Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Seed Sovereignty and Globalisation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Globalisation and Seed Sovereignty in Sub-Saharan Africa

Part of the book series: International Political Economy Series ((IPES))

  • 397 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter begins by distinguishing between the concepts of food security, or access to sufficient food to eat, and food sovereignty, or the right to choose which food to eat. It then distinguishes between the concepts of seed security, or an adequate supply of seed for cultivation, and seed sovereignty, meaning the farmers’ right to choose which seeds to sow, share and save. It discusses a number of threats to seed sovereignty from the process of globalisation, including climate change, changes to farming practice, transnational corporations and philanthrocapitalist organisations. It then applies hyperglobalist, sceptical, and transformational approaches to the study of how globalisation has affected seed sovereignty.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html [accessed online 28 March 2017]

  2. 2.

    This was at the World Food Conference called by UN in 1974.

  3. 3.

    WFS was attended by 185 countries and the EU. Signed by 112 Heads or Deputy Heads of Government http://www.fao.org/wfs/index_en.htm [accessed online 1 April 2017].

  4. 4.

    http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/w3613e/w3613e00.htm [accessed on line 1 April 2017].

  5. 5.

    Founded in Mons Belgium in 1993, it represents 200 million farmers from 73 countries on 5 continents with 164 affiliated local and national organisations.

  6. 6.

    Edelman used Google Ngram Viewer, an online Google search engine that charts word frequency for all publications from 1500 to 2008 to determine the origin of the use of the term ‘food sovereignty’.

  7. 7.

    http://www.fao.org/3/a-ax736e.pdf

  8. 8.

    Six hundred representatives of 450 NGOs.

  9. 9.

    The IAASTD is the most recent and comprehensive assessment of agriculture, co-sponsored by the World Bank, FAO, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), World Health Organisation (WHO), United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) and the Global Environment Facility (GEF).

  10. 10.

    See the brochure summarising the report, p. 4, https://www.globalagriculture.org/fileadmin/files/weltagrarbericht/EnglishBrochure/BrochureIAASTD_en_web_small.pdf, accessed 22 December 2018.

  11. 11.

    http://elikadura21.eus/publicaciones/

  12. 12.

    http://www.fao.org/agriculture/crops/core-themes/theme/seeds-pgr/seed_sys/security/en/

  13. 13.

    https://viacampesina.org/en/index.php/actions-and-events-mainmenu-26/stop-transnational-corporations-mainmenu-76/904-haitian-peasants-march-against-monsanto-company-for-food-and-seed-sovereignty [accessed online 19 March 2017].

  14. 14.

    RAFI (now ETC) was the first CSO nationally or internationally to draw attention to the socio-economic and scientific issues related to the conservation and use of plant genetic resources, intellectual property and biotechnology.

  15. 15.

    Esquinas-Alcazar (2005) states that “CGRFA provided the first permanent international forum for the negotiation, development and monitoring of international agreements and regulations in this field” (p. 949).

  16. 16.

    The criticism relates to its abuse by TNCs.

  17. 17.

    Berne Declaration, now called Public Eye, is a Swiss-based organisation focussing on business and human rights.

  18. 18.

    ETC (Erosion, technology and concentration) Group, originally known as Rural Advancement Foundation International (RAFI) is an international civil society organisation (CSO) that addresses the global socio-economic and ecological issues surrounding new technologies with special concern for their impact on indigenous peoples, rural communities and biodiversity. It was the first CSO to draw attention to the socio-economic and scientific issues related to the conservation and use of PGRs, IP and biotechnology.

  19. 19.

    http://www.etcgroup.org/fr/content/call-seed-sovereignty-ban-terminator-patents [accessed online 20 April 2017].

  20. 20.

    This has been voted on twice where interestingly EU has shifted from voting against (June 2014) to abstaining (October 2015) (C2A Notes, Coordination Sud, No. 232015).

  21. 21.

    http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTNWDR2013/Resources/8258024-1352909193861/8936935-1356011448215/8986901-1380046989056/WDR-2014_Complete_Report.pdf

  22. 22.

    http://ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf [accessed online 30 March 2017].

  23. 23.

    http://www.fao.org/3/a-i6030e.pdf [accessed online 30 March 2017].

  24. 24.

    A 20% decrease in growing periods is projected for parts of sub-Saharan Africa. Sixty-five countries in the ‘South’ risk losing 280 million tonnes of potential cereal production, valued at $56 billion as a direct result of climate change (FAO 2005 quoted in ETC 2009).

  25. 25.

    The IAASTD is the most recent and comprehensive assessment of agriculture, co-sponsored by the World Bank, FAO, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), World Health Organisation (WHO), United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) and the Global Environment Facility (GEF).

  26. 26.

    The term ‘Climate smart agriculture’ was first used by UN FAO in 2010 as a means to attract corporate finance for agriculture in Africa. See [https://www.grain.org/article/entries/5270-the-exxons-of-agriculture] accessed online 31 March 2017.

  27. 27.

    “Patent, Industrial Design, Undisclosed Information, Integrated Circuits and Plant Variety Law of 2004, CPA Order No. 81, 26 April 2004”, http://www.iraqcolaition.org/regulations/20040426_CPAORD_81_Patents_Law.pdf [accessed online October 2010].

  28. 28.

    http://www.wipo.int/edocs/lexdocs/laws/en/af/af006en.pdf [accessed online 31 March 2017].

  29. 29.

    https://www.globalpolicy.org/war-and-occupation-in-iraq/37145.html [accessed online 31 March 2017].

  30. 30.

    http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/cpa-iraq/index.html [accessed online 31 March 2017].

  31. 31.

    F1 hybrid refers to filial generation 1. The first filial generation of offspring of distinctly different parental types.

  32. 32.

    A landrace is a variety of domesticated animal or agricultural plant species which has developed over a long period of time and as a result has adapted to the local natural environment in which it lives. Landraces are selected and grown from seed passed down from generation to generation and thus exhibit broad heterogeneity associated with wider genetic diversity and therefore greater adaptability and resilience, now considered critical to maintaining the genetic resource base for food security (Altieri 2009).

  33. 33.

    UN General Assembly A/64/170 Item 71 (b) The Right to Food [Accessed online 23 February 2013].

  34. 34.

    Second World Seed conference Rome 2009.

  35. 35.

    Cargill’s revenue for 2012 was $133.9 billion.

  36. 36.

    www.gatesfoundation.org [accessed online 19 March 2017].

  37. 37.

    Examples are BMGF 2010 multi-million dollar purchase of Monsanto shares and Rockefeller Foundation’s vested interest in its own ‘novel’ seed varieties being registered in Kenya, with vast royalties in the pipeline.

  38. 38.

    http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/environ.shtml

  39. 39.

    Chandra Kumar, ‘The Politics of Starving: An Interview with Raj Patel’, available at http://uppingtheanti.org/journal/article/11-the-politics-of-starving. Accessed 26 December 2018.

References

  • ACB. 2015. The expansion of the commercial seed sector in sub-Saharan Africa: major players, key issues and trends [Online]. Available from: www.acbio.org.za [Accessed 3rd February 2016].

  • ACB. 2017. The Bayer-Monsanto merger: implications for South Africa’s agricultural future and its smallholder farmers [Online]. Available from: http://acbio.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Bayer-Monsanto-report.pdf [Accessed 4th March 2017].

  • Acharya, A. 2011. Human security. IN: Baylis, J., Smith, S. and Owens, P. (eds.) The globalization of world politics, an introduction to international relations. 5th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 478–493.

    Google Scholar 

  • AFSA and GRAIN. 2015. Land and seed laws under attack, who is pushing changes in Africa? [Online]. Available from: http://www.grain.org [Accessed 22nd January 2016].

  • Alden, C. 2007. China in Africa. London: Zed Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alemu, D. 2011. The political economy of Ethiopian cereal seed systems: state control, market liberalisation and decentralisation. IDS Bulletin, 42(4), pp. 69–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Altieri, M.A. 2009. Agroecology, small farms and food sovereignty. Monthly Review [Online]. Available from: http://search.proquest.com/openview/98165d33d3bec3c0f47ca6821e49eef0/1, 61(3), pp. 102–113 [Accessed 6th December 2010].

  • Amanor, K.S. 2011. From farmer participation to pro-poor seed markets: the political economy of commercial cereal seed networks in Ghana. IDS Bulletin, 42(4), pp. 48–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berne Declaration. 2013. Agropoly: a handful of corporations control world food production. Zurich, Switzerland: Berne Declaration & EcoNexus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berne Declaration. 2014. Owning seeds, accessing food, a human rights impact assessment of UPOV 1991. Based on case studies in Kenya, Peru and the Philippines. Zurich, Switzerland: Berne Declaration.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carmody, P. 2011. The new scramble for Africa. Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carolan, M. 2012. The sociology of food and agriculture. Earthscan Routledge: New York.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cerny, P. 2010. Rethinking world politics, a theory of transnational neopluralism. Oxford: Oxford University press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Chinsinga, B. 2011. Seeds and subsidies: the political economy of input programmes in Malawi. IDS Bulletin, 42(4), pp. 59–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clapp, J. 2014. Food security and food sovereignty: getting past the binary. Dialogues in Human Geography, 4(2) 206–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coordination Sud. 2017. The right to seeds: a fundamental right for small farmers! Paris, France: Coordination Sud.

    Google Scholar 

  • Da Via, E. 2012. Seed diversity, farmers’ rights, and the politics of repeasantisation. International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food, 19 (2), pp. 229–242.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Jonge, B. 2014. Plant variety protection in sub-Saharan Africa: balancing commercial and smallholder farmers’ interests. Journal of Politics and Law, 7 (3), pp. 100–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Schutter, O. 2009. Seed policies and the right to food: enhancing agrobiodiversity and encouraging innovation report of the Special Rapporteur. A/64/170 United Nations General Assembly [Online]. Available from: http://farmersrights.org/pdf/righttofood-n0942473.pdf [Accessed 23rd February 2013].

  • Downes, G. 2003. Implications of TRIPS for food security in the majority world [Online]. Available from: http://comhlamh.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Implications-of-Trips-for-Food-Security.pdf [Accessed 10th April 2017].

  • Dutfield, G. 2011. Food, biological diversity and intellectual property: the role of the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV). Intellectual Property Issue, Paper No.9. Quaker United Nations Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edelman, M. 2014. Food sovereignty: forgotten genealogies and future regulatory challenges. Journal of Peasant Studies, 41(6), pp. 959–978.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Esquinas-Alcazar, J. 2005. Protecting crop genetic diversity for food security: political, ethical and technical challenges. Nature, 6, pp. 946–953, www.nature.com/reviews/genetics.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ETC (Erosion, Technology and Concentration Group). 2009. Who will feed us? Questions for the food and climate crises [Online]. Available from: http://www.etcgroup.org/sites/www.etcgroup.org/files/web_who_will_feed_us_with_notes_0.pdf [Accessed 1stFebruary 2012].

  • ETC (Erosion, Technology and Concentration Group). 2010. Capturing climate genes. Gene giants stockpile ‘climate-ready’ patents [Online]. Available from: http://www.etcgroup.org/content/gene-giants-stockpile-patents-“climateready”-crops-bid-become-biomassters-0 [Accessed 1st February 2012].

  • Evans, P. 2008. Is an alternative globalisation possible? Politics and Society, 36(271), pp. 271–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • FAO. 1983. World food security: a reappraisal of the concepts and approaches. Director General’s Report: Rome. Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations.

    Google Scholar 

  • FAO. 1996. Rome Declaration on world food security and World Food Summit Plan of Action. World Food Summit, Rome 13–17 November. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations.

    Google Scholar 

  • FAO. 2003. Trade reforms and food security: conceptualising the linkages. Rome: Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations.

    Google Scholar 

  • FAO. 2006. Food Security. FAO Policy Brief, June 2006, Issue 2. Available at http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/faoitaly/documents/pdf/pdf_Food_Security_Cocept_Note.pdf. Accessed 26 Dec 2018.

  • FAO. 2009. Proceedings of the second World Seed Conference. Responding to the challenges of a changing world: The role of new plant varieties and high quality seed in agriculture. FAO Headquarters, Rome, September 8–10 [Online]. Available from: www.fao.org/docrep/014/am490e/am490e00.pdf [Accessed 11th May 2013]. Rome: FAO.

  • FAO. 2010. The second report on the state of the world’s plant genetic resources for food and agriculture [Online]. Available from: www.fao.org/docrep/013/i1500e/i1500e.pdf [Accessed 19th December 2015] Rome: FAO.

  • FAO. 2011. Potential effects of climate change on crop pollination. Rome: FAO.

    Google Scholar 

  • FAO. 2014. The state of food and agriculture. Innovation in family farming [Online]. Available from: www.fao.org/publications/sofa/2014/en [Accessed 11th May 2013]. Rome: FAO.

  • FAO. 2015. The state of food insecurity in the world. Rome: FAO.

    Google Scholar 

  • FAO. 2016. Climate change and food security: risks and responses. Rome: FAO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Focus on the Global South and GRAIN. 2004. Iraq’s new patent law: a declaration of war against farmers [Online]. Available from: https://www.grain.org/article/entries/150-iraq-s-new-patent-law-a-declaration-of-war-against-farmers [Accessed 31st March 2017].

  • Future Agricultures. 2014. Emerging seed markets: the role of Brazilian, Chinese and Indian seeds in African agriculture. Future Agricultures Policy Brief 79, October 2014 [Online]. Available from: www.future-agriculture.org. [Accessed 3rd August 2015].

  • Gates Foundation and AGRA. 2015. Investing in agriculture to reduce poverty and hunger [Online]. Available from: http://www.gatesfoundation.org/How-We-Work/Resources/Grantee-Profiles/Grantee-Profile-Alliance-for-a-Green-Revolution-in-Africa-AGRA [Accessed 21stOctober 2015].

  • George, S. 2015. Shadow sovereigns—how global corporations are seizing power. Cambridge UK: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilpin, R. 2001. Global political economy. Princeton University Press: Princeton.

    Google Scholar 

  • GRAIN. 2005. Africa’s seed laws: red carpet for the corporations [Online]. Available from: https://www.grain.org/article/entries/540-africa-s-seeds-laws-red-carpet-for-corporations [Accessed 11th November 2014].

  • Grey, S. and Patel, R. 2015. Food sovereignty as decolonisation: some contributions from indigenous movements to food systems and development politics. Agriculture and Human Values (32) pp. 431–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, G. 2010. Neoliberal Africa: The impact of global social engineering. London Zed Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, D. 2005. A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hassan, G. 2005. Biopiracy and GMOs: the fate of Iraq’s agriculture [Online]. Available from: http://www.globalresearch.ca/biopiracy-and-gmos-the-fate-of-iraq-s-agriculture/1447 [Accessed 12th March 2013].

  • Hay, C. and Marsh, D. 2000. Demystifying globalization. London and New York: Macmillan Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Held, D. and McGrew, A. 2007. Globalisation/anti-globalisation: beyond the great divide. 2nd ed, Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hettne, B. 2009. Thinking about development—development matters. London: Zed Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holt Gimenez, E. and Shattuck, A. 2011. Food crises, food regimes and food movements: rumblings of reform or tides of transformation? Journal of Peasant Studies, 38 (1), pp. 109–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IAASTD. 2009. Agriculture at a crossroads: a synthesis of the global and sub-global IAASTD reports. Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • IPCC. 2014. Climate change 2014: synthesis report, contribution of working groups I, II and III to the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Online]. Available from: http://ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf. [Accessed 30th March 2017].

  • Jarosz, L. 2014. Comparing food security and food sovereignty discourses. Dialogues in Human Geography, 4(2) pp. 168–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jessop, B. 1997. Capitalism and its future: remarks on regulation, government and governance. Review of International Political Economy, 4(3), pp. 561–581.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kloppenburg, J. 2008. Seeds, sovereignty, and the Via Campesina. Plants, Property, and the Promise of Open Source Biology [Online]. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255583305_Seeds_Sovereignty_and_the_Via_Campesina_Plants_Property_and_the_Promise_of_Open_Source_Biology [Accessed 10th April 2017].

  • Kloppenburg, J. 2010. Impeding dispossession, enabling repossession: biological open source and the recovery of seed sovereignty. Journal of Agrarian Change, 10(3), pp. 367–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kloppenburg, J., 2014. Re-purposing the master’s tools: the open source seed initiative and the struggle for seed sovereignty. Journal of Peasant Studies, 41(6), pp. 1225–1246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korab-Karpowicz, W.J. 2010. Political realism in international relations. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [Online]. Available from: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism-intl-relations/. [Accessed 28th April 2014]

  • Kumashiro, K. 2012. When billionaires become educational experts. Academe, 99(3), pp. 10–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lahiff, E. 2007. Willing buyer, willing seller: South Africa’s failed experiment in market-led agrarian reform. Third World Quarterly, 28(8), pp. 1577–1597.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lahiff, E., Borras, S M, and Kay C. 2007. Market-Led Agrarian Reform: Policies, Performance and Prospects. Third World Quarterly, 28 (8), pp. 1417–1436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lamy, S.L. 2011. Contemporary mainstream approaches: neo-realism and neo-liberalism. IN: Baylis, J., Smith, S. and Owens, P. (eds.) The globalization of world politics, an introduction to international relations. 5th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 114–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langyintuo, A. 2011. African agriculture and productivity. Nairobi, Kenya: Alliance for a Green Revolution.

    Google Scholar 

  • La Via Campesina (LVC). 1996. The right to produce and access to land [Online]. Available from: http://www.acordinternational.org/silo/files/decfoodsov1996.pdf [Accessed 22nd December 2018].

  • La Via Campesina (LVC). 2008. Declaration of Maputo. IN: V International Conference of LVC, October 19–22 [Online]. Available from: http://viacampesina.org/en/index.php/our-conferences-mainmenu-28/5-maputo-2008-mainmenu-68/declarations-mainmenu-70/602-open-letter-from-maputo-v-international-conference-of-la-vcampesina [Accessed 22nd June 2015].

  • Louwaars, N.P., De Boef, W.S. and Edeme, J. 2013. Integrated seed sector development in Africa: A basis for seed policy and law. Journal of Crop Improvement. 27, pp. 186–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LVC. 2001. The position of Vía Campesina on biodiversity, biosafety and genetic resources. Development, 44(4), 47–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maathai, W. 2010. The challenge for Africa. London: Arrow Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Magdoff, F. and Tokar, B. 2010. Agriculture and food in crisis; conflict, resistance, and renewal. New York: Monthly Review Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCann, J.C. 2011. The political ecology of cereal seed development in Africa: a history of selection. IDS Bulletin, 42(4), pp. 24–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGuire, S. and Sperling, L. 2011. The links between food security and seed security: facts and fiction that guide response. Development in Practice. 21(4–5), pp. 493–508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKeon, N. 2015. Food security governance; empowering communities, regulating corporations. London and New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • McMichael, P. and Schneider, M. 2011. Food security politics and the millennium development goals. Third World Quarterly, 32(1), pp. 119–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minde, I. 2004. Harmonizing seed policies and regulations in Eastern Africa: experiences and lessons learned. Entebbe, Uganda: Eastern and Central African Programme for Agricultural Policy Analysis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mooney, P. 1979. Seeds of the earth: a private or public resource. Inter Pares for the Canadian Council for International Co-operation and The International Coalition for Development Action.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mooney, P. 1983. The law of the seed—another development and plant genetic resources. Development Dialogue, 1(2).

    Google Scholar 

  • Munyi, P. 2015. Plant variety protection regime in relation to relevant international obligations: implications for smallholder farmers in Kenya. The Journal of Intellectual Property, 18(1–2), pp. 65–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munyi, P. and De Jonge, B. 2015. Seed systems support in Kenya: consideration for an integrated seed sector development approach. Journal of Sustainable Development, 8(2), pp. 161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munyi, P., De Jonge, B. and Visser, B. 2016. Opportunities and threats to harmonisation of plant breeders’ rights in Africa: ARIPO and SADC. African Journal of International and Comparative Law, 24(1), pp. 86–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, S. 2013. Land grabs and fragile food systems—the role of globalisation. Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, S. 2014. Expanding the possibilities for a future free of hunger. Dialogues in Human Geography [Online], 4(2), pp. 225–228. Available from: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/2043820614537166 [Accessed 26th September 2014].

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nabhan, G. 1997. Cultures of habitat. Washington, DC: Counterpoint.

    Google Scholar 

  • New Internationalist. 2010. Seeds—the facts. New Internationalist, 435, pp. 10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oakland Institute. 2017. Down on the seed: The World Bank enables corporate takeover of seeds. California, USA: Oakland Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Odame, H. and Muange, E. 2011. Can agro-dealers deliver the green revolution in Kenya? IDS Bulletin, 42(4), pp. 78–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ohmae, K. 1995. The end of the nation state: the rise of regional economies. London: Harper Collins Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patel, R. 2007. Stuffed and starved. London: Portobello Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patel, R. 2009. What does food sovereignty look like? The Journal of Peasant Studies, 36(3), pp. 663–706.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Remington, T., Maroko, J., Walsh, S., Omanga, P. and Charles, E. 2002. Getting off the seeds-and-tools treadmill with CRS seed vouchers and fairs. Disasters, 26(4), pp. 316–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robin, M. 2010. The world according to Monsanto: pollution, corruption, and the control of our food supply. New York: The New Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosset, P. 2003. Food sovereignty: global rallying cry of farmer movements. Institute for Food and Development Policy Backgrounder, 9(4), pp. 1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scholte, J.A. 2008. Defining globalisation. The World Economy, 31(11), pp. 1471–1502.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scoones, I. and Thompson, J. 2011. The politics of seed in Africa’s green revolution. alternative narratives and competing pathways. IDS Bulletin, 42(4), pp. 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A. 1981. Poverty and famines. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaw D. J. 2007. World Food Security: A History Since 1945. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Shiva, V. 1993. Monocultures of the mind: perspectives on biodiversity and biotechnology. London and New Jersey: Zed Books

    Google Scholar 

  • Shiva, V. 2005. India divided: diversity and democracy under attack. New York: An Open Media Book, Seven Stories Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shiva, V. 2013. The law of the seed. [Online]. Available from: www.navdanya.org/attachments/Latest_Publications4.pdf [Accessed 2nd April 2015].

  • Sklair, L. 2002. Globalisation, capitalism and its alternatives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sperling, L. 2008. When disaster strikes: a guide for assessing seed security. Cali: CIAT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stiglitz, J. 2005. The overselling of globalisation. IN Weinstein, M.M. (ed.), Globalisation: what’s new. New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 228–262.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strange, S. 1996. The retreat of the state. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tansey, G. 2011. Whose power to control? Some reflections on seed systems and food security in a changing world. IDS Bulletin, 42(4), pp. 111–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The Guardian. 2014. G8 New Alliance condemned as a new wave of colonialism in Africa. The Guardian [Online], 18th February. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2014/feb/18/g8-new-alliance-condemned-new-colonialism [Accessed 14/8/2014].

  • Thompson, C.B. 2014. Philanthrocapitalism: appropriation of Africa’s genetic wealth. Review of African Political Economy, 41(141), pp. 389–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UN. 2000. We the peoples. The role of the United Nations in the 21st century. New York: United Nations.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNDP-UNDAF. 2011. Ethiopia United Nations Development Assistance Framework 2012–2015. United Nations Country Team, March 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  • USAID. 1995. Food aid for food security, policy paper. Washington, DC: Bureau for Programme and Policy Coordination, USAID.

    Google Scholar 

  • USAID. 2012. Ethiopia country development cooperation strategy 2011–2015: accelerating the transformation toward prosperity [Online]. Available from: https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1860/Country%20Development%20Cooperation%20Strategy%20-%20Ethiopia%20March%202012.pdf. [Accessed 12th January 2014].

  • USDA Foreign Agricultural Service. 2008. Kenya planting seed report. GAIN Report number: KE8010.

    Google Scholar 

  • Visser, O., Mamonova, N., Spoor, M. and Nikulin, A. 2015. ‘Quiet food sovereignty’ as food sovereignty without a movement? Insights from post-socialist Russia. Globalizations, 12(4), pp. 513–528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Windfuhr, M. and Jansen, J. 2005. Food sovereignty: towards democracy in localised food systems. Rugby, Warwickshire: FIAN ITDG Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • World Bank. 1986. Poverty and hunger. Washington, DC: World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Bank. 2008. World Bank Development Report: Agriculture for Development. Washington DC: World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Bank. 2013a. World Bank Group Agriculture Action Plan 2013–1015 [Online]. Available from: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2013/03/1749873:bank-group-agriculture-action-plan-2013-2015. [Accessed 22nd June 2015].

  • World Bank. 2013b. World development report. Risk and opportunity: managing risk for development. Washington, DC: World Bank.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Law and Government, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland

    Clare O’Grady Walshe

Authors
  1. Clare O’Grady Walshe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Clare O’Grady Walshe .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

O’Grady Walshe, C. (2019). Seed Sovereignty and Globalisation. In: Globalisation and Seed Sovereignty in Sub-Saharan Africa. International Political Economy Series. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12870-8_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation