The document discusses food security and food sovereignty policies in Latin America, focusing on Peru, Colombia, Ecuador, and Bolivia. It analyzes how each country addresses these issues in their constitutions and policies and whether they prioritize land titling or territorial governance. Regionally, the Andean Community has enacted decisions and frameworks to guarantee food security and food sovereignty, but they have not addressed land or territorial rights and instead focus on supporting small-scale agriculture. The conclusion is that while countries differ in their approaches, in practice both food security and food sovereignty policies have failed to challenge export-oriented models and establish strong territorial governance, meaning the promise of food sovereignty has not been fully realized.

1. La base territorial de la seguridad y la soberanía alimentaria
Disputas nacionales y regionales en Latinoamérica
Roger Merino
Universidad del Pacífico (Lima, Perú)
Seminario ODS, 13 y 14 de agosto, 2019

2. Problema general:
La alimentación es un problema global pero aún hay políticas regionales articuladoras claras
 Food security only could be achieved by the increase of food production, the
fertility of lands, extending the agricultural frontier, advances in genetics, and
improving crops and more productive breeds of animals.
 For others, the problem is deficient distribution systems and poverty; the
volatility and increase in food prices; poor harvests due to climate change; higher
energy and fertilizer prices; low availability of food stocks per capita.
 Latin America paradox: having the biggest tropical forest of the planet and
possessing the largest potential for agricultural expansion during the next
decades (Dagar et al, 2016). Sin embargo…

3. Justificación
Food sovereignty and food security are not just political discourses but the basis of contrasting
policies.
 Whereas the former prioritizes small, agro-ecological and local agriculture, the latter prioritizes trade
oriented goods, imports, and intensive agriculture.
 Literature: specific national outcomes in the implementation of food security policies; performances of
those countries that have implemented food sovereignty laws and institutions. Little have been said about
regional agricultural policies through international organizations such as the Andean Community,. The
literature also neglects comparative explorations of different country-experiences to give light on the
policy implications of food security and food sovereignty.
 Argument: the lack of addressing territorial autonomy is the reason why despite their theoretical and
policy differences, both food security and food sovereignty have no practical distinction in national and
regional experiences in Latin America. They both portray different development imaginaries and strategies,
as well as different power distribution at local, regional and global levels. However, by being ineffective in
addressing these power inequalities, progressive government ends legitimizing extractive agriculture in the
same way than neoliberal ones.

4. Seguridad Alimentaria
Mainstream technocratic notions of developmentalism and economic
as expressed in World Bank and FAO documents
 Aligned with transnational agribusiness and its emphasis in increasing production.
 Internationally, it embodies a geographical imaginary in which inefficient and
outdated agricultural economies of the global south need to be improved
through the adoption of biotechnology developed by scientists and corporations
in the global north (Hopma and Woods, 2014; Jarosz, 2014).
 Nationally, it is the basis of policies for alleviate poverty, eliminate hunger, and
improve the livelihoods of the poor through social programs such as conditional
cash transfers (Smith et al, 2017; Piperata et al, 2016).

5. Soberanía alimentaria
Social movements, local/small/ecological agriculture
 Different definitions: from state-centric national self-sufficiency (a right of ‘each
nation’) to local self-sufficiency (Agarwal, 2014).
 Critiques: not all rural social classes are represented; it images small holder
farmers or peasants as engaged in ‘virtuous’
 Challenges: it reformulates Westphalian nation-states sovereignty: ‘multiple
sovereignties’ or ‘relational sovereignty’(MacKay et al, 2014; Roman-Alcalá, 2016;
Conversi, 2016; Daigle, 2019; McMichael 2009); actual relations between different
‘sovereigns’ and the extent of local and sub-national control (Hospes, 2014;
Roman-Alcalá, 2016); propose better forms of democratic (resource)
management at all local level and implement structural reforms to distribute
power facilitating local autonomy.

6. Land access and control
is central to both food security and food sovereignty
 Mainstream policies translate these demands into policies for providing secure
tenure or title to land, a measure supported by international financial
organizations to address community and individual vulnerabilities (Leventon and
Laudan, 2017; Edelman et al, 2014; Borras et al, 2015; Alonso-Fradejas et al, 2015).
 To escape from the technocratic titling approach or ‘land governance’, Borras et
al (2015) proposes ‘land sovereignty’. This formulation proposes two conceptual–
geographic shifts: from farm system to food system, and from farm scale to
territorial scale.
 It entails political mobilization for redistributive and democratic restructuring on a
territorial scale (Alonso-Fradejas et al, 2015). It may involve a plurality of social-
property relations, directly addresses the historical injustices by which farmers
have lost their access to land.

7. País
Reconocimiento a nivel constitucional Instrumentos seguridad/soberanía alimentaria ¿Titulación, territorio?
Perú
Constitución (1993), realiza un reconocimiento
implícito del derecho a la alimentación.
DS 102-2012-PCM, declara de interés nacional y de necesidad pública la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional de la población nacional, y que crea la
Comisión Multisectorial de Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutricional.
Ley de Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutricional (Proyecto de Ley 3981/2015)
Estrategia Nacional de Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutricional 2015-2021 (ENSAN).
DS 08-2015-MINAGRI, Plan Nacional de Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutricional 2015 – 2021.
Titulación es una estrategia
específica dentro del Plan.
Problemas en la titulación de
comunidades campesinas y
Colombia
Constitución 1991, Cap. 2 sobre derechos sociales,
económicos y culturales, art. 44, la alimentación
equilibrada como derecho fundamental de los
La Corte Constitucional ha desarrollado el
del derecho a una “subsistencia mínima” (sentencia
T-602/2003). Sentencia T-348/2012, la Corte C.
desarrolla el contenido de la “soberanía
Decreto 2055/2009, crea la Comisión Intersectorial de Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutricional (CISAN) cuyo objeto es dirigir y coordinar la PSAN.
Ley 1355/2009, “Ley de Obesidad” define a la CISAN como la máxima autoridad rectora de la Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutricional en Colombia.
Plan Nacional de Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutricional (PNSAN) 2012 – 2019
Plan Nacional de Desarrollo 2018 - 2022
Acuerdo Final para la terminación del conflicto y la construcción de una paz estable y duradera, el Gobierno Nacional y las FARC-EP: El Punto 1.3.4
acuerda la creación de un Sistema para la Garantía Progresiva del Derecho a la Alimentación, con fundamento en la obligación de asegurar de
progresiva el derecho humano a la alimentación sana, nutritiva y culturalmente apropiada. No obstante, múltiples cuestionamientos apuntan hacia la
poca o nula atención a la población desplazada.
Titulación no está priorizada en los
planes.
Nueva institucionalidad que deriva
del proceso del acuerdo de Paz
Ecuador
Constitución 2008, Cap. Primero, alimentación
deber primordial del Estado (art. 3); Cap. Segundo
“Derechos del buen vivir”: acceso seguro y
permanente a alimentos sanos, suficientes y
nutritivos (art. 13). Constitución 2008, Cap.
derechos del buen vivir: “(…) la soberanía energética
no se alcanzará en detrimento de la soberanía
alimentaria, ni afectará el derecho al agua” (art. 15);
Título VI Régimen de Desarrollo, Cap. Tercero,
soberanía alimentaria (arts. 281-282).
Ley Orgánica del Régimen de la Soberanía Alimentaria (2009), establece el Sistema de Soberanía Alimentaria y Nutricional (SISAN)
Plan Nacional de Desarrollo 2017-2021, construido en base al Programa de Gobierno 2017-2021, que prevé la “Revolución Rural”.
“Minga Agropecuaria” (2017) para saldar la “deuda agraria”.
Territorio es alegado
constantemente de forma más
discursiva. No se ha implementado
la gobernanza territorial de las
naciones indígenas.
Bolivia
Constitución (2009), Título II, derechos
fundamentales y garantías, Cap. Segundo, derechos
fundamentales: “agua y alimentación” (art. 16).
Constitución (2009), Título VIII, Cap. Primero,
Relaciones Internacionales, art. 255, II, 8; Título III,
Desarrollo rural integral sustentable, Arts. 405-409.
Decreto Supremo 27029/2003 fue creado el Consejo Nacional de Alimentación y Nutrición (CONAN).
Ley 144/2011, Ley para la Revolución Productiva Comunitaria Agropecuaria
Decreto Supremo 2167/2014, aprueba la Política de Alimentación y Nutrición (PAN) en el Marco del Saber Alimentarse para Vivir Bien.
Plan de Desarrollo Económico y Social 2016-2020
Territorio es alegado
constantemente de forma más
discursiva. Solo se ha reconocido
una autonomía indígena
(Charagua) (territorio originario
campesino indígena).

8. Comunidad Andina
 In 2004 he Andean Council of Ministries of External Affair enacted Decision 601:“the
Integrated Plan of Social Development”, which included among communitarian social programs
“Rural development and food security” with the end of “promoting productive capacities in rural
territories, re-valuing agricultural indigenous and peasant production, and transforming productive
and alimentary systems with the end of being more efficient, diversified, technological, sustainable
and socially responsible”.
 Between may 2008 and October 2011 representatives of the four participated in meetings to
debate proposals and oversight the implementation of the decision.
 Peru and Colombia supported the implementation of the food security approach under FAO terms
and privileging two strategies: 1) right to food as a way of fighting hunger and undernourishment;
2) relationship between food insecurity and climate change, sustainable use of resources and
biodiversity. A recurrent argument for rejecting “food sovereignty” was that this approach does not
refer to the reality of all countries and had not been previously approved in all internal norms.

9. Seguridad y soberanía alimentaria en la CAN
 Previous negotiations led to the approval of the Decision 742 (22 July 2010) “Andean Program to
guarantee food security and food sovereignty and nutrition”. Among its specific objectives, it seeks to:
improve productive capacities in rural territories; promote healthy practices in commercialization,
consumption and use of food; diminishes the vulnerability of country members in relation to risks
derived from climate change, natural emergencies; monitoring and evaluating the fulfilment of the
program under the Andean Committee of Food Security and Food Sovereignty and nutrition, which
made 7 meetings between 2010 and 2011.
 In the period 2014 – 2017 the Andean Parliament discussed the approval of a normative framework to
implement Decision 742. The discussion was similar than those proposed by the Andean Council
meetings, and at the end it approved Decision 1386 (June 2017) “Normative framework for Food Security
with Nutritional Quality and respect of the Policies of Food Sovereignty of the Member States”.
 Here food security is a guarantee to each person to have access to food with nutritional quality, with
competitiveness, sustainability and equity; whereas food sovereignty is the right of each member state to
implement policies and norms aimed at fostering the production of healthy food, as well as its
conservation, commercialization and consumption. It has no provision on land or territorial rights, rather
it aims at promoting projects for supporting and articulating small and medium familiar agriculture;
generate programs and plans of continue capacity building, ensuring “food sovereignty” to regulate
activities aimed at certification, production and commercialization of seeds to foster agro-biodiversity.

10. Conclusiones preliminares
 Política regional aparente: reforzamiento de las políticas nacionales y legitimación de
la disparidad.
 Similitudes inesperadas: de los discursos de seguridad y soberanía alimentaria derivan
diferentes estrategias e imaginarios de desarrollo, pero en ambos casos no se ha
puesto en disputa el privilegio de la orientación exportadora por sobre la protección
de la agricultura local y ecológica. Paradójicamente, el país con mayor moratoria a
cultivos transgénicos es Perú.
 Gobernanza territorial débil: la promesa de la soberanía alimentaria no ha sido
cumplida. La seguridad alimentaria solo a nivel teórico es vinculada a la gobernanza
de la tierra. Depende más de reclamos sectoriales que de políticas de Estado.