Even for a country with a long history of arguments about food supply, the UK's present situation is remarkable. A country that received 28% of its food in 2018 directly from the European Union (EU), plus 11% more through EU trade deals, is now planning, under the leadership of Prime Minister Boris Johnson, to leave the EU ("Brexit") on Oct 31, 2019, with or without an agreement on how and what the terms are for trade, customs, and food security. The food implications for consumers and public health of a no-deal Brexit are seeping out of government but deserve full scrutiny.
The 2005–8 food crisis was a shock to political elites, but in some respects the situation was normal. Food policies are failing to respond adequately to the squeeze on land, people, health and environment. Strong evidence of systems failure and stress, termed here New Fundamentals, ought to reframe twenty-first century food politics and effort. Yet so far, international discourse is too often narrow and technical. The paper suggests that 2005–8 reinforced how the dominant twentieth century productionist policy paradigm is running out of steam. This assumed that producing more food would resolve social problems. Yet distortions in markets, access and culture remain. At national and international levels of governance, despite realization of the enormity of the challenge ahead, there is still a belief in slow incremental change.
India was the third country in the world to enact into law a constitutional commitment to the right to food, following Brazil and South Africa. The 2013 National Food Security Act (NFSA) was the latest in a long line of post-Independence food policies aimed at tackling hunger. This paper explores the range of discourses among NFSA policy-makers, their views and disagreements, from drafting to the final Act. The research used mixed methods. Elite semi-structured interviews were conducted with 32 individuals who were either directly involved in NFSA formulation or food security specialist observers. Policy documents covering the period from before the Act and during the Act's passage were critically analysed. Significant intra-governmental disagreements were apparent between two broad positions. A 'pro-rights' position sought to formulate a law that was as comprehensive and rights-based as possible, while a 'pro-economy' policy position saw the NFSA as a waste of money, resources and time, although recognising the political benefits of a food security law. These disagreements were consistent throughout the formulation of the NFSA, and in turn cast the Act as a product of compromise. Although there was broad consensus for a food security act, there was surprisingly little agreement exactly how that Act should look, what it should contain, and whom it should target. There was little consensus even on the right to food approach itself. The article contributes to the understanding of policy formulation in India specifically, and in developing countries in general, as well as to lend credence to the suitability of policy analysis to developing nations, otherwise normally grounded in Western traditions. The paper highlights a lack of cross-government cooperation in policy formulation, with the continued pressure of a short-term economic rationale undermining the policy goal of lessening hunger, despite some success.
IT IS TIME TO RE-THINK THE FUTURE DIRECTION OF THE GLOBAL ECONOMY. THIS ARTICLE ARGUES THAT THE KEY NEED IS TO PUT GOVERNMENTS AT A LOCAL, NATIONAL AND REGIONAL LEVEL BACK IN CONTROL OF THEIR ECONOMIES, AND TO RELOCALIZE AND AND REDIVERSIFY THEM. THE REORGANIZATION OF THE GLOBAL MARKET THAT WILL ALLOW THIS MOVEMENT TOWARDS RELOCALIZED ECONOMIES IS CALLED "THE NEW PROTECTIONISM." THIS ARTICLE ARGUES THE CASE FOR NEW PROTECTIONISM.
The article considers how policy can address the local–global within a wider commitment to food sustainability and draws on research conducted for the EU-funded GLAMUR project (Global and local food assessment: a multidimensional performance-based approach). Case study data identifies four key policy challenges for policymakers. Addressing these challenges in order to make links between current (and future) more sustainable food policy involves three phases. The first identifies processes of engagement in three spheres (public policy, the market and civil society); the second identifies points of engagement offered by existing policy initiatives at global, EU, national and sub-national policy levels; and the third builds scenarios as possible "food futures", used to illustrate how the project's findings could impact on the "bigger policy picture" along the local–global continuum. Connections are made between the policy frameworks, as processes and points of engagement for food policy, and the food "futures". It is suggested that the findings can help support policymakers as they consider the effects and value of using multi-criteria interventions.
OBJECTIVES: Clinical trials provide 'gold standard' evidence for policy, but insufficient locally relevant trials are conducted in low-income and middle-income countries. Local investigator-initiated trials could generate highly relevant data for national governments, but information is lacking on how to facilitate them. We aimed to identify barriers and enablers to investigator-initiated trials in Ethiopia to inform and direct capacity strengthening initiatives. DESIGN: Exploratory, qualitative study comprising of in-depth interviews (n=7) and focus group discussions (n=3). SETTING: Fieldwork took place in Ethiopia during March 2011. PARTICIPANTS: Local health researchers with previous experiences of clinical trials or stakeholders with an interest in trials were recruited through snowball sampling (n=20). OUTCOME MEASURES: Detailed discussion notes were analysed using thematic coding analysis and key themes were identified. RESULTS: All participants perceived investigator-initiated trials as important for generating local evidence. System and organisational barriers included: limited funding allocation, weak regulatory and administrative systems, few learning opportunities, limited human and material capacity and poor incentives for conducting research. Operational hurdles were symptomatic of these barriers. Lack of awareness, confidence and motivation to undertake trials were important individual barriers. Training, knowledge sharing and experience exchange were key enablers to trial conduct and collaboration was unanimously regarded as important for improving capacity. CONCLUSIONS: Barriers to trial conduct were found at individual, operational, organisational and system levels. These findings indicate that to increase locally led trial conduct in Ethiopia, system wide changes are needed to create a more receptive and enabling research environment. Crucially, the creation of research networks between potential trial groups could provide much needed practical collaborative support through sharing of financial ...
