The creation of a democratic food certification

(1)

Greta Borrelli

The creation of a democratic food certification

How the Slow Food Participatory Guarantee System attempts to defend local food systems and traditions

Master’s thesis in Global Environmental History

(2)

2

(3)

3

Abstract

Borrelli, G. 2021. The creation of a democratic food certification: How the Slow Food

Participatory Guarantee System attempts to defend local food systems and traditions. Uppsala, Dept of Archaeology and Ancient History.

Borrelli, G. 2021. Kampen för att skapa mer demokratiska matcertifieringssystem: Bevarandet av lokala mattraditioner genom Slow Food Presidias deltagande garantisystem.

This thesis explores if and how an alternative certification system for agricultural products, the Participatory Guarantee System (PGS), could support small-scale farmers to preserve and promote biocultural and food heritage, linked to the landscape they inhabit, their identity as farmers and traditional knowledge. The PGS has been identified by Slow Food as an efficient low-cost and local 'bottom-up' quality assurance system, in order to develop their Presidia project and to re- embed agricultural productions within their traditional socio-ecological contexts. Small-holder farmers all over the world encounter problems in accessing conventional certification systems because of their complexity and strict quality compliance standards, which tend to marginalize this category of producers. I have critically analyzed the extent to which actors and stakeholders agree with PGS core principles and if, and how, a well-formulated PGS certification can be regarded as a democratic process which fulfils its broader goals. In order to re-structure society from an agri- food perspective, towards a more democratic governance, the core problem lays in how standards and certifications are formed, assessed and applied. The crux of this study is to examine the degree to which a different type of governance, such as the PGS, can induce democratic and participatory methods of food certification. I have conducted semi-structured interviews with various local actors who belong to the social field of alternative food productions underneath the umbrella of Slow Food. Here I investigate the social dimension, the debate and comprehension of the PGS, and the concept of Governmentality by Foucault, as applied to Presidia. In the thesis I show that the PGS provide social benefits to local communities that undergo this certification process. The PGS is able to contribute to the creation of solidarity among actors within the food system, designing a transparent certification system against the logic of commodification.

Keywords: Participatory Guarantee System, Food certifications, Food standards, Organic movement, Organic certification, Slow Food, Presidia project, Biocultural heritage, Food heritage, Traditional food knowledge, Governmentality, Empowerment.

Master’s thesis in Global Environmental History (45 credits), supervisor: Örjan Bartholdson.

Defended and approved spring term 2021-06-20

Department of Archaeology and Ancient History, Uppsala University, Box 626, 75126 Uppsala, Sweden

(4)

4

Acknowledgements

First and foremost, I want to thank my supervisor Örjan Bartholdson, who has been inspirational and supportive in developing this thesis and for his valuable feedbacks. I also want to thank Anneli Ekblom, for her encouragement and guidance throughout the master programme and help during the writing process of this thesis.

I would like to thank everyone at Slow Food who supported me with this project, particularly Carolina Modena, who provided me with useful and inspiring thoughts and helped me to contact the participants to interview.

I wish also to thank the participants, whom have been vital for this thesis and who generously shared their time giving me the opportunity to have precious insights about their world, it has been a pleasure learning from all of you: Marco Del Pistoia, Hans Czerny, Samson Ngugi, Antônio Augusto, Valdir Magri, Horacio Torres De Ita, Bibiana Bautista Gaitán, Tifenn Yvon.

Last but not least, I would like to thank my family, and especially my mother, for their moral support and unremitting belief in me, sharing ideas, problems and successes during this thesis as well as throughout my university studies. Their love and understanding enabled me to find my way.

(5)

5

List of acronyms

ACORDI Associação Comunitária Rural de Imbituba Rural Communitarian Association of Imbituba AFN Alternative Food Network

AoA Agreement on Agriculture

ARSIA

Agenzia Regionale per lo Sviluppo e l’Innovazione nel settore Agro-forestale

Regional Agency for Development and Innovation of the Agro-forestry sector

CSA Community supported agriculture CSR Corporate Social Responsibility ETI Ethical Trading Initiative EU European Union

EurepGAP European Retail Produce Working Group Good Agricultural Practices

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization

FLO Fairtrade Labeling Organizations International FS Food Sovereignty

GATT General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade

GIAHS Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems GlobalGAP Global Good Agricultural Practices

GMOs Genetically modified organisms ICS Internal Control Systems

IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development

(8)

8

IFOAM The International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements

IMF International Monetary Fund

ISO International Organization for Standardization LVC La Via Campesina

MAELA Latin American Agroecology Movement NGO Non-Governmental Organization

PGS Participatory Guarantee Systems

PNAE Programa Nacional de Alimentação Escolar National School Feeding Program

SF Slow Food

SFSCs Short Food Supply Chains

TEK Traditional Ecological Knowledge TFK Traditional Food Knowledge TNCs Transnational corporations TPC Third-party certifier

UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

WTO World Trade Organization

(9)

9

1. Introduction

Globalization has disrupted the conception of place and time, increasing the distance between food as commodity and the final consumer. Our contemporary food regime (cf. McMichael 2013) is dominated by agro-industrial transnational corporations (TNCs) across the agricultural sector;

food trading and processing; and retailing (Clapp 2016). Due to their influence, the TNCs are able to set the prices on both the suppliers and the buyers’ side, driven by the corporate goal of maximizing shareholder value and consequently outcompeting local small-holder farmers. In contrast to this, stands the idea of food as a ‘common’, relating to the need of detaching common goods (such as food, water and air) from market dynamics (Pettenati et al. 2019; Vivero-Pol et al.

2019). Indeed, one of the biggest outcomes of the globalized food market is the low cost of food, which is a paradox if we take into consideration that the actual cost of producing and transporting this same food is very costly, let alone the hidden cost of environmental degradation. In this context, organic and sustainable small-scale farming represents a counter measure against commodification of food and an option for meeting the challenge of how to feed a growing global population in an equitable and sustainable way (see discussion in Zikeli et al. 2014). Local small- scale production also promotes food security, sovereignty, biodiversity, and ecosystem restoration.

Since the 1980s, biological extinction has been recognized as a global crisis (cf. Myers et al.

2000). The social, cultural, and ecological knowledge of small-scale farmers make them custodians not only of biodiversity but also of food heritages (which involve plants, animals, processed foods and food linked practices and sites). As it will be discussed here, food heritages are influenced by the social sphere of the particular territory where they are produced, thus undergoing a process of ‘typicality’, which supports and consolidates their history and their link with the territory and its inhabitants.

As a result of environmental concerns and publicized incidents of food borne illnesses, consumers have become increasingly concerned about food safety and quality standards, and more conscious about production methods, techniques, and the negative effects of mass consumption (see review in Hatanaka et al. 2005). Consequently, a growing segment of food consumers in Western countries now demands to know how their food is produced, so as to make active choices of what they consume. However, they need some trustworthy criteria which help them in making such choices. Potentially, standards and certifications could embrace the role of diminishing the distance between commodities, and thus farmers and consumers, leading to a “caring at distance”

philosophy. Such an example is purchases of food from the Global South which have increased with ethical certification, as concerned consumers now can assess social and ecological impacts (Trentmann 2008).

Over the last few decades most certifications have been implemented through Third-party certification (TPC) systems, established by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) as a regulatory mechanism for assessing food safety and quality in the global agri-food system. However, for the producers, classical third-party certification (TPC) systems are problematic. Such as the excessive bureaucracy required in terms of documentation and standard checks by field audits (which in turn requires specialized technical knowledge), resulting in high costs of these TPC services having to be paid by farmers (Barrett et al. 2002 cf. Hatanaka et al.

2005). Third-party certifiers do not also contextualize field visits, obscuring the specific characteristics and challenges existing for producers in different territories (e.g., soil and weather

(10)

10

conditions). Overall, certifications remain mostly embedded in a type of capitalist consumers ethic, driven by a top-down perspective and the increasing obsession for forms of certifications in the Western world, where workers conditions are still assessed by the system, therefore resulting in just another “trick to sell” (Trentmann 2008). Organic farming standards (such as the ones proposed by IFOAM), by contrast, emphasize the importance of local, traditional varieties, breeds and cultivators of organic farming systems (Zikeli et al. 2014). Traditional products have an added value that permit consumers to feel connected to a specific region, helping farmers economically while conserving genetic resources of domesticated flora and fauna. Still, the institutionalization of organic standards and the growth of the organic sector end up marginalizing the same smallholders who were the main actors at the origin of the Organic movement, risking resulting in the same inequality and socially unsustainable practices as in the current food regime at large.

With the dramatic loss of biodiversity and traditional agricultural knowledge and practices, which are part of cultures around the world, many international organizations have acted to recognize and preserve traditional and local food systems and support small farmers, underlining the importance of their role in maintaining global biocultural heritages and their economic and social importance (see discussion Fernandez et al. 2020). In my thesis I explore the example of the Slow Food association, as international movement born in Italy in 1986 with the aim to promote conscious and responsible consumption and food cultures, embracing ecological concerns and social justice as part of their vision of sustainable food systems. According to the Slow Food association, recognizing small-scale producers work means strengthening their sense of identity as food producers, preserving worldwide local biodiversity and maintaining traditional knowledge related to agriculture and local people’s identity and cultural values, while providing nutritious and high-quality products to local markets and considering the ethical dimensions of agricultural practices taking in caring for the biological world (see discussion in Fernandez et al. 2020). One of Slow Food’s most prominent projects is the Presidia project, which aims at supporting traditional local products as well as ecosystems at risk of extinction together with their unique agro-biodiversity and valuable farming knowledge, with and through local farmers, some of which we will encounter in the chapters to come.

In the thesis I introduce the alternative certification scheme provided by the Participatory Guarantee System (PGS), evolving since the 1970s as alternative to the organic conventional certification. The PGS has been identified as a credible and suitable control system by Slow Food in order to develop Presidia projects and to re-embed agricultural productions into their socio- ecological contexts (Rota et al. 2020). At the time when this thesis was written, Slow Food was internally discussing the further implementation of the PGS tool. Therefore, I had the opportunity to discuss the role of this certification system with local Presidia producers. These conversations also led to discussions on what motivates small-scale farmers to continue producing a heritage crop, and what the challenges are. My personal motivation to investigate a participatory certification has been generated by my interest in agriculture and sustainable food systems.

Moreover, I have been inspired by my internship at Slow Food which took place during the organization of their international event called Terra Madre¹(October 2020 - May 2021). During the internship I had the occasion to come closer to the topic of the Participatory Guarantee System (PGS), constituting a form of participatory observation where I could collect ideas and information for my thesis.

1The Terra Madre network was launched in 2004 in Turin, as a project conceived by Slow Food to support small-scale producers from all over the world and bring them together in this event held every two years where they have the opportunity to discuss the future of local economies, politics and sustainable production (https://www.terramadre.info/en/organization/who-we-are/).

(11)

11

1.1. Aims and questions

The aim of this master thesis is to explore if and how an alternative certification system for agricultural products, such as the Participatory Guarantee System (PGS), can support the preservation and promotion of local food heritages and traditions. To do so, I will draw on the Slow Food initiative as a case study, having begun to apply the PGS to products which are part of the Presidia project. Subsequently, I shall focus on how local actors and Slow Food regard the PGS certification. I shall explore how the PGS emerged as a result of a changing ‘assemblage’ of individuals’ rationalities realizing the limits of conventional third-party certification (TPC) systems, and their will to challenge the inequalities of the corporate food regime. To do so, farmers react actively within the structure by adopting an alternative tool capable of empowering them in participating in the process of certification.

Initially, I have broken up the overarching research problem into the following research questions:

1) How do local farmers regard aspects of heritage, ‘sustainability’ and food production and what role do they believe the PGS fulfill in their work as farmers?

2) How do people experience the PGS locally and in relation to other certification systems?

3) What are the positive and negative effects of the PGS on Presidia actors and what are the potential outcomes of preserving small-scale productions linked to local food heritages?

My hope is that this study will contribute to the literature on food certification and standardization, adopting an analysis of the needs and challenges faced by small-scale farmers on a local level and on the Participatory Guarantee System (PGS) as a possible tool to support their food assets.

1.2. The context

In recent years, traditional food systems have been increasingly discussed as a means of fostering sustainable livelihoods by improving ecosystems health and community capacity (Fernandez et al.

2020). These systems have developed over the centuries focusing on the giving and taking between man and nature. They are characterized by uniqueness, for the quality and for their evident strong link with local biodiversity, traditional food production and the culture of the territory.

Furthermore, their distinctiveness is the result of knowledge accumulated and transmitted from generation to generation by indigenous people, knowledge that dynamically became richer over the years and is at the base of the identity of local populations. What emerges from these productions is indeed the “know-how” that has allowed rural communities to respond to the challenges and needs of their natural environments and historical contexts (Fernandez et al. 2020).

Theories advanced within this discussion include the need to acknowledge biocultural assets or heritages within eco‐cultural landscapes (e.g., Bridgewater and Walton 1996; Merçon et al. 2019;

Rotherham 2015 cited in Bridgewater and Rotherham, 2019) and the significance of recognizing

‘intangible cultural heritages’ (Bridgewater and Rotherham 2019). UNESCO (2018 cited in Bridgewater and Rotherham 2019) pointed out that cultural heritage is not merely about monuments and objects but also involves traditions or living expressions inherited from ancestors, concluding that fragile, intangible cultural heritages are crucial in maintaining cultural diversity in the face of globalization. The origin of the dispute goes back to 1988, when The Declaration of Belém originated from the First International Congress of Ethnobiology occurred in Brazil (Bridgewater and Rotherham 2019).² During this congress the biocultural concept was illustrated, denoting ‘that there is an inextricable link between cultural and biological diversity’. Here,

2 At the congress, indigenous and traditional peoples from around the world and scientists and environmentalists discussed ways to find a strategy to stop the dramatic decline in global diversity of both nature and culture and to develop models to support the preservation and strengthening of these communities and their traditional knowledge (Bridgewater and Rotherham 2019).

(12)

12

“biocultural” is understood as a particular state developed from the interaction between people and nature at a given time and in a given place. Instead, “biocultural diversity” is considered a dynamic, place-based aspect, developed from links between cultural and biological diversity (Bridgewater and Rotherham 2019). However, the above-mentioned terms of “biocultural” diversity as well as

“biocultural” heritage have arisen more recently as part of the efforts to close the nature-culture division, and as representations of a holistic approach adopted by many indigenous people, and local communities, recognizing traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) as ‘heritage’ and thus mirroring their responsibility to being custodians who safeguard their knowledge (Bridgewater and Rotherham 2019). The term biocultural heritage has been particularly introduced in the 1980s along with the attention paid on community-based resource management (c.f. Swiderska et al.

2018; Ekblom et al. 2019).

Local traditional knowledge is also associated with agro‐biodiversity (Bridgewater and Rotherham 2019). The global inventory of agro‐biodiversity heritage sites (Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems [GIAHS] of the Food and Agriculture Organization [FAO]), is a concrete example of the role of biocultural diversity in the agro‐biodiversity context (Bridgewater and Rotherham 2019). Since UNESCOs acknowledgment of the “Intangible cultural heritage”, some culinary traditions were inserted to the list a few years later, recognizing what people perceive as an important part of their food cultures through specific way of preparing dishes and festivals and rituals linked to foods. The term traditional food knowledge (TFK) refers specifically to the cultural traditions linked to food, from ways/habits of sharing it within communities to recipes and cooking skills and techniques, a knowledge which is passed as collective wisdom from generation to generation. This knowledge is increasingly fading as a consequence of the changes that food systems undergo because of the pressuring forces from global industrialization, urbanization and cultural and taste homogenization. Protecting this knowledge is of utmost importance for fostering sustainable livelihoods and ecosystem health. Not to mention, that traditional food knowledge can be considered as an effective means in order to strengthen the bond between people and the natural world (see discussion in Kwik 2008). However, in order to preserve TEK, as well as agrobiodiversity and ecosystem services, the so-called ‘biocultural refugia’ by Barthel et al.

(2013), have to be protected in their whole complexity. The concept of ‘biocultural refugia’

represents landscapes where these practices, knowledge and experiences on food production and local ecosystem, transmitted through time, reflect practices important for adapting to environmental fluctuations, allowing species to flourish. From this perspective, the human-nature relationship is then based on a mutual dependence to survive.

As a countermeasure against the corporate food regime, the so-called alternative'/ `quality' / `local' food networks have proliferated over the years, and their purposes have been ranged from organics and fair trade to regional and artisanal products (see review in Whatmore et al. 2003). The main principle of these food networks is their intention to create food markets that redistribute value, against the logic of bulk commodity production which is typical of the conventional food system.

By doing so, they tend to communicate new forms of political agency and market governance, referring to issues such as environmental degradation and the detrimental dominance of agribusiness and large-scale retail distribution on small-scale farmers and their food heritages (as discussed above). These networks aspirate to re-establish ‘trust’ between producers and consumers, giving ‘quality’ a political shift by placing food and farming at the core of wider developments (e.g., environmental, public) (idem.). Short food-supply chains are a symbol of alternative food networks since they indicate relations of proximity, such as through farmers’

markets, and relations beyond trading mechanisms, such as within/among fair-trade networks (idem.)³.

3 Jarosz (2008) identifies four attributes in the heterogeneous group of Alternative Food Networks (AFNs) initiatives: (1) a shorter distance between producer and consumer; (2) a reduction in size and scale of farms, practicing sustainable farming methods, contrasting industrial, large-scale agriculture; (3) the existence of food purchasing schemes that acknowledge social interaction

(13)

13

Bearing this ambition in mind, Slow Food was born in Italy in 1986, when the founder Carlo Petrini and a group of Italians protested against the opening of a McDonald’s near the Spanish Steps in Rome (Philippon 2015). The movement has then gradually grown into an international organization, reaching more than 100,000 members in 150 countries (with the greatest number of members in Italy and the United States). In Slow Food ideology the concept of 'slowness' plays a central role, as expression and refusal of the productive logic, stressing the respect for the environment and human rhythms and moderation in various forms (Siniscalchi 2013). When in 2005 the founder and leader Carlo Petrini published the book: Buono, pulito e giusto, Slow Food’s philosophy was clearly illustrated by his statement that food should be 'Good, Clean and Fair' and which now has indeed become the movement's slogan (Philippon 2015). “Good” refers to the taste and quality of food products which are part of our local cultures. “Clean” denotes techniques of production, as well as forms of distribution, that respect the environment, animal welfare and human health and therefore it implies the reduction or abolishment of chemicals and related environmental damaging factors. However, it is important to stress that it does not necessarily mean 'organic', therefore measurable by criteria given by organic certifications, since very small producers often cannot obtain the organic certificate due to aforementioned obstacles, and so they are not excluded in this criterion. Finally, “Fair” in relation to production, distribution and consumption means respecting human rights and defending aspects such as fair wages and working conditions. In 1999, the Slow Food Foundation for Biodiversity⁴ launched the Presidia project, aiming at supporting traditional local products as well as ecosystems at risk of extinction, and their unique agro-biodiversity and valuable farming knowledge (Fernandez et al. 2020)⁵. The products included in the Presidia project are often at a risk of disappearing since they are not considered relevant and profitable in the market and, consequently, producers struggle to maintain their cultivation (see Siniscalchi 2013). Recently, Slow Food has developed an interest in Participatory Guarantee Systems as part of an evolution of the Presidia project (Rota et al. 2020). Through this system, Slow Food aim is to improve the credibility of the Slow Food system and thus in Presidia productions. Last but not least, Slow Food has showed interest in adopting a bottom-up system which ensures that products are “Good, Clean and Fair”⁶, with just a minimal intervention from Slow Food headquarters, permitting local areas to keep their independence and be resilient over time⁷. In this thesis I will discuss the process of definition of the PGS for some Presidia producers and discuss critically the positive and possible negative effects of the PGS in terms of the aims and ideals of the PGS, the Presidia project and Slow Food and what they seek to achieve.

between producer and consumer, and (4) a commitment to the different dimensions (social, economic and environmental) of a sustainable food.

4In 2003, the non-profit "Slow Food Foundation for Biodiversity" was created, with the aim of raising funds and investing them in the defence of biodiversity, mainly in Southern countries where there is a strong need to support local food production networks (Siniscalchi 2013).

5 Among the different activities, Slow Food publish manuals and guide books, promoting conscious and responsible consumption and food culture; they organize well-attended global symposiums, connecting food producer communities, professionals and consumers through the Salone del Gusto and Terra Madre Summit in Turin; and have founded the University of Gastronomic Sciences in 2004 in Pollenzo, Italy, educating students about the relationship between agriculture, biodiversity, and gastronomy (Philippon 2015).

6 As suggested by Siniscalchi (2013), the triad of 'Good, Clean and Fair' can be also read as a representation of Slow Food’s evolution over time. 'Good, Clean and Fair' are representative of an alternative 'moral economy' which is in contrast with liberalism and promotes a reform agenda that operates within the world’s economy (Siniscalchi 2013).

7https://www.slowfood.com/a-participatory-guarantee-system-for-indigenous-led-slow-food-

presidia/#:~:text=A%20PGS%20initiative%20for%20Slow,except%20in%20some%20specific%20cases

(14)

14

2. Conceptualization and Method

In this chapter I will explain my research from a conceptual and methodological point of view. An overarching frame is the understanding of biocultural and food heritage as intimately linked to landscape, identity and knowledge as I have already explained in Chapter 1.2. Alternative food networks such as Terra Madre, Slow Food and their Presidia projects are all embedded in this framework. Here I investigate the social dimension and negotiations of the studied Presidia and the debate and comprehension of PGS inspired by the concept of Governmentality. Indeed, the decision of this topic has been triggered by a personal recognition of the fact that, the emergence and affirmation of standards and labeling practices are linked to legitimacy and power. Therefore, adopting a Foucauldian view of how power is enacted on micro-level has helped me to understand how the current corporate food regime influences actors in the global and local food sector. A common critique against the TPC (as also the organic certification) is that they impose a certain logic and standard on small-scale farmers. Here, I ask critically to what degree the PGS are supposed to act in a similar way, by constructing certain practices and knowledge, or if the PGS manage to achieve what they promise, e.g., to what degree do local actors build the certification process from bottom-up?

2.1.1 Governmentality in this thesis

Over the years, governmentality has been interpreted in several ways, as a general political theory or as an analytical tool and critical perspective on governing. During this thesis I shall refer to the latter interpretation, which is in line with the analytical framework of governmentality advanced by Dean (2011). In this way, governmentality serves me as a useful tool to scrutinize and understand notions of how states and bureaucratic systems discipline and influence people who are within these systems jurisdiction. Certifications are an excellent example of such acts of disciplining. Foucault (cited in Dean 2011) refers to governmentality not simply as a means to order people and things around, but rather as the analysis of government and the attempts to deliberately shape and direct the human conduct⁸. As I illustrate later, the study of governmentality is strictly linked to the study of power, since re-conceptualizing power is a must in order to analyze governmentality and questioning the foundations of all aspects of a society (Dean 2011). This approach could serve to bring attention to modern forms of government as well as contesting the assumptions of the state, and of other actors (in this case food certification systems), in exercising power and sovereignty.

Certifications are ideological models, aiming at changing the consumption patterns of food consumers, leading individual consumers to internalize forms of moral consumption patterns. In other words, this is a clear example of what Foucault dubbed ‘governmentality’⁹, e.g., shaping of human conduct (e.g., behaviors, actions), according to specific norms to accomplish various

8 The concept of governmentality has assumed different interpretations in relation to liberalism (Dean 2011). On the one hand, the indirect notion of governing can result in the liberal belief of the exercise of rational choice in a market, as a self-managing force, while on the other hand, since the liberal modes of government shape the field of action, it consequently attempts to shape freedom, often through a paternalistic treatment, and works through the capacities of the governed.

9 In 1978, Michel Foucault presented the so-called ‘governmentality lecture’ during the course “Security, territory, population”

conducted at the Collège de France (Dean 2011). By opening a reflection on the role of the state - looking at power and sovereignty as intrinsically linked - and on which actors could possess and exercise power, he coined the expression “governmentality”.

(15)

15

purposes (see Dean 2011). Standards are created and intended to be within the space allowed by law, so both private standards and public regulations are analogous and occasionally intersecting practices of governance and governmentality (Busch 2011, p. 27). Certifications are followed by standards, practices and knowledge on behalf of both producers and consumers, requiring a certain kind of education and awareness. From the perspective of producers, certifications may also be linked to both forms of knowledge and tools and technologies linked to production.

I have decided to frame this study by the Foucault inspired notion of governmentality since I will preliminarily focus my attention on an opening analysis of how and with what means the market liberalization and the following dominance of TNCs and TPC institutions have influenced citizens’

conduct, in perceptions and behaviors towards food, and it has also shaped farmers’ conduct¹⁰, by imposing on them strict and not-locally-contextualized certification schemes and standards. I have already referred here several times to ‘food regimes’ (based on McMichael 2013), as a set of practices and technologies linked to production and distribution of food. Currently, and as discussed in Chapter 1, this top-down process is driven by market dominating forces, where governmental objectives are completely aligned with the same logics (Dean 2011).

In this thesis, I first and foremost intend to show how Slow Food producers and project managers struggle to make consumers change the very way they conceptualize food and how they consume it. I pose the question if Slow Food as a kind of Alternative Food Network (AFN), which proposes reforms and changes to the current food regime, can be seen as representing another way of governing production and consumption of food, e.g., Can this be regarded as a model proposing a new food regime? The PGS, emerged from a critique and ‘problematizing’ TPC practices as well as an alternative scheme to the way conventional food certifications (particularly the organic one) and standards operate. The act of ‘problematizing’, as a governing process emerge as actors question some aspects of their 'conduct of conduct' and how this is shaped on the basis of certain 'regime of practices' of government, depending on the assumption of freedom by the ones governed. What Dean (2010) refers to with the so-called ‘regimes of practices’, are the organized practices through which we are governed and in turn we govern our ‘self’. The Slow Food Presidia project and especially the recent initiative to apply a PGS to these small-scale productions wishes to promote self-determinacy by local communities. This form of empowerment is a common tool in governance (see discussion in Dean 2011). However, since empowerment is considered a way for governments to enable their citizens to “participate in decision-making processes”, it has led me to question to what extent this is really self-determinacy? The danger and problem of the TPC, and potentially also of the PGS, is that assuming this conceptualization of powers means also forcing participants to accept the basic premises of governance.

The concept of empowerment raises a number of questions. Empowerment in relation to within what context and how the act of empowerment is exercised; collectively or individually? I have tried to present the context and the motivations of the food producers so as to be able to discern if and in what sense they can be argued to be ‘empowered’. The development buzzword

‘empowerment’ implies that actors’ leeway to act is expanded and thus less constrained than it initially was. These actors can both be collective and individual, and the constraints can be of very different kind. In the concept empowerment, however, both the concepts of structures and agency are integrated.

The way I decided to approach the framework for my analysis guided me to study governing through diverse forms and as it is applied to a variety of actors. Indeed, through the definition of

‘the conduct of conduct’ I will try to understand multiple actors, authorities, processes and different definitions, knowledge and techniques involved in building the PGS. I therefore particularly focus on non-state actors (e.g., TPC) and on different expressions of power relations, asking how actors define the importance of their activities and the negotiation of PGS in relation

10 Indeed, as I displayed in the background of the thesis, neoliberalism’s rejection of the influence that states have in the economy, means depicting market forces as a means to control and govern the milieu within which people act (Dean 2011).

(16)

16

to alternative systems. Giddens (1979) introduces the concept of agency as representation of a conscious action by the individual in a reflexive moment, and the phenomena of power as logically presuming that one of human agency. In this thesis, I will refer specifically to the notion of agency as the manifestation of the awareness that groups of small-holder farmers all over the world have expressed because of their unwillingness to be disciplined and regulated by the corporate food regime and its imposed structures. This awareness is the leading force that bring them to disrupt the temporality of their day-to-day activity and conduct, and what guided them in the decision of implementing place-based quality assurance systems, such as the Participatory Guarantee Systems.

Standards and food labels constitute but are also part of the context in which they govern.

Certifications as a governing mechanism have gained increasing attention in the agri-food field and are drawn upon some basic suppositions about the nature of the modern market dynamics. In the theoretical background of this thesis, I will explain the governing practices of these labels (especially referring to ethical certifications and the organic one), and in the analysis of the interviews I have focused on the governing practices of an alternative certification scheme such as the PGS applied to Slow Food Presidia projects. In fact, my aim is to comprehend and map these PGS governing practices through studying the ideals and reasons which generate and are at the core of their emergence, giving them increasing worldwide credibility.

The background reading (Chapter 3) helped me to see how some previous research on the field of standardization and food certifications have already suggested the strict relation of these topics to the concept of power and democracy. What clearly emerged, is that food standardization and certifications can be realized as a process of shaping codes of conduct and actions in our everyday lives and for all dissimilar actors, providing various meanings and consequences in the agri-food sector. The self and actions of individuals are central to problematization (cf. Dean 2011). But then, as Busch (2011, p. 289) indicates, because of the market failure to provide complete knowledge homogenously distributed, we are always in need of experts to govern standards setting and similar activities. The rational practice of deciding standards then means initiating a negotiation process among people and institutions (cf. Busch 2011, p. 289). Standards applied to the food sector tend to be taken for granted or seen only for their positive outcomes (e.g., for consumers food safety and for market interests). Nevertheless, they do have a large impact on the modern society construction and the relations of power. As a consequence, the motivations for problematizing are numerous and should be emphasized.

The question of relevance in this study is the degree to which a different type of governance such as the PGS (compared to TPC), takes place in a democratic and participatory way. What is evident in a globalized and free market, is that standards govern the organization of society and create the reality we live in (Busch 2011, p. 289). Thus, in order to re-structure society from an agri-food perspective, and perhaps better towards a more democratic governance, how standards and certifications are formed and take place is at the core of the problem. Since individuals’ degree of agency is also shaped by the level of empowerment that the context where they grow up in or where they live provides them with, Participatory Guarantee Systems, even if they always share a set of principles and visions, tend to slightly change depending on the environmental, social and cultural context where they are implemented (cf. Giddens 1979). In the specific case of my participants, since they were all already part of more or less united local communities gathered around some traditional food productions, as well as part of the Slow Food network through Presidia projects, power is engendered by the community as a way to accomplish common interests (Giddens 1979). Such intentionality and reflexivity in their behavior, which has led these producers to reflect and act on situations they wanted to change, has obviously consequences on the social interactions among agents. I shall thus analyze the outcomes in terms of social well- being (e.g., strengthening of communities) for Presidia producers that these forms of local empowerment (PGS) generate, rendering visible the reasons why agency can also be considered as “the capacity to make a difference” (Inglis and Thorpe 2012, p.227) and be transformative.

(17)

17

2.2 Methodology

I have conducted semi-structured interviews with various local actors who are located internationally but who belong to the social field (cf. Bourdieu 2003) of alternative food productions underneath the “umbrella” of Slow Food, adhering to sustainable small productions through Presidia projects. Interviews include four members of the Slow Food staff who support these Presidia productions in different geographical areas, as well as five experienced PGS implementation by producers directly involved in the productions. I have tried to explore the argument based on the responses of my participants, and through the practice of reflexivity, where my preunderstanding informs the formulation of the questions but where respondents are free to reshape the responses according to their experiences. Before explaining my methodology in detail, I will first introduce the reader to the Presidia project.

2.1.1 Zooming in on Presidia

Slow Food refers to biodiversity as ‘gastronomic biodiversity’, including the concept of the environment and the knowledge and the techniques supporting them (Siniscalchi 2013).

Furthermore, Slow Food’s vocabulary includes words such as 'Eco-gastronomy', meaning their attempt to reconcile the interests of gastronomy and ecology, which are often seen as antagonistic.

The Terra Madre summit has also established another term, the 'food community', indicating different social groups being part of sustainable local production systems where food plays a central role in their lives (Petrini 2009). ‘Taste’ has been perceived by Slow Food as a political and economic strategy, since individual and collective practices of taste are underlined as a way to counteract conventional market logic (Siniscalchi 2013). Then, a shift to the environmental context and modes of production was declared with the Presidia projects, illustrating Slow Food expansion to embrace many ecological concerns as part of sustainable food. Finally, creating projects around small producers and local economies and with the institution of the Terra Madre summit, Slow Food's interest in producers has concentrated on their living and working conditions.

Presidia include a variety of agricultural products including vegetables, products of animal origin as well as honey and processed products (Fernandez et al. 2020), all expressions of diverse cultures and ecosystems (Rota et al. 2020). Each Presidium represents and shares certain characteristics, and Rota at al. (2020) delineated them as: a community of producers inspired by the Slow Food philosophy; a traditional product; a territory; a heritage of culture and knowledge. What according to Slow Food distinguishes Presidia from other common products on the market is their "history", which in the case of a food product refers to practices and knowledge recurring over time, which guarantees their authenticity. In the coming chapters, we will see how producers and project leaders themselves define this. The “typicality” of these products is therefore generated by their link with a specific and delimited space in a geographical and cultural area, defined in French:

terroir, which is also in marketing related to how a particular region’s climate and soil affects and give character to the flavor and the ‘sense’ of a product. Besides their important contribution in safeguarding traditional agricultural landscapes, local breeds and indigenous varieties minimize the impact of their productions on the environment (such as avoiding the use of pesticides, antibiotics, preservatives, additives, dyes). These requirements are declared in the detailed Production Regulation protocol (different for each product), which aims at outlining the several stages of production (Rota et al. 2020). A part of the Production Regulation, the other document on which Presidia base their production rules, is the Supply Chain Guidelines. Both documents contain rules established by mutual agreement with the territories and its inhabitants, respecting environmental, social, and economic sustainability criteria (Rota et al. 2020).

Slow Food's role in attributing the Presidia is to (Rota et al. 2020): communicate the guidelines of each supply chain to the producers; regulate the Production protocol and narrative labels of the production; give rise to activities that target to train producers for a sustainable supply chain;

(18)

18

promote Presidia products in events that it organizes at international, national and local level (such as Terra Madre, Slow Cheese and Slow Fish); create a contact between the Presidia producers and other actors and organizations part of the Slow Food network who can be interested in purchasing their products; and finally, it promotes the products through publications and conferences. The results the Slow Food Presidia project has had so far, in terms of sustainable development, are measured by a monitoring system that detects and permits to analyze the following parameters selected by Slow Food as objectives to be achieved by the Presidia project: social sustainability (in terms of equal access to primary goods such as safety, health and education within the community); environmental sustainability (in terms of preserving local biodiversity and the integrity of ecosystems and natural resources); and economic sustainability (in terms of achieving secure lasting income through a responsible use of available resources and a reduction in the use of non-renewable resources in the area) (Peano and Sottile 2015).

Since 1999, 615 Slow Food Presidia have been listed located in 79 countries globally¹¹. Some of these Presidia projects may have more than 50 producers, and since every producer has probably experienced the PGS initiative slightly differently, interviewing a project coordinator meant being able to have a general perspective of producers involved. The Slow Food staff were also involved in helping producers to establish the PGS on their productions; thus, they have a good insight of the hurdles and effect of PGS. By interviewing some local producers, I expanded my research to include some first-person witnesses and how they have formed their perceptions.

2.1.2 Semi-structured interviews of Presidia actors

Interviews were carried out following an ethnographic approach, as semi-structured (cf. Edwards and Holland 2013), e.g., informal and in an open and conversational manner but at the same time following some defined questions. Therefore, the interviews are rather an interactional exchange and dialogue between me and the participants, referring to a thematic approach centered on the topic that I, the researcher, have chosen and that I wish to cover. As a result, meanings and understandings are created through a dynamic interaction, a co-production that generates knowledge for all participants, so that both interviewees and I can learn more about certain aspects of this participatory certification and give participants the opportunity to explore issues they consider important depending on their experiences (Edwards and Holland 2013; Longhurst 2010).

Participants were asked if they wished to be anonymous or named and informed about the aims of the study and how the interviews will be used. The interviews have lasted for a maximum of one hour and have been conducted either via Skype, Zoom or, when there was a language-gap (some local producers lacked fluency in the English language) I sent them the questions beforehand, and producers answered me in a written form via e-mail. The collection of data for the study took place in April 2021. The interviews were held with short intervals, between 19-04-2021 and 28-04-2021, for an up to date and more precise idea of the contexts and how participants experience intertwine in various ways. The interviews were recorded in the audio format (English or original languages) to make full transcripts (some interviews were translated in English) for afterwards reading them in detail to become familiar with the answers. This helped me categorize them thematically in themes as will be shown in chapters 4-6.

2.1.3

The Participants

I have selected individuals of Slow Food Presidia who had been involved within the Slow Food pilot PGS initiative in the framework of the IFAD-funded project “Empowering Indigenous Youth

11 https://www.fondazioneslowfood.com/en/slow-food-presidia/

(19)

19

and their Communities to Defend and Promote their Food Heritage''. Other cases were selected for this study to be able to follow the full circle of implementation of a PGS on a local product. At the moment, the PGS pilot project has involved only three Presidia: the Ogiek honey in Kenya, the Oaxaca Mixtecan agave in Mexico and the Lucca Red bean in Italy. Therefore, I have decided to broaden my research to include some other Presidia´ projects, two located in Brazil (Litoral Catarinense Butiá and Seara Raw Milk Colonial Cheese) and one in France (Breton and Charent sea born oyster), which have already applied the PGS certification independently from Slow Food (with Nature et Progrès in the French case and with Rede Ecovida in the Brazilian cases). Finally, I have interviewed one Presidium in Austria, the Danube terraces Roter Veltliner, who has not yet adopted a PGS scheme but is familiar with another certification scheme (Demeter Biodynamic).

Hereby, I focus my questions on the possibilities and motivations of applying a PGS in the future, since his productions can potentially benefit from the adoption of such a system.

As for the history of these Presidia and the reasons why Slow Food decided to include them in both the Presidia and the PGS project, in addition to the information collected during the interviews, I have referred to the descriptions provided by the Slow Food Foundation for Biodiversity website, in the section dedicated to Slow Food Presidia¹².

Slow Food has advised me in the selection of cases, and also facilitated the contacts with Presidia producers and representatives. My goal with this selection of actors was consequently to give a voice to some of Slow Food Presidia producers and staff members involved in the PGS initiative as my own research partners, in order to communicate their perceptions in my academic and working networks.

Table I: Compilation of the general information about the participants interviewed and their Presidium production.

Respondent name Country Slow Food Presidium Category Position Date Marco Del Pistoia Italy Lucca Red Bean Legumes SF Coordinator 19/04/21

Hans Czerny Austria Danube terraces Roter Veltliner

Wines and grape

varietals Producer 19/04/21

Samson Ngugi Kenya Ogiek Honey Honey SF Coordinator 20/04/21

Antônio Augusto Brazil Litoral Catarinense Butiá Fruit, nuts and fruit

preserves Producer 22/04/21

Valdir Magri Brazil Seara Raw Milk Colonian Cheese

Milk and milk

products Producer 23/04/21

Horacio Torres De Ita Mexico Oaxaca Mixteca Agave Distilled and

fermented beverages SF Coordinator 27/04/21

Bibiana Bautista Gaitán Mexico Oaxaca Mixteca Agave Distilled and

fermented beverages Producer 28/04/21

Tifenn Yvon France Breton and Charent Sea Born Oyster

Fish, sea food and

fish products Producer 22/04/21

Carolina Modena Italy - - SF Staff 23/04/21

12 https://www.fondazioneslowfood.com/en/slow-food-presidia/

(20)

20

3. Background and conceptual framework

The last century saw food becoming increasingly commodified. In this chapter I will present a brief ‘historiography’ of the current food regime, followed by a discussion on the emergence of food certification and standards. I will try to explain the benefits and risks related to the appearance and functioning of standards and certifications and the major contestations in these debates. This short introduction is important for the understanding of my own study of how and why Participatory Guarantee Systems emerged and their application to Slow Food Presidia and the local food heritages they entail.

3.1 The “third” food regime and the Commodification of food

Commodification is the process of turning a product, such as food, in the past directly related to consumption, into a commodity for a market. Commodification of food refers to food as private property and its value is defined on the relationships of buying and selling, whereas its market value, usually on bulk market value (Luttikholt 2007; Prudham 2009). The term originally stems from Karl Marx and his notion of ‘commodity fetishism’ or ‘the cloak of mystery’ commodities hold when they are exchanged on the market (see discussion in Kosoy and Corbera 2010)¹³. The commodification of food specifically was discussed from a historical perspective by Karl Polanyi who defined commodification as when the purpose behind the production of the food product is merely to exchange it (Polanyi 1944 cited in Prudham 2009; Prudham 2009). As a consequence of

our commodification of food, its purpose is no longer directed to fulfill communities needs or to feed people, but rather, from the production side, produced for a world

market where value and use are based on market principles (De Filippi and Vieira 2014).

Since the 1980s transnational corporations (TNCs) have come to dominate food production and global markets, constituting what McMichael (2013) calls the “Third Food Regime” or “Corporate Food Regime”. In the Corporate Food Regime governments are disinterested in responding to citizens’ food quality demand (Friedmann and McNair 2008) as an integral part of globalization and neoliberal policies, including the cancellation of many governmental programs which supported the agricultural world during the 1980s. The cancellation of national food programs was followed by a series of multilateral agreements all conducive to the corporate food regime, one example is the Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) of 1994, part of the GATT negotiations. This agreement was aiming at liberalizing agricultural trade through the reduction of national subsidies and other trade barriers, whereas at the same time it aimed at opening national markets for global agricultural commodities. Trade liberalization has been seen from institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank as a path to achieve food security and economic growth. However, with liberalization, imports from developing countries have increased globally, leading to their greater dependence on the market. Increasing reliance on markets means decreasing their food self-sufficiency and food security at the local level, as access to food is linked to market access (see discussion in Clapp 2016). Food security is at risk in this context because

13 According to Marx, this occurs when the economic focus is put on its use value and the social and environmental relations of production are hidden, so that the commodity itself obtains values independently from its production (Prudham 2009; Kosoy and Corbera 2010; Gerber and Gerber 2017). Marx made a relevant distinction between use value and exchange value. Use value is the value of something that satisfies a need or a want; on the other hand, exchange value is the value of something on the market, in terms of the amount of other goods offered on the market (Peredo and McLean 2019).

(21)

21

domestic food production competes with cheap imports, and land, that was used to grow local food, is then replaced to grow export crops for distant markets. These political changes aimed at removing state interference in the market. However, as the value chains have become more dispersed and complex, agro-industrial transnational corporations have assumed a central role (Clapp 2016).

Commodification of food is broadly linked to an abundance in the production of cheap food. As Polanyi showed us, though markets for food have existed for a very long time, a society where the market economy dominates food production is a new phenomenon (see also Peredo and McLean 2019). The modern food production system is in this sense a ‘disembedded economy’ where the market has come to organize society instead of simply being a place where resources and products are exchanged (Peredo and McLean 2019; Zerbe 2019). A market society emerges, consequently, through commodification of products as ‘fictitious commodities’ (Zerbe 2019; Peredo and McLean, 2019). Throughout pre-capitalist modes of production and trade, food was mainly for subsistence and surplus and was traded on local markets. During the first phase of capitalist industrialism (the British food regime) the values of food traded on a global scale were measured in relation to socially necessary labor time (Harvey 1982), as well as use of land and effects on natural resources. At present, however, the price of food has become increasingly disembedded from its actual local costs. Following Marx, this occurs when the economic focus of the commodity is set on its ‘exchange value’ and the social and environmental aspect of production is hidden, so that the commodity itself obtains values independently from its production and its ‘use value’

(Prudham 2009; Gerber and Gerber 2017). The consequences of the processes of production, processing, and distribution, do not enter into market transactions and are often felt most severely on local level (Luttikholt 2007). Last but not least, with commodification food is emptied of all its values as means of survival and as a human right, as also of its value as heritage linked to cultures and traditions, in favor solely of its economic value (Luttikholt 2007; Prudham 2009).

3.2 The arise and role of standards and certifications

Following a global shift in the economy, towards a “free market”, retailers and governments recognize that transnational regulations were needed, thus, international governmental bodies and the private sector became influential in setting and enforcing standards to evaluate products, processes and producers. The World Trade Organization (WTO) took the de facto role in enforcing standards through legally binding policies, and supermarket chains together with food processors became standard setting organizations, often with even more severe standards compared to international bodies (see discussion in Hatanaka et al. 2005).

Before the WTO was established in 1995, the development and monitoring of standards in the agri-food sector were under the responsibility of government departments in nation states, responsible for inspection of food safety through assurance systems (Hatanaka et al. 2005). Back then, public standards were considered the only way to reduce transaction costs and improve market efficiency, instituting a set of common expectations which market participants in the food and agricultural marketing system should achieve in order to take part in the global market.

Nevertheless, with a more globalized agri-food system, nation-states started facing problems when regulating quality practices¹⁴ (idem.). Where governments failed not to respond to the citizens’

demands of quality assurances, supermarket channels created their own controls of transnational

14 At the same time, with the supply chain crossing multiple national boundaries and suppliers referring to diverse food safety and quality regulations (in Hatanaka et al. 2005), this quality assurance system is direly needed. Moreover, the meaning of ‘quality’

started to be questioned when it came to an increasingly product differentiation and the changing and development of product practices (idem.), pressuring on government regulatory bodies.

(22)

22

supply chains (Friedmann and McNair 2008). Private agri-food standards became visible as a strategic tool and way to gain more profits.

Through setting new standards, supermarkets channels entered new markets providing quality and safety assurances to customers, regulating their operations, supplementing their brands and redefining products and markets (Hatanaka et al. 2005). Private standards have often been perceived as more accurate in terms of offering quality attributes compared to public standards because they allow consumers, retailers and social activists to choose their products not only for their physical characteristics but also for their production practices (idem.).

A turning point came when in Europe, and progressively in the US, - alarmed by the negative effects of globalization - consumers and social activists’ interest in ethical trade and sustainable agricultural practices increased (Hatanaka et al. 2005). For instance, British charities asked for reforms in the food supply practices of supermarkets, in order to emphasize other aspects such as social justice, environmental conditions and animal welfare (Freidberg 2008). Ethical certifications started in Western Europe in the 1960s, with the development of the counter Movement Fair Trade, initiated by NGOs and Churches (Bartholdson 2020). However, the adoption of the Ethical certifications had been really flourishing since 1988, shifting from a collective consumption choice to an individualistic one and rendering these lucrative ‘quality’

products accessible only by a niche of wealthy people (idem.). In the late 1990s, several European supermarket chains and their major suppliers made efforts to codify best practices and “due diligence”, introducing the EurepGAP (later expanded as GlobalGAP) and good hygiene practices (Trentmann 2008). Some of them went beyond solely economic interest and decided to develop standards and certification systems together with several NGOs to improve their social and environmental practices, such as the Social Accountability 8000 and the Ethical Trading Initiative (ETI) (Hatanaka et al. 2005).

Depending on the various criteria of certifying bodies, standards are developed for different purposes and practices, ranging from fair trade (such as Fairtrade Labelling Organizations International (FLO)) to organic farming methods (such as the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM)), to name just few (Bartholdson 2020). Private certification procedures are also different depending on the certification used for consumer marketing purposes or for institutional buyers (Albersmeier et al. 2009)¹⁵. For companies such standards are a tool to enhance their Corporate Social Responsibilities (CSR) image, since with the introduction of certifications, standards, and codes of conduct, companies are obliged to question not only their activities but also their contractors and subcontractors in order to assure food products safety and quality (Van Der Meulen 2011). Corporate responsibility symbolizes a central condition for the agri-food sector in terms of being considered trustworthy, demonstrating ethical principles underlining an ethical code (Meijboom et al. 2006). However, over time, some secondary objectives, e.g., brand management, have become predominant, and the increasing interest in Corporate Social Responsibility has been from the retailers’ perspective, a way to increase sector competitivity and to avoid negative publicity which could affect their sales and economy (Hatanaka et al. 2005). This change of attitude since the 1990s has been labelled “Greenwashing”, as an expression of concern about the use of marketing to amplify a company’s environmental credentials (here with the establishment of sustainable practices) that often end up by distorting, and therefore manipulating, public opinion through some information provided¹⁶.

As the agri-food system is today largely globalized, this has led to strengthening the food retail industry and to an intensification of private retail standards, becoming the responsibility of third-

15ISO 9000, for instance, is predominantly a business-to-business (B2B) marketing tool (Albersmeier et al. 2009).

16 http://www.oxfordreference.com.ezproxy.its.uu.se/view/10.1093/acref/9780199590230.001.0001/acref- 9780199590230-e- 0795

The creation of a democratic food certification

Greta Borrelli