been struggling for decades to diversify their crops;
conserve their seeds, soils, forests and water; protect traditional
agroecological knowledge; and resist the takeover of their lands by
local and transnational elites.179 Most recently, the growing food
justice movements in the Global North have sought to dismantle the
inequities in the global food system that disproportionately affect
low-income and historically marginalized communities and that
produce widespread epidemics of obesity, type 2 diabetes, and other
diet-related diseases.180 As the common roots of the climate, food,
and agrobiodiversity crises become increasingly apparent, popular
mobilization may succeed in creating the political will necessary to
overcome the power of transnational agribusiness and to create more
just, resilient, and sustainable food production systems.
174. See Saulo Araujo, The Promise and Challenges of Food Sovereignty
Policies in Latin America, 13 YALE HUM. RTS. AND DEV. L.J. 493, 494 (2010).
175. See ROSSET, supra note 106, at 35.
176. Araujo, supra note 174, at 494-96.
177. Id. at 494-95.
178. See HOLT-GIMENEZ & PATEL, supra note 1, at 2-3; 181-217.
179. See id. at 2.
180. See id. at 159-77; SHATTUCK & HOLT-GIMENEZ, supra note 5, at 431-34.
