Koncept ljudske sigurnosti prvi put je istaknut u izvješću UNDP-a (United Nations Development Programme: Razvojni program Ujedinjenih naroda) 1994. i bazira se na slobodi od oskudice (freedom from want) i slobodi od straha (freedom from fear). Na Svjetskom samitu o hrani (World Food Summit) 1996. sigurnost hrane je definirana na način koji naglašava dostupnost hrane, pristup hrani te korištenje i stabilnost kao ključne dimenzije sigurnosti hrane. Iako najčešće nije jedini uzrok sukoba, nesigurnost hrane predstavlja sigurnosnu prijetnju jer služi kao pokretač nasilnog djelovanja. Glad i nesigurnost hrane povećavaju vjerojatnost da će doći do prosvjeda i nereda što potiče nesigurnost među stanovništvom i ostavlja dugotrajne posljedice na cjelokupan razvoj zajednice. S druge strane, sukobi uzrokuju degradaciju okoliša, raspad ekonomije i prisilno raseljavanje stanovništva što u konačnici uzrokuje glad i, naposljetku, bolest i smrt. U posljednjem desetljeću mnoge zemlje ulažu napore u provođenje zakona i strategija usmjerenih na rješavanje problema gladi. Nastoji se potaknuti i društvene skupine da aktivno sudjeluju kako bi uz pomoć međunarodne zajednice unaprijedili sigurnost hrane i osigurali pozitivne transformacije. ; The concept of human security was first highlighted in the UNDP report of 1994 and is based on two freedoms; freedom from want and freedom from fear. The widely accepted World Food Summit definition from 1996 emphasizes the importance of food availability, food access, food use and stability of food as key dimensions of food security. Although usually not the only cause of conflict, food insecurity represents a security threat since it serves as an initiator of violent actions. The presence of hunger and food insecurity increase the probability of protests and riots, which further causes insecurity among the population and leaves long-term consequences to the overall development of the community. On the other hand, conflicts cause the degradation of environment, economic disruption, forced displacement of the population which, in the end, causes hunger and ultimately disease and death. In the last decade, many countries have invested their efforts in law enforcement and strategies aimed at solving the problem of hunger. Countries also seek to activate social groups for participating actively in cooperation with international communities in order to enhance food security and ensure positive transformation.
An increasing number of population in the cities has problems with food security, transportation and environmental protection. To misticate these problems, a new type of agriculture has been established: Urban Agriculture (UA). In this paper, we are introducing the concept of UA and provide basic information on the definition and forms of UA. The article aims to provide insight into the general concept of UA for sustainable city development. UA has a positive influence on social, environmental and economic life in the cities, which should encourage members of the government and private sector to utilize UA as an important part in city planning. However, there are reservations which should be taken into account, but by raising awareness we add to a better understanding of mechanisms in UA. ; Sve veći broj stanovništva u gradovima dovodi do problema s opskrbom hrane, prijevozom roba i usluga i zaštitom okoliša. Kako bi se ublažile posljedice i ponudila rješenja, uspostavljena je nova vrsta poljoprivrede: Gradska poljoprivreda (GP). U ovom radu uvodimo koncept GP i dajemo osnovne informacije o definiciji i oblicima GP. Cilj je članka dati uvid u opći koncept GP kao podlogu za održivi razvoj grada. GP ima pozitivan utjecaj na društveni, okolišni i ekonomski život u gradovima, što bi trebalo potaknuti predstavnike grada i privatnog sektora da GP koriste kao važan dio u planiranju razvoja grada. Međutim, postoje ograničenja koja bi trebalo uzeti u obzir, ali povećanjem svijesti i objavom publikacija doprinosimo boljem razumijevanju GP.
Migracijski val od 2014. do 2016. u kojem je velik broj djece i majki iz država Sjevernog trokuta na putu prema krajnjem odredištu SAD-u bio u tranzitu Meksikom okarakteriziran je krizom. Kriza je podrazumijevala postojanje prijetnje koja opravdava provođenje izvanrednih mjera. Teza rada je da pod utjecajem SAD-a Meksiko migrante u tranzitu smatra prijetnjom sigurnosti građanima Meksika, a ne ugroženim pripadnicima istoga kulturnoga kruga koje treba zaštititi. Stoga se prema njima ne odnosi u skladu s ciljem ljudske sigurnosti, već primjenjuje silu. Rad predstavlja studiju slučaja. U prvom odjeljku dani su prikaz vrsta migracija i poimanje migracija u kontekstu ljudske i građanske sigurnosti, dok su u drugom analizirani potisni i privlačni faktori migracija iz država Sjevernog trokuta. U trećem odjeljku prikazana je politika tranzitne države Meksika prema ilegalnim migrantima. U radu je izložen sud o migracijskoj politici Meksika prema migrantima u tranzitu. Zaključeno je da je iz perspektive ljudske sigurnosti politika bila »loša« jer je bila diskriminirajuća i u neskladu s kulturno-političkim kontekstom te moralnim i zakonskim normama. No gledano iz perspektive nacionalne sigurnosti politika je bila »dobra« jer je bila ostvariva, postigla je rezultate uz prihvatljiv trošak ljudi i sredstva i njome su obranjeni državni interesi Meksika – dobri odnosi sa SAD-om. ; This article will attempt to answer two questions; first, in what way did the Government of Mexico attempt to resolve the influx of a large number of migrants, children and family members, from the Northern Triangle countries (Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras) who were transiting Mexico on their way to the United States in the 2014–2016 period? Second, why have migrants continued to arrive even after the adoption of the Mexican Programa Frontera Sur (PFS) of 2014, which was supposed to resolve the migration crisis and put an end to arrests and deportation? At the same time, the article will try to assess, according to Haines (2013), whether the Mexican post-2014 migration policy has been "good" (in line with the political and cultural context, achievable and effective with acceptable costs of staff and resources), or "bad" (discriminatory and incompatible with existing moral and legal norms). The thesis of the article is that under the influence of the United States, Mexico is treating migrants in transit as a security threat, rather than as members of the same cultural circle who require protection. So, instead of helping them, Mexico uses coercion to suppress them. While traditional threats are endangering the survival of the state, new threats to the state are also endangering individuals. The article consists of an introduction, three sections and a conclusion. The first section will provide an explanation of the relationship between migration and security (traditional national security and human security). The second section analyses the pull-and-push factors of migration from the Northern Triangle countries. This is followed by Mexico's transit policy towards illegal migrants, which is discussed in the third section. Case study research was used as a methodological strategy. The migration wave in the 2014–2016 period, consisting of many children and mothers from the Northern Triangle states transiting through Mexico on their way to the United States, was characterised as a crisis. A crisis implies the existence of a threat justifying the imposition of extraordinary measures. The issue of migrants in transit through Mexico was no novelty. Since the late 1980s, under the pressure of the United States, Mexico has been deporting migrants in transit back to their countries of origin. As Mexico has increasingly associated with the United States, there has emerged a growing need for greater compliance with "American requirements" and for the understanding of "American fears" of illegal migrants. After 11 September 2001, the fear became almost paranoid. Mexican presidents Fox, Calderon, and Nieto brought about and implemented a restrictive migration policy in line with the US policy, according to which migrants posed a threat to national security. Although repeatedly emphasising its intention to protect the migrants in transit, Mexico militarised and securitised its migration policy. This was particularly apparent after the 2014 Frontera Sur programme, which applied the same methods – arrest, deportation and denial of asylum – to the vulnerable population of women and children who largely satisfied the criteria for refugee status recognition. The PFS emphasised the intent to protect migrants, to better manage border crossings and to create security and prosperity zones in the south of the country. However, after two years of the programme's implementation it can be concluded that none of the objectives above have been achieved. Indeed, migrants in transit are additionally exposed to strife, suffering, and violations of their fundamental human rights, both by criminal organisations and the forces of law and order. Therefore, their transit has become much more uncertain than it was before. At the same time, human rights are violated by the state of Mexico itself, which denies migrants the right to asylum or recognition of humanitarian visas. The border in the south of the country has not become more secure. That PFS complies with US interests is apparent from the fact that the United States is its main source of funding, since it has managed to link the combat against drugs and migrants in transit via the Merida Initiative. The question is why have migrants continued to arrive despite everything mentioned above? It was their hope that somehow, they would reach the USA or, in the worst case, remain in Mexico. The most elementary human right, the right to life, is endangered in the countries of the Northern Triangle. In addition to personal insecurity, there are other human security threats in Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador forcing the citizens to flee and emigrate from political, economic, environmental, and health and food insecurity. With everything being said, it is not easy to evaluate the Mexican migration policy. From a perspective of human security, it was "bad" because it was discriminatory and incompatible with the cultural and political context, as well as with moral and legal norms. Evaluated from a national security perspective, it was "good" because it was achievable, it has yielded results with an acceptable cost of staff and resources and has achieved state interests – good relations with the United States. At the same time, it is one of the tools Mexico can use in the future if Trump should decide against Mexican interests (significant taxing of Mexican products or deporting the many Mexican citizens illegally residing in the United States). Since Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador belong to the same cultural (historical, religious and linguistic circle), it was presumed that Mexico would pursue a policy that favours migrants and their protection; however, that did not happen. The authors agree with Kimball (2007: 140) that in the long run, Mexico will not be able to simultaneously advocate and implement both the pro- and anti-immigrant policy. The problem of the migrant wave, mostly consisting of mothers and children from the Northern Triangle countries, who were in transit through Mexico during 2014–2016, was attempted to be resolved via securitisation rather than care about their security. Castles de Haas and Miller (2014: 5) state that in the case of Mexico, there is a proliferation of migration transition, since it is turning from an emigration into an immigration country. To be more specific, with Trump coming to power, Mexico is increasingly not just a transit country, but also an ultimate destination country. Trump's immigration policy regarding immigrants from Central America suffers from deep historical amnesia related to the role of the USA in the Central American conflict of the 1980s, which has significantly destabilised the region. Moreover, Trump denounces and demonises as dangerous criminals the families, women and children, who have fled from violence contributed to by the USA (Portillo Villeda and Miklos, 2017: 53–54). This is one of the reasons the number of arrested migrants from Central America on the southern border of the United States has significantly decreased, but the number of asylum seekers in Mexico has increased threefold. There is a hope that new Mexican president Andrés Manuel López Obrador would perceive vulnerable Northern Triangle migrants more as a threat to human rather than national security.
