• Contenu principal
  • Menu
OpenEdition Books
  • Accueil
  • Catalogue de 16236 livres
  • Éditeurs
  • Auteurs
  • Facebook
  • X
  • Partager
    • Facebook

    • X

    • Accueil
    • Catalogue de 16236 livres
    • Éditeurs
    • Auteurs
  • Ressources numériques en sciences humaines et sociales

    • OpenEdition
  • Nos plateformes

    • OpenEdition Books
    • OpenEdition Journals
    • Hypothèses
    • Calenda
  • Bibliothèques

    • OpenEdition Freemium
  • Suivez-nous

  • Lettre d’information
OpenEdition Search

Redirection vers OpenEdition Search.

À quel endroit ?
  • Éditions Quæ
  • ›
  • Update Sciences & Technologie
  • ›
  • Public policies and food systems in Lati...
  • ›
  • Part V - The challenges of specific food...
  • ›
  • Chapter 17 - Family farming food and its...
  • Éditions Quæ
  • Éditions Quæ
    Éditions Quæ
    Informations sur la couverture
    Table des matières
    Liens vers le livre
    Informations sur la couverture
    Table des matières
    Formats de lecture

    Plan

    Plan détaillé Texte intégral Introduction Theoretical-methodological notes The political context of the approval of standards for family farming foodstuffs The characteristics of the process of incorporating new standards into the Argentine Food Code Analysis of the process of incorporating Family Farming standards within the CAA Conclusions Bibliographie Notes de bas de page Auteur

    Public policies and food systems in Latin America

    Ce livre est recensé par

    Précédent Suivant
    Table des matières

    Chapter 17 - Family farming food and its relationship with the state: the crystallization of differentiated norms within Argentina’s public policy agenda

    Clara Craviotti

    p. 379-398

    Texte intégral Bibliographie References Notes de bas de page Auteur

    Texte intégral

    Introduction

    1The food issue can be seen as a complex web that involves the ways in which food is produced, exchanged and consumed, and the consequences this has on the environment, people’s health and development processes. Not only is the issue broad, but so is the variety of actors involved, especially in countries that are producers and exporters of agricultural raw materials and are characterized by profound inequalities in terms of production and access to food.

    2In recent years, the role of family farming has been highlighted in various forums as a response to the challenges of food security and sovereignty and the conservation of natural resources. The lengthening of food chains has led to the “isolation” of these producers within the agricultural activity, while control of other stages has been taken over by other actors, with a marked distance between producers and consumers (Jacoby et al., 2014). In cases where family production maintains some prominence, not only in terms of production but food processing as well, there are obstacles to gaining access to markets, not only logistical, but also as a result of the demands imposed by health requirements.127 The latter has become more of an issue in recent decades due to growing concerns about food allergies and intolerances and also due to the emergence of critical events, of which the coronavirus pandemic is a recent example. At the same time, the increasing convergence of quality regulatory systems worldwide has been seen as a key factor in consolidating markets which are functional for large-scale food production (De Haro, 2014).

    3In this context, this chapter focuses on analyzing the process of approving regulations related to the production of food from family farming in Argentina, initiated towards the end of the 2000s due to the prioritization of this issue as a recipient of public policies. Its development then faced a different political context, due to the redefinition and drastic reduction of actions aimed at family farming (Bertoni & Soverna, 2018; Nogueira et al., 2017). However, the incorporation of a specific article in the Argentine Food Code (CAA) – the country’s principal standard regulating the production and commercialization of food – and other related norms signaled a step forward in terms of the visibility of the sector, and indirectly collaborated in the legitimization of a specific way of producing.

    4Based on the premise that norms are not only technical but also political objects, this chapter analyzes the factors that made the formulation and incorporation of these norms within the CAA possible, the actors that promoted them, their goals and foundations, the main areas of dispute and the agreements reached. It also goes on to examine the extent to which changes in the political context influenced the content and scope of the regulations.

    5More precisely, it is suggested that these institutional innovations were the product of a set of factors: i) the opening of a “window of opportunity” after the Historical Reparation of Family Farming Law, approved in December 2014, came into force; ii) the continuity of governance schemes involving family farming organizations and key public bodies interested in its promotion, which at certain times managed to form coalitions to support certain policies; and iii) the continuity of certain international committees that supported these actions, as is the case of the REAF (Specialized Meeting on Family Farming of MERCOSUR).

    6Firstly, however, the political context is thought to have influenced the timing of the gestation process of the standards. Secondly, it also influenced the translation of the initial content of some of them, enabling its scope to be extended “upwards” to cover the stratum of small entrepreneurs, and, at the same time, its restriction in terms of the type of food considered. Thirdly, the vision that guided the development of the standards showed a certain transition with respect to the purpose initially sought, which went from the inclusion of family farming in a broad sense to the achievement of competitiveness by the sector. Consequently, although family farming continued to be a target category for public policies, its place was marginal with respect to the predominant policy aimed at supporting export-oriented agriculture.

    7This chapter is organized as follows: the theoretical framework and methodology adopted in the paper are synoptically presented before moving on to an analysis of the general evolution of policies towards family farming in the periods considered, identifying the key milestones. The sections that follow outline the central characteristics of the Argentine regulatory framework aimed at ensuring food safety; the process of incorporation of specific family farming-oriented standards, the enabling factors, the actors that promoted their incorporation and their core purposes. The content of the regulations is also addressed, as well as the main disputes and compromises reached. Lastly, the final section of the chapter considers some implications of the analysis in terms of the connection of the policies studied with the different competing référentiels and the possible redefinition of the food system.

    Theoretical-methodological notes

    8The approach adopted combines contributions from institutionalism focused on actor networks with contributions from the sociology of translation and its complementary, actor-network theory. The first perspective has been prioritized to address the processes of formulation and implementation of public policies that are characterized by their complexity and the participation of different public and private actors (Zurbriggen, 2006). According to this approach, the actors in a network develop more or less stable interactions through which they exchange ideas and resources and negotiate possible solutions to the problems identified. The perspective is useful because it considers their strategies and actions in the network within the broader framework in which the network is embedded, which poses both possibilities and constraints.

    9Linked to this approach, the concept of advocacy coalitions refers to people who, from a variety of positions, share a belief system and demonstrate a certain degree of coordinated activity over time (Cairney, 2015). In relation to public policies, that belief system can be defined as a référentiel (Muller, 2005), which implies the construction of a collective representation of the reality on which action is sought.

    10It is understood that policy formulation is never a purely technical process but rather involves the elaboration of commitments and the construction of meanings. Thus, disputes arise about the definition of problems, the categories used to describe them, the criteria used for classification and evaluation, and the ideals that guide actions (Lendvai & Stubbs, 2012). From there, the connection can be made between these perspectives and the sociology of translation, in that it emphasizes the fluid nature of political processes and the constant (re)construction of issues, interpretations and the actor networks themselves. The process of translation would be, in Callon’s (1986) terms, the very operation of power: to translate is to displace, but also to express in one’s own language what others say; if the process is successful, only a single voice is heard as an expression of the network.

    11In the analysis of this path, it is important to identify the stages (which this author characterizes as problematization, interest, enrolment and mobilization), and the “key actors”; generally, those who have the legitimacy to convene and/or act as translators of the different visions. It is also important to recognize the existence of previous relationships between the actors, as well as their capacities and complementarities (Ghezán et al., 2013). Given that the compromises achieved become supports for the networks formed, reaching consensus implies that the actors’ margins of maneuver will be delimited (Callon, 1986). Once consensus is “fixed” in a public policy, it influences the allocation of resources. However, it is important to note that networks possess different degrees of irreversibility. As will be seen below, this point is particularly important in the case of the policies discussed in this chapter.

    12The incorporation of the sociology of translation and its complementary actor-network theory (Latour, 2008) implies extending the theory of governance networks with the inclusion of non-human actors, such as previously approved norms or those introduced from other contexts. However, in our case we deviate from the principle of symmetry advocated by this theory, which would imply assuming that different categories of actors are equally important.

    13From a methodological perspective, the preferred theoretical option involves following the actors and analyzing their language as ethnographic data (Lendvai & Stubbs, 2012). Hence the importance of using qualitative research techniques to analyze their discourses and the characteristics of the particular contexts in which they are situated.

    14In our case, the process started with the timely analysis conducted on the approval of regulations for small, processing facilities at provincial level (Craviotti, 2017), before moving on to focus on the national level, with specific emphasis on the 2014–2019 period. To that end, the meeting minutes of the National Food Commission (32 in total, of which 17 dealt with family farming-related issues) were collected and analyzed, along with complimentary materials corresponding to the minutes, national documents and journalistic notes. Interviews were also conducted with a limited number of key interviewees responding to different areas of government and different institutional periods.

    The political context of the approval of standards for family farming foodstuffs

    Institutionalization period of family farming-oriented policies (2006–2015)

    15In order to understand the more general framework in which the approval of the standards took place, it is important to bear in mind that the category of family farming as a target of specific public policies was constructed and disseminated in Latin America from the beginning of the 2000s onwards. A set of factors facilitated this process, both at international and local level.128 In the case of Argentina, one decisive factor was the inauguration of a new government in 2003 with a different political orientation from that prevailing during the 1990s, promoting more active state intervention in relation to the economy and a more equitable distribution of income. Thus, the National Forum for Family Farming (FONAF), made up of representatives of state programs and producer organization, was established in 2006, followed by the National Registry of Family Farming (RENAF) in 2007. Other institutional spheres, such as the National Agricultural Technology Institute (INTA) and the National Service of Agrifood Health and Quality (SENASA), established specific areas related to the sector (CIPAF in 2005 and SENAF in 2009).

    16Throughout this process, the political climate of confrontation with the commodity export sector, prompted by the decision made by the state in 2008 to proceed with its intention to raise taxes for the sector and change its definition (embodied in Resolution 125, later repealed), was significant in triggering the decision to prioritize family farming through new institutional areas. That same year, the Undersecretariat of Rural Development and Family Agriculture was created, later becoming the Secretariat. Similarly, actions were launched to facilitate access to social benefits for family farmers and their insertion into the formal economy through a specific instrument, the Social Agricultural Monotax (Monotributo Social Agropecuario).

    17Analyzed globally, the most intense period in the development of new instruments and specific institutional areas occurred between 2005 and 2010. A subsequent and significant step was taken towards the end of 2014, with the enactment of Law 27.118 on “Historical Reparation of Family, Peasant and Indigenous Agriculture,” which considers family farming as a central actor for regional development. These actions established a favorable framework for initiatives that would again be revisited in a different political context. As in the case of Brazil, the institutional framework opened opportunities for the expression of new actors, ideas and interests in public spaces, serving as an axis of support for those who sought to defend the maintenance of certain policies – even in a different context (Flexor & Grisa, 2016).

    18It should, however, be noted that in the case of Argentina, the regulation of a law is a fundamental step in its becoming effective and being assigned a specific budget. The family farming law failed to reach that stage before another government coalition came into power, and that had an impact on subsequent actions.

    Period of reversal and marginalization of family farming-oriented policies

    19The Cambiemos government led by Mauricio Macri, who took office in December 2015, was characterized in economic terms by the promotion of pro-market reforms (de Anchorena, 2018). Key among its initiatives, in addition to the strong devaluation of the exchange rate, were its policies of deregulation of the entry and exit of capital flows, high levels of foreign debt and trade liberalization.

    20In the agricultural sector, tariffs on the export of key commodities (mainly soybeans) were reduced, although the need to promote the country’s insertion within the international market through the export of preferably processed foods was emphasized (Lucero & Padín, 2019). The new government introduced significant changes with regard to family farming. Shortly after taking office, the Secretariat of Family Agriculture was merged with the Secretariat for Territorial Coordination and Development, which was then subsequently downgraded to an Undersecretariat. Initially other components of the institutional framework, such as an advisory council composed of government officials and organizational representatives, were maintained, however, the number of meetings held were reduced over time and eventually ceased all together, being replaced by decentralized exchanges with selected groups (Vigil, 2019). The new government drastically cut the number of officials tasked with supporting family farmers, as well as the budgets of several of the programs aimed at the sector (Sabourin et al., 2020).

    21Other indicators illustrate the qualitative change in the way the sector was viewed. In 2017, the need to update the beneficiaries of the registry of family producers, RENAF, was announced. Organizations reported that they were excluded as registration entities and that new parameters were established, leading to a reduction in the number of registered producers (Montón, 2018; Vigil, 2019). A year later, the need to update the scope of the Agricultural Social Monotax system was decreed. Once again, the consequence was an abrupt reduction in the number of affiliates to the system and the instrument was transferred to the Ministry of Social Development, while the Ministry of Agroindustry ceased to contribute to beneficiary health insurance coverage.

    22Both official discourses and new programs targeting family farmers and those that remained from previous years showed a tendency to reorient towards the more capitalized segments (Bertoni and Soverna, 2018; Vigil, 2019). Support for family producer organizations was reduced or cut (Vigil, 2019). A business vision, focused on productive and commercial issues displaced the emphasis on organization and access to rights that had predominated during the 2012–2015 period (Bertoni & Soverna, 2018; Nogueira et al., 2017).

    23However, ambivalently, or perhaps to avoid conflicts arising, part of the institutionality linked to family farming, such as the Historical Reparation Law, was maintained throughout this period, with attempts at regulation that failed to materialize. There was some innovation at national level with the approval of certain instruments that had been set in motion during Cristina Kirchner’s second term in office and had not crystallized. One of these was the regulation of the family farming seal, based on a draft presented by Brazil at the REAF. Other instruments that made their way during this period were proposals for articles related to the sector to be incorporated into the Argentine Food Code.

    24These new articles merit specific analysis, due to the non-linear process followed for their approval, the changes made to their content during the course of their development, and the complexity of the regulatory framework involved, which we will look at in the following section.

    The characteristics of the process of incorporating new standards into the Argentine Food Code

    25The CAA is the fundamental standard of the food control system in Argentina. It regulates the hygiene and health standards and commercial identification of food for human consumption, and also applies to imported and exported food. Considered pioneering within Latin America (Ariosti & Carrión, 2014), it was established by Law 18.284 in 1969, and entered into effect in 1971. According to Balbi et al. (2011), the Code incorporates standards agreed within Mercosur that are, in turn, influenced by the Codex Alimentarius, the standards of the European Union and those of the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

    26The function of the National Food Control System is to ensure compliance with the CAA and contemplate the government agencies in charge. Within the Ministry of Agriculture, SENASA handles the food products specified in Annexes I and II of Decree 815. Within the Ministry of Health, the National Administration of Drugs, Foods and Medical Devices (ANMAT), through the National Food Institute (INAL), regulates the remaining products not specified in that decree. Its role can be seen as more relevant as agrifood chains become more complex: it covers ready-to-eat processed products, packaging and dietary supplements, and alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages, except for wine.129

    27This multiplicity of agencies has implications at the territoriales level. In the case of the Ministry of Health, ANMAT delegates control to the bromatological authorities of the provinces and municipalities, i.e., it has no territorial presence. On the contrary, in the case of the Ministry of Agriculture, SENASA is a decentralized agency with territorial representatives. The fundamental role of this body in the formulation and implementation of health policies is therefore evident, as it is responsible for registering primary production units, intervening in the control of bulk food storage facilities and those involved in processing food of animal origin, enabling their national circulation. Hence the importance of the creation of a specific area related to family farming as part of its structure, in order to provide training and propose regulatory adjustments according to the specific characteristics of these establishments. It is important to note that this was part of a change of vision, promoting a system that contemplated the support of officials and producers and transcended the traditional function of inspection. Reference was also made to this approach in the case of ANMAT.

    28The CAA is updated on an ongoing basis through joint resolutions signed by the Minister of Agroindustry and the Minister of Health. A whole process exists prior to that, which is coordinated by the National Food Commission (CONAL), with the participation of representatives of both the above ministries, the Secretariat of Domestic Trade, SENASA, ANMAT and the provinces.

    29Any individual, company or organization may submit proposals to CONAL to modify or add articles to the CAA. The Commission establishes working groups on various topics, in which standards and guidelines are developed and then discussed as a whole. Once approved, these are analyzed by an advisory commission, the CONASE, with the participation of private sector representatives (businessmen and workers from the sector; consumers130). The proposals are then subject to public consultation for a month, during which time comments or suggestions can be lodged. It should be said that, in these two cases, the opinions are not binding. Finally, the definitive proposal is submitted to the two ministers (of Agriculture and Health) for signature.

    30This path (outlined in figure 17.1) implies a certain degree of complexity and sluggishness in the incorporation of new standards, although in recent years the process has been speeded up thanks to the use of digital technologies; the number of annual CONAL meetings has also increased. Moreover, the system tends to favor those actors with most resources (material and symbolic): “if you have someone to present the projects for you, who knows how to put them together, the Commission approves them” (Interview with key interviewee, 2020).

    Figure 17.1A. National Food Control System and steps for the incorporation of standards within the CAA in Argentina.

    Image

    The characteristics of the process of incorporating new standards into the Argentine Food Code.

    Figure 17.1B. National Food Control System and steps for the incorporation of standards within the CAA in Argentina.

    Image

    Process for the incorporation of changes within the Argentine Food Code.

    Analysis of the process of incorporating Family Farming standards within the CAA

    Enabling factors and characteristics of the process

    31In this section we identify a set of relevant aspects that have influenced the dynamics of the development and incorporation of these standards. Firstly, at international level, the exchange forum facilitated by REAF Mercosur and supported by international organizations, such as the FAO and IICA, was important to frame and validate the health standards initiatives related to family farming in Argentina, as they form part of the actions initiated by Latin American countries to optimize the coordination and harmonization of guidelines. This exchange began with SENASA’s participation in the REAF’s technical group on trade facilitation in 2014, continued with a seminar on health issues held in 2016, and then crystallized into a regional network and the holding of a conference on artisanal cheese-making with the participation of international experts from Brazil and Spain. The topic continued with a conference on health issues held in 2019 within the framework of the REAF.

    32Secondly, the regulatory background of the European Union – considered an influential benchmark with regard to health matters – was considered by key actors at local level in order to legitimize certain concepts, such as “flexibility” in the interpretation of the general requirements of the rules. The National Health Surveillance Agency (ANVISA) measure, RDC No. 49, enacted in Brazil is also noteworthy. This resolution points out the relevance of regularizing small-scale food production with the necessary health safety measures and with a focus on productive inclusion, preserving and valuing traditional food habits (Thomé da Cruz, 2020). It includes guidelines on the “reasonableness” of the requirements and the simplification of procedures for products considered low risk. This aspect was revived in the disputes associated with the Argentine case.131

    33At local level, the regime of production and marketing of handicraft products of Santa Fe (1997), a Misiones province law and an Entre Ríos resolution, both from 2010, represent important regulatory precedents.

    34One of the relevant factors to the continuity of these initiatives has, even at different political moments, been the governance schemes that integrate representative organizations from the producer sector. At international level, COPROFAM participates in REAF, and, at national level, the family farming-related SENASA area, in which certain sector representatives participate, was established in response to a call on the part of organizations.

    35As can be seen in table 17.1, the enactment of national regulations on family farming facilities began in 2012, with regulations for slaughterhouses. Two years later, the highest authority of SENASA decided to address the issue of family farming at CONAL, and organized meetings in different regions of the country to promote areas of collaboration.132

    Table 17.1. Family farming food processing milestones and regulations

    Year

    National Milestones

    International Milestones

    Initiatives for the regulation of family farming-related facilities

    National

    Provincial

    2005

    CIPAF (INTA)

     

     

     

    2006

    FONAF

     

     

     

    2007

    RENAF

     

     

     

    2008

    Undersecretariat for Rural Development and Family Farming

     

     

     

    2010

    Social Agricultural and Livestock Monotax

     

     

     

    2009

    SESAF (SENASA)

     

     

     

    2010

     

     

     

    Misiones. Provincial register of processing spaces and registration of artisanal food (Law XVII No. 17)

    2010

     

     

     

    Entre Ríos. Hygiene-health standards and good manufacturing practices for food processing in the framework of micro-enterprises (Resol. 26 of the ICAB)

    2012

     

     

    SENASA: Regulation of mobile slaughterhouse facilities at a fixed point for local supply

     

    2014

    Law 27118 on Family Farming (December)

    SENASA’s participation in the REAF WG on Trade Facilitation

    Creation of Family Farming Coordination in SENASA. Aimed at addressing the subject of family farming in CONAL (August)

     

    2015

     

     

    Formation of a working subgroup on family farming in CONAL (April). SENASA presentation on the subject (November)

     

    2015

     

     

    Initial proposal to add article on small-scale establishment and family farming to the CAA goes through administrative process but does not result in resolution

     

    2015

     

     

    Incorporation of Chapter XXIII on animal products into SENASA’s regulations for the inspection of products of animal origin (later complemented with requirements for slaughtering and processing facilities for sausage and pork products)

     

    2016

     

    Regional Seminar “Health and safety of family farming production and food”

     

     

    2017

     

    II Regional Seminar “Food safety in peasant and indigenous agriculture”

     

     

    2018

     

     

    Addition of Article 154-quater on establishments that process and/or market food from family farming activities to the CAA

     

    2018

     

    International conference on the safety of artisan cheeses

     

     

    2019

     

    Conference on agrifood health and safety held within the framework of the XXX Specialized Meeting on Family Farming (REAF)

     

     

    2019

     

     

    CONAL approval of the incorporation of Art. 60 bis on artisanal dairies to the CAA

     

    36Based on this initiative, CONAL decided to create a specific working subgroup in 2015, with the mandate to address the proposal submitted by SENASA to incorporate articles on small-scale processing facilities and family farming into the CAA.133 Having been submitted to the various bodies required for its approval, the proposal reached the public consultation stage, during which some 300 letters of support for the initiative were received. The project was then submitted into the administrative process but was never signed off by the ministers as a resolution.

    37With a new national government in power, in 2016, CONAL asked the family farming working group to present guidelines to link them to the project (Act 110). While these were presented, the Ministry of Agroindustry suggested the need for a “new wording” of the article, which was presented by its Undersecretariat for Food, in consensus with the Undersecretariat for Dairy and Family Agriculture in 2017 (Minute 118). At a subsequent meeting, INAL presented the proposed resolution. An agreement was made to set the community processing facilities aside and address them at a later stage. The Ministry of Agroindustry contested part of the proposal’s content, which left the authorization of foods that were not specified within the standard to the discretion of each health authority. With this option removed, the project moved on through the successive stages, including public consultation. There, this second proposal of the article received 42 notes of support, with Resolution 13 that incorporates Article 154-quater into the CAA being approved in October 2018.

    38The innovative aspect of this standard was the inclusion of a new category of food factories and stores: those that produce and/or market food produced through family agrifood activity, which are subject to less stringent building standards than the rest of the facilities.134 The products covered are also specified; with the implicit exclusion of several types of food (meat and most dairy products). That is to say that Article 154-quater represented a step forward in terms of enabling some, although not all, types of facilities to be authorized.

    39In this second, defining process, the role of the initiator of the proposal (SENASA’s Family Farming Coordination), and of those who supported it from the family farming subgroup, as well as that of organizations outside the Commission, is attenuated. In contrast, the Ministry of Agroindustry, in particular its area related to Food, took on a more prominent role, as did the technical secretariats of both ministries, which are the ones that ultimately drafted the fine print of the standard. In this case, the broader institutional context was decisive in explaining the role of the different state actors:

    The Undersecretariat for Family Agriculture (…) actively participated in the first part, frequently taking the lead and proactively moving it within the Ministry of Agroindustry, with a significant degree of reluctance on the part of Food. In the second instance, the Food department was more involved, keen for it to go through, with minimal participation from Family Agriculture, which was involved in a difficult institutional process in which many people were being dismissed and many teams dismantled (Interview, 2020).

    40However, it is also evident that the bureaucratic mechanism corresponding to the management of the document itself, which proceeded despite the change in government orientations, was also relevant (and could even be seen as a non-human actor, in terms of actor-network theory). “The discussion about the guidelines for that article remained pending. When the guidelines were presented, they said the guidelines would not progress because the articles need to be revised, so the decision was made to pick it up again” (Interview, 2020).

    41After the enactment of this regulation, the CONAL subgroup in charge of family farming continued to work on developing specific guidelines by product to promote the implementation of Art. 154-quater throughout the territory, and on the determination of guidelines for family farming community facilities. Meanwhile, in September 2018, the Director of Dairy presented a proposal to CONAL to incorporate an article on artisanal dairy facilities into the CAA (Minute 124). An agreement was made to create another working subgroup to work on its development. The proposal presented to CONAL and CONASE went to public consultation and seven notes of support were received with comments. The final draft went through the administrative process, as Art. 60 bis to be incorporated into the CAA (Minute 131). However, as of mid-2020, the respective resolution had not been approved.

    42Taking stock of the achievements of the new regulations, a key interviewee of the pro-FF coalition reflected that the exceptions in terms of building requirements are not so relevant, but rather that,

    (…) we really had to work on making several concepts more flexible. And not only in relation to those, which in fact are rather ridiculous exceptions, aren’t they? But well, they are the ones that ended up going through. And the ones that enabled us to, at least, flag the issue up for discussion. That’s how I see the article now. (…) Like a flag, and the organizations saw it as such and celebrated it a lot in that sense too, as if to say, finally! Even though this article doesn’t solve much, it sparked another dialogue about artisanal dairy farms; now that’s also being considered too, to progress the idea of the dairy-factory, the community facility. It paved the way for other discussions (…) Its most significant achievement is in starting a conversation, a discussion and getting this committee, which is quite conservative, to start to look at a sector for which the rules of an exporting company don’t work, and that does not comply with the floor to ceiling stainless steel scenario, that has a different way of producing, that produces in different places, and that clearly represents an inconvenience for an inspection system that is stretched beyond its capacity (…) There has been a revived sense of understanding in relation to culture, tradition and about the fact that the technologicalization of the processes, these advances, do not necessarily have to threaten and disregard something else that has been done for so many years.

    43However, the official consulted also went on to highlight the fact that several products are not covered by the standard, and the continued existence of problems regarding food control areas at local level (Interview, 2020). In fact, in terms of the practical impact of the incorporation of Art.154-quater to the CAA, the case of the Red Cañera network that connects several family producers’ organizations in the province of Misiones was disseminated in February 2019, as the first enterprise approved for federal transit based on these criteria.

    44Another key interviewee agreed that the importance of incorporating an article on family farming into the CAA lies in the fact that “(…) recognizing that there is a certain group of foods that are produced in a different way, is symbolically very valuable (…) If the Food Code says that there are certain foods that are different, it provides the legal basis to create specific public policies” (Interview, 2017).

    Analysis of agreements and disputes: recipient subject and valuation languages used; scope of the rules and concessions contemplated

    45Examining the entire incorporation process for new standards revealed the existence of different coalitions of actors, framed within a wider institutional process. It is, however, also interesting to take a closer look at the modifications that were made to the content of the instruments to get them approved. In the case of Article 154-quater, the different testimonies revealed a strategy that prioritized the standard’s approval – otherwise “it would be buried” – with the aim of addressing any unresolved issues at a later date, once certain commitments had been set in stone by the very existence of the standard.

    46The analysis of journalistic transcripts, resolutions, documents and minutes related to the multiple proceedings in which different actors involved in the approval of these norms participated, provides insight into the different visions that had to be harmonized (or translated, in terms of the theoretical framework adopted) to crystallize into new norms.

    47As such, we were able to identify two constellations of key concepts within this whole process of approving new standards aimed at family farming: one that emphasizes the need to promote inclusive processes (in a broad sense), taking into account the role of family farming in supplying the domestic market, which proposes a paradigm shift in terms of the type of producer to support, aiming at the construction of a sector that can guarantee food sovereignty. The argument in this context is that consumers need to be provided with guarantees in terms of food safety, but that these guarantees need to be defined together, from the bottom up. The importance of providing technical and financial support to producers’ organizations to enable them to get authorized their processing rooms is also stressed. The softening of standards is seen as a central issue to reduce the amount of investment required to adapt facilities or create new ones.

    48Another constellation of ideas stresses the need to comply with a single safety standard; that differentiated policies is not about relaxing the rules, but on supporting organizations to raise their standards; that the application of good practices is the key to competitiveness and enabling family farming to access domestic and foreign markets in line with the idea that Argentina should become “the supermarket of the world”. The inclusion of family farming is seen, in a more restricted sense, as inclusion in formal trade and the regularization of its activities.

    49Although it does not seem appropriate to see both views as absolute opposites and corresponding to different political eras, in our interpretation, this second view of family farming gained predominance as the implementation of a “pro-market” economic policy strategy progressed at national level. This can be seen in certain, sometimes subtle, redefinitions of the initial proposals.

    50In this regard, one particular point refers to the subjects and products covered, and its implications in terms of the scope of the rules. In relation to the subjects, the first version of the article to be incorporated into the CAA (154 tris) referred to “small-scale and family farming facilities” and “low-risk foods and processes,” produced both in a family and community way. In each case, “health and hygiene requirements and key good practices” are required as part of the processing process. The presentations also stress the need for the ingredients to be self-produced or to come from family farming, for the production processes to be predominantly manual, and the producers registered in the RENAF.

    51In contrast, in the final version incorporated into the CAA (Article 154-quater), although the existence of the Family Farming Law establishes a need and the importance of this subject for the “food security and sovereignty of the people,” its scope refers to “family agrifood activity,” excluding any reference to the subject and the scale of production. The same happens with the issue of risk: the products covered by the standard are implicitly low-risk products. As a key interviewee explains,

    (…) it was not the text that we thought was needed…it was a text for negotiation, a text that would make it through the agreements. There was a lot of reluctance to making any kind of exception (…) The question of the subject, whether we identified the subject as family farming or not, or whether we talked about a facility, without saying that it was for a particular sector, that was a whole dispute and that was what caused the first proposal that had been approved to fail (…) In 2015, the Commission approved it, it went to signature, there was a change of administration. And the following year, it was decided that no, that it had to be revised, that what had been approved would not go through as it was, that the undersecretaries were not going to sign it, and so the issue returned to the Commission, and we worked on it again with a different wording. (…) The text talks about family agrifood activity, to avoid saying family farming (Interview, 2020).

    52This modification implies that the processing facility does not necessarily have to belong to a family farmer registered as such. Moreover, the pro-FF coalition advocated the idea of not specifying products, but rather stipulating processes and putting more emphasis on the handmade and artisanal aspect. In fact, several of the notes from producers who provided feedback during the public consultation stage of the article emphasized that: i) the standard represented progress, but that ii) all products needed to be incorporated, in addition to those considered low risk (with emphasis on fresh cheeses) and that iii) safety was more about the processes than the infrastructure used. This aspect was reiterated during the consultation stage of the artisanal dairy article, where there was also a request to move forward with specific standards for products made with unpasteurized milk.

    53In this sense, the pro-Food Code coalition (made up of the Food Secretariat, several provinces, and supported by the organizations that make up CONASE) proposed that a list of authorized products should be drawn up at the outset, respecting the “spirit” of the treaty. But, as one interviewee pointed out :

    (…) the drafting of the Code began in 1969, and some of the perspectives considered still reflect that time and space. It doesn’t so much look at processes, but it says yes to this and no to that, and it’s very restrictive and draws up positive lists. So, let’s make a positive list. What happens is that this positive list ends up becoming a prison (…) There were several presentations from INTA, they asked us to extend it – when it went to public consultation – to soft cheeses, to include all the production from goat farmers in the north. When the proposal was submitted, they said the article should be submitted like that or otherwise it would never see the light of day. And we worked on that separately (…) Those of us who were in the group, when they gave us the list, the only thing that concerned us was that the main [products] should be included. At the beginning, yerba mate, honey, chocolate, which are low-risk products, were not on the list. (Interview, 2020)

    54In the specific case of Article 60 bis on artisanal dairy facilities, the initiative for its incorporation into the CAA could, in principle, be interpreted as a consequence from the rule on family farming facilities. It contemplates the same flexibility in terms of facilities as Article 154-quater, to which certain specific requirements are added in terms of processes, such as that the milk be sanitized and subjected to heat treatment (not necessarily pasteurized) and that the direct intervention of the processor be a “substantial” component of the production process. The milk may be the operator’s own or from third parties, with a production scale of up to 5000 liters per day and 1000 liters per operator. To gain an understanding of its scope, it is worth noting that the article talks about “the rural and peri-urban population that constitute the broad universe of family agrifood production,” without any reference to the Family Farming Law. Neither is artisanal processing associated with this actor, nor does it explicitly consider small dairy farmers that process by-products (scenarios that have been considered as part of some provincial regulations).

    55Similarly, and in contrast to the situation in 2014–2015, the Family Farming Law could be said to be waning as a device for the agreement of actors, while the more traditional script of the CAA was reaffirmed. In any case, this “translation” was seen by the pro-family farming coalition as the tool that made it possible to enlist reluctant actors within the sector:

    What we tried to do, and I think that was the key to breaking the deadlock, in the first proposal [of Article 154] and in the second one as well, was to talk in the Code’s terms (…) There is a kind of culture of maintaining the spirit of the Code. It’s very difficult for different proposals to succeed, especially when there are certain interests at stake (…). Nothing to do with the original proposal that included things from other countries and some international organizations, but that could not go through (Interview, 2020).

    56Therefore, we cannot rule out the adoption of an instrumental approach, which favored focusing on reaching agreements on a small number of “technical” guidelines for inclusion in a national standard – that could eventually be improved on or supplemented by others – rather than prolonging a discussion that would run the risk of being abandoned. The approval of a norm gives legitimacy to the collective effort and enables the actors to continue working.

    57In addition, and looking at the process as a whole, a certain degree of convergence of key actors can be observed around some common denominators, which can be summarized as follows: the need to consider small-scale producers because they exist, and the fact that it is not enough to pass regulations tailored to their situation but that these should also be complemented by other actions, such as training and access to funding.

    Conclusions

    58In this chapter we analyze the process of policy formulation in Argentina that has involved the incorporation of differential criteria for the commercialization of food coming from family farming facilities. The pre-existing normative base in the country is founded on previously established international standards, such as the Codex Alimentarius and other global standards that have been adopted by the dominant players in the system and cement the existence of global markets. These standards not only regulate these markets but also those in the domestic sphere, with a tendency to favor those actors that reach a certain productive scale and have access to both material and symbolic resources.

    59Underlying this entire process of policy formulation is a series of stages related to the possibility of getting the family farming issue onto the agenda of the relevant institutional departments responsible for reviewing the health standards (CONAL), a task in which some areas of the SENASA have played a central role. As such, they have managed to enlist other actors at national and provincial levels, who have, in turn, acted as spokespersons for others, whose participation is not contemplated by the Commission. The pro-FF coalition had to engage in a negotiation process where disputes about the issue and products covered were resolved. Although this negotiation led to a positive result (the incorporation of an article in the Argentine Food Code), the effective scope of the standard remains an object of dispute that to some extent continues to influence the development of subsequent standards.

    60Throughout this journey, different translation operations of the initial proposal were carried out, in which certain normative benchmarks from other countries were relegated to second place, although the international interest in the issue channeled through the REAF Mercosur served to ensure the matter remained on the table. As a result of these translation operations, the pro-FF coalition agreed to frame itself within the linguistic parameters of the Argentine Food Code. This is exemplified by the explicitness of the products benefitting from the relaxation of requirements (and implicitly the exclusion of others, such as meat and other products considered high risk). This was due to the more general institutional context given by the change in the orientation of the national government, with emphasis on the promotion of competitiveness and the insertion of Argentina in foreign markets. There was, therefore, a differential weight corresponding to the two coalitions throughout the different stages, where the weakening of the pro-FF coalition was not unrelated to the more general dismantling of the support structures for the sector.

    61Notwithstanding this, the existence of the Family Farming Law throughout the entire process analyzed, as well as of a collaborative network that was not necessarily visible, together with the bureaucratic mechanism of CONAL’s own handling of the issues, made it possible to sustain the proposal to incorporate this standard into the Code, producing a sort of lock-in that ended some discussions. More substantial modifications would probably require a change in the existing institutional mechanism, incorporating actors currently absent within CONAL or CONASE, as well as the reinforcement of strategies to support the sector.

    62Although these policy issues seem relatively abstract (as some of the actors interviewed pointed out), it is worth noting that they have implications in terms of possible transformations of the food system. The family farming sector supplies the major cities but plays a central role in local supply. However, the entire existing regulatory corpus in Argentina does not consider the possibility of differentiating the procedures aimed at ensuring food safety according to the geographical distance of food processing facilities, and even in trading areas close to them compliance with the most demanding national standards may be required. This latter point is particularly relevant in situations such as those created by the Covid-19 pandemic, where local production became particularly important, in parallel to the health issue and the protocols to be applied.

    63Safety has been the predominant référentiel within all the discussions analyzed, although some actors have tried to link it to that of food sovereignty and security, where family farming is no longer seen as a “problem” but as a possible “solution.” Other issues, such as the differential characteristics of these foods by virtue of their artisanal processes and/or the reduced use of chemical inputs (resulting in healthier, not only safer foods) compared to those produced by large companies are still pending; their consideration would undoubtedly give rise to another discussion.

    Bibliographie

    Des DOI sont automatiquement ajoutés aux références bibliographiques par Bilbo, l’outil d’annotation bibliographique d’OpenEdition. Ces références bibliographiques peuvent être téléchargées dans les formats APA, Chicago et MLA.

    Format

    • APA
    • Chicago
    • MLA
    Cairney, P. (2016). Paul A. Sabatier, “An Advocacy Coalition Framework of Policy Change and the Role of Policy-Oriented Learning Therein”. In M. Lodge, E. C. Page, & S. J. Balla (Eds.), Oxford Handbooks Online. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199646135.013.24
    Craviotti, C. (2015). Cross Perspectives around the legitimation of the category “family farming” and ITS conceptual challenges. OpenEdition. https://doi.org/10.4000/bagf.683
    Flexor, G., & Grisa, C. (2016). Políticas de seguridad alimentaria y agricultura familiar en Brasil: actores, ideas e instituciones. Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca. https://doi.org/10.14201/alh2016743953
    Lendvai, N., & Stubbs, P. (2012). Políticas como tradução: situando as políticas sociais transnacionais. Universidade Estadual de Ponta Grossa (UEPG). https://doi.org/10.5212/praxeduc.v.7i1.0001
    Muller, P. (2005). Esquisse d’une théorie du changement dans l’action publique. CAIRN. https://doi.org/10.3917/rfsp.551.0155
    Sabourin, E., Craviotti, C., & Milhorance, C. (2020). The Dismantling of Family Farming Policies in Brazil and Argentina. OpenEdition. https://doi.org/10.4000/irpp.799
    Zurbriggen, C. (2006). EL INSTITUCIONALISMO CENTRADO EN LOS ACTORES: UNA PERSPECTIVA ANALÍTICA EN EL ESTUDIO DE LAS POLÍTICAS PÚBLICAS. SciELO Agencia Nacional de Investigacion y Desarrollo (ANID). https://doi.org/10.4067/s0718-090x2006000100004
    Cairney, Paul. Paul A. Sabatier, “An Advocacy Coalition Framework of Policy Change and the Role of Policy-Oriented Learning Therein”. Edited by Martin Lodge, Edward C. Page, and Steven J. Balla. Oxford Handbooks Online. Oxford University Press, 2016. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199646135.013.24.
    Craviotti, Clara. “Cross Perspectives Around the Legitimation of the Category ‘family farming’ and ITS Conceptual Challenges”. Bulletin De l’Association De géographes français. OpenEdition, September 1, 2015. doi:10.4000/bagf.683.
    Flexor, Georges, and Catia Grisa. “Políticas De Seguridad Alimentaria Y Agricultura Familiar En Brasil: Actores, Ideas E Instituciones”. América Latina Hoy. Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca, December 31, 2016. doi:10.14201/alh2016743953.
    Lendvai, Noémi, and Paul Stubbs. “Políticas Como tradução: Situando As políticas Sociais Transnacionais”. Praxis Educativa. Universidade Estadual de Ponta Grossa (UEPG), June 28, 2012. doi:10.5212/praxeduc.v.7i1.0001.
    Muller, Pierre. “Esquisse d’une théorie Du Changement Dans l’action Publique”. Revue française De Science Politique. CAIRN, March 1, 2005. doi:10.3917/rfsp.551.0155.
    Sabourin, Eric, Clara Craviotti, and Carolina Milhorance. “The Dismantling of Family Farming Policies in Brazil and Argentina”. International Review of Public Policy. OpenEdition, April 27, 2020. doi:10.4000/irpp.799.
    Zurbriggen, Cristina. “EL INSTITUCIONALISMO CENTRADO EN LOS ACTORES: UNA PERSPECTIVA ANALÍTICA EN EL ESTUDIO DE LAS POLÍTICAS PÚBLICAS”. Revista De Ciencia política (Santiago). SciELO Agencia Nacional de Investigacion y Desarrollo (ANID), 2006. doi:10.4067/s0718-090x2006000100004.
    Cairney, Paul. Paul A. Sabatier, “An Advocacy Coalition Framework of Policy Change and the Role of Policy-Oriented Learning Therein”. Oxford Handbooks Online, edited by Martin Lodge et al., Oxford University Press, 2016. Originally published as ["Paul A. Sabatier, \u201cAn Advocacy Coalition Framework of Policy Change and the Role of Policy-Oriented Learning Therein\u201d"]. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199646135.013.24.
    Craviotti, Clara. “Cross Perspectives Around the Legitimation of the Category ‘family farming’ and ITS Conceptual Challenges”. Bulletin De l’Association De géographes français, vols. 92, nos. 3, OpenEdition, 1 Sept. 2015, pp. 322-37. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.4000/bagf.683.
    Flexor, Georges, and Catia Grisa. “Políticas De Seguridad Alimentaria Y Agricultura Familiar En Brasil: Actores, Ideas E Instituciones”. América Latina Hoy, vols. 74, Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca, 31 Dec. 2016, pp. 39-53. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.14201/alh2016743953.
    Lendvai, Noémi, and Paul Stubbs. “Políticas Como tradução: Situando As políticas Sociais Transnacionais”. Praxis Educativa, vols. 7, no. 1, Universidade Estadual de Ponta Grossa (UEPG), 28 June 2012, pp. 11-31. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.5212/praxeduc.v.7i1.0001.
    Muller, Pierre. “Esquisse d’une théorie Du Changement Dans l’action Publique”. Revue française De Science Politique, Vol. 55, no. 1, CAIRN, 1 Mar. 2005, pp. 155-87. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.3917/rfsp.551.0155.
    Sabourin, Eric, et al. “The Dismantling of Family Farming Policies in Brazil and Argentina”. International Review of Public Policy, vols. 2, no. 1, OpenEdition, 27 Apr. 2020, pp. 45-67. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.4000/irpp.799.
    Zurbriggen, Cristina. “EL INSTITUCIONALISMO CENTRADO EN LOS ACTORES: UNA PERSPECTIVA ANALÍTICA EN EL ESTUDIO DE LAS POLÍTICAS PÚBLICAS”. Revista De Ciencia política (Santiago), vols. 26, no. 1, SciELO Agencia Nacional de Investigacion y Desarrollo (ANID), 2006. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.4067/s0718-090x2006000100004.

    Cette bibliographie a été enrichie de toutes les références bibliographiques automatiquement générées par Bilbo en utilisant Crossref.

    References

    Ariosti, A., & Olivera Carrión, M. (2014). Food law in Argentina. In Kirchsteiger, E. & T. Baumgartner (Eds.), Global food legislation: an overview (pp. 1–21). Wiley.

    Bertoni, L., & Soverna, S. (2018, November 25–30). Evolución de la asistencia técnica y la extensión rural en la Secretaría de Agricultura Familiar, Coordinación y Desarrollo Territorial del Ministerio de Agroindustria de la Argentina (MINAGRO) [Conference presentation]. X Congreso de la Asociación Latinoamericana de Sociología Rural (ALASRU), Montevideo, Uruguay.

    10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199646135.013.24 :

    Cairney, P. (2015). Paul A. Sabatier, “An Advocacy Coalition Framework of Policy Change and the Role of Policy-Oriented Learning Therein.” In M. Lodge, Page, E. C., & S.J. Balla (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Classics in Public Policy and Administration (pp. 484–497). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199646135.013.24

    10.1111/j.1467-.1984.tb00113.x :

    Callon, M. (1984). Some elements of a sociology of translation: domestication of scallops and the fishermen of St. Brieuc bay. The Sociological Review, 32(S1), 196–223. doi:10.1111/j.1467-954X.1984.tb00113.x

    10.4000/bagf.683 :

    Craviotti, C. (2015). Regards croisés autour de la légitimation de la catégorie « agriculture familiale » et ses défis conceptuels (A. Ramo, Trans.). Bulletin de l’Association des Géographes Français, 3, 322-337. doi:10.4000/bagf.683

    Craviotti, C. (2017). Dilemas en iniciativas de desarrollo orientadas a la agricultura familiar: los productores-elaboradores de quesos en Entre Ríos, Argentina. Revista de Ciencias Sociales, 30(41), 199–220.

    Cruz Lucero, J., & Padín, J.M. (2019). Hacia una orientación de la política comercial: la construcción del “supermercado del mundo. Realidad Económica, 48(325), 91–118. https://ojs.iade.org.ar/index.php/re/article/view/68/16

    De Anchorena, B. (2018). Poder empresario y políticas públicas. La captura de las políticas agropecuarias. In García Delgado, D., Ruiz de Ferrier. C., & B. de Anchorena (Eds.), Elites y captura del Estado. Control y regulación en el neoliberalismo tardío. (2015–2018) (pp. 183–208). FLACSO. https://www.flacso.org.ar/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Flacso-Elites-y-captura-del-Estado.pdf

    De Haro, Augusto. (2014, October 6–11). Regulaciones globales y mercados locales. Adaptaciones y controversias [Conference presentation]. IX Congreso Latinoamericano de Sociología Rural, Mexico City, México

    10.14201/alh2016743953 :

    Flexor, G., & Grisa C. (2016). Políticas de seguridad alimentaria y agricultura familiar en Brasil: actores, ideas e instituciones. América Latina Hoy, 74, 39–53. doi:10.14201/alh2016743953

    Ghezán, G., Mateos, M., & Cendón, M.L. (2013). Redes y controversias en torno a la valorización de alimentos en el partido de Tandil. Revista de la Facultad de Agronomía de La Plata, 112(3), 23–35. http://revista.agro.unlp.edu.ar/index.php/revagro/article/view/160

    Jacoby, E., Tirado, C., Diaz, A., Peña, M., Sanches, A., Coloma, M.J., Rapallo, R., Rodríguez, A., Sotomayor, O., Arias, J., & Courtis, C. (2014). Una mirada integral a las políticas públicas de agricultura familiar, seguridad alimentaria, nutrición, salud pública en las Américas: acercando agendas de trabajo en las Naciones Unidas. OPS-OMS, FAO, CEPAL, IICA. https://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/rlc/eventos/231982/doc_20140509_es.pdf

    Latour, B. (2008). Reensamblar lo social. Una introducción a la teoría del actor-red. Manantial.

    10.5212/PraxEduc.v.7i1.0001 :

    Lendvai, N. & Stubbs, P. (2012). Políticas como tradução: situando as políticas sociais transnacionais. Práxis Educativa, 7(1), 11-31. doi:10.5212/PraxEduc.v.7i1.0001

    Montón, D. (2018, August 17). Argentina: La agricultura familiar, entre el vaciamiento y la disputa campesina por la tierra. Biodiversidad en América Latina. http://www.biodiversidadla.org/Documentos/Argentina_La_Agricultura_Familiar_entre_el_vaciamiento_y_la_disputa_campesina_por_la_tierra

    10.3917/rfsp.551.0155 :

    Muller, P. (2005). Esquisse d’une théorie du changement dans l’action publique. Structures, acteurs et cadres cognitifs. Revue Française de Science Publique, 55, 155–187. doi:10.3917/rfsp.551.0155

    Nogueira, M.E., Urcola, M.A., & Lattuada, M. (2017). La gestión estatal del desarrollo rural y la agricultura familiar en Argentina: estilos de gestión y análisis de coyuntura 2004–2014 y 2015–2017. Revista Latinoamericana de Estudios Rurales, 2(4), 25–59. http://www.ceil-conicet.gov.ar/ojs/index.php/revistaalasru/article/view/273

    10.4000/irpp.799 :

    Sabourin, E., Craviotti, C., & Milhorance, C. (2020). The dismantling of family farming policies in Brazil and Argentina. International Review of Public Policy, 2(1), 45–67. doi:10.4000/irpp.799

    SENASA. (2014). Informe técnico sobre los productos de la agricultura familiar en Argentina. Propuesta de trabajo de la Comisión de Agricultura Familiar del SENASA.

    10.1590/1806-190965 :

    Thomé da Cruz, F. (2020). Agricultura familiar, processamento de alimentos e avanços e retrocessos na regulamentação de alimentos tradicionais e artesanais. Revista de Economía e Sociologia Rural, 58(2). doi:10.1590/1806-9479.2020.190965

    Vigil, C.J. (2019). Agricultura familiar campesina e indígena en la Argentina, 2004–2017. COPROFAM, FAA.

    10.4067/S0718-090X2006000100004 :

    Zurbriggen, C. (2006). El institucionalismo centrado en los actores: una perspectiva analítica en el estudio de las políticas públicas. Revista de Ciencia Política, 26(1), 67–83. doi:10.4067/S0718-090X2006000100004

    Notes de bas de page

    127 It is worth specifying that, according to the 2018 National Agricultural Census, only 10% of agricultural holdings in Argentina declare they develop commercial activity on the basis of their production.

    128 The policy adopted by Brazil was decisive for the establishment of family farming in other Mercosur countries. In this context, its proposal was accepted to create a specific regional body – REAF – made up of States and organizations representing civil society to agree common policy criteria. Prior to this, Argentina had undertaken actions aimed at what was then known as “small production” or “smallholding,” which focused on the most undercapitalized segments of the sector. For more details, see Craviotti (2015).

    129 In the case of dairy facilities, both areas of government have joint competence. However, there are variations depending on the destination of the products.

    130 According to Decree 815/88, CONASE is made up of four representatives from the business sector, one of which should be from an SME, two from consumer organizations and one from a worker’s organization. The current composition demonstrates the influence acquired by representatives of supermarkets and big industry.

    131 Other international benchmarks mentioned in the interviews were the FAO’s work on exemptions for the family farming sector and a US FDA rule regulating on-farm processing.

    132 Prior to this, the organization underwent other internal changes, whereby a system of family farming coordination was established, reporting directly to the presidency, as well as points of reference at the territorial level. The membership of its Family Farming Commission was also modified, specifically incorporating family farming organizations (Resolutions 186 and 187).

    133 Representatives of the Ministry of Agriculture, INAL, SENASA, INTA, IPAF, INTI, the Prohuerta Program and 14 provinces participated in the subgroup.

    134 They are exempted from certain obligations in terms of facilities (cloakrooms, separate toilets for both sexes; capacity of 15 cubic meters per operator and perimeter fence). The food processing areas can be in the producer’s own home, but they must have a separate entrance and be an area exclusively used for processing (i.e., the use of household kitchens is not permitted).

    Auteur

    • Clara Craviotti

      Researcher at the National Scientific and Technical Research Council (CONICET), Argentina; professor of the Agricultural Social Studies Master’s Program at the Latin American Faculty of Social Sciences (FLACSO). c.craviotti@conicet.gov.ar

    Précédent Suivant
    Table des matières

    Creative Commons - Attribution - Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale - Pas de Modification 4.0 International - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

    Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence Creative Commons - Attribution - Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale - Pas de Modification 4.0 International - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.

    Voir plus de livres
    Paroles de chercheurs

    Paroles de chercheurs

    Environnement et interdisciplinarité

    Évelyne Brun, Jean-François Ponge et Jean-Claude Lefeuvre

    2017

    La question des échelles en sciences humaines et sociales

    La question des échelles en sciences humaines et sociales

    Sébastien Boulay et Sylvie Fanchette (dir.)

    2019

    Systèmes agraires et changement climatique au Sud

    Systèmes agraires et changement climatique au Sud

    Les chemins de l'adaptation

    Hubert Cochet, Olivier Ducourtieux et Nadège Garambois (dir.)

    2019

    Les terres agricoles face à l’urbanisation

    Les terres agricoles face à l’urbanisation

    De la donnée à l’action, quels rôles pour l’information ?

    Roel Plant, Pierre Maurel, Éric Barbe et al. (dir.)

    2018

    Sociologie des changements de pratiques en agriculture

    Sociologie des changements de pratiques en agriculture

    L’apport de l’étude des réseaux de dialogues entre pairs

    Claude Compagnone

    2019

    Construire des politiques alimentaires urbaines

    Construire des politiques alimentaires urbaines

    Concepts et démarches

    Caroline Brand, Nicolas Bricas, Damien Conaré et al. (dir.)

    2017

    Services écosystémiques et protection des sols

    Services écosystémiques et protection des sols

    Analyses juridiques et éclairages agronomiques

    Carole Hermon (dir.)

    2018

    Manger en ville

    Manger en ville

    Regards socio-anthropologiques d’Afrique, d’Amérique latine et d’Asie

    Nicolas Bricas, Olivier Lepiller, Audrey Soula et al. (dir.)

    2020

    La santé globale au prisme de l'analyse des politiques publiques

    La santé globale au prisme de l'analyse des politiques publiques

    Sébastien Gardon, Amandine Gautier et Gwenola Le Naour

    2020

    Agroforesterie et services écosystémiques en zone tropicale

    Agroforesterie et services écosystémiques en zone tropicale

    Recherche de compromis entre services d’approvisionnement et autres services écosystémiques

    Josiane Seghieri et Jean-Michel Harmand (dir.)

    2019

    Méthodes d'investigation de l'alimentation et des mangeurs

    Méthodes d'investigation de l'alimentation et des mangeurs

    MIAM

    Olivier Lepiller, Tristan Fournier, Nicolas Bricas et al. (dir.)

    2021

    Télédétection et modélisation spatiale

    Télédétection et modélisation spatiale

    Applications à la surveillance et au contrôle des maladies liées aux moustiques

    Annelise Tran, Eric Daudé et Thibault Catry (dir.)

    2022

    Voir plus de livres
    1 / 12
    Paroles de chercheurs

    Paroles de chercheurs

    Environnement et interdisciplinarité

    Évelyne Brun, Jean-François Ponge et Jean-Claude Lefeuvre

    2017

    La question des échelles en sciences humaines et sociales

    La question des échelles en sciences humaines et sociales

    Sébastien Boulay et Sylvie Fanchette (dir.)

    2019

    Systèmes agraires et changement climatique au Sud

    Systèmes agraires et changement climatique au Sud

    Les chemins de l'adaptation

    Hubert Cochet, Olivier Ducourtieux et Nadège Garambois (dir.)

    2019

    Les terres agricoles face à l’urbanisation

    Les terres agricoles face à l’urbanisation

    De la donnée à l’action, quels rôles pour l’information ?

    Roel Plant, Pierre Maurel, Éric Barbe et al. (dir.)

    2018

    Sociologie des changements de pratiques en agriculture

    Sociologie des changements de pratiques en agriculture

    L’apport de l’étude des réseaux de dialogues entre pairs

    Claude Compagnone

    2019

    Construire des politiques alimentaires urbaines

    Construire des politiques alimentaires urbaines

    Concepts et démarches

    Caroline Brand, Nicolas Bricas, Damien Conaré et al. (dir.)

    2017

    Services écosystémiques et protection des sols

    Services écosystémiques et protection des sols

    Analyses juridiques et éclairages agronomiques

    Carole Hermon (dir.)

    2018

    Manger en ville

    Manger en ville

    Regards socio-anthropologiques d’Afrique, d’Amérique latine et d’Asie

    Nicolas Bricas, Olivier Lepiller, Audrey Soula et al. (dir.)

    2020

    La santé globale au prisme de l'analyse des politiques publiques

    La santé globale au prisme de l'analyse des politiques publiques

    Sébastien Gardon, Amandine Gautier et Gwenola Le Naour

    2020

    Agroforesterie et services écosystémiques en zone tropicale

    Agroforesterie et services écosystémiques en zone tropicale

    Recherche de compromis entre services d’approvisionnement et autres services écosystémiques

    Josiane Seghieri et Jean-Michel Harmand (dir.)

    2019

    Méthodes d'investigation de l'alimentation et des mangeurs

    Méthodes d'investigation de l'alimentation et des mangeurs

    MIAM

    Olivier Lepiller, Tristan Fournier, Nicolas Bricas et al. (dir.)

    2021

    Télédétection et modélisation spatiale

    Télédétection et modélisation spatiale

    Applications à la surveillance et au contrôle des maladies liées aux moustiques

    Annelise Tran, Eric Daudé et Thibault Catry (dir.)

    2022

    Voir plus de chapitres

    Chapter 1 - Food policies and the politicization of food: the Latin American experience

    Catia Grisa, Paulo Niederle, Stéphane Guéneau et al.

    Voir plus de chapitres

    Chapter 1 - Food policies and the politicization of food: the Latin American experience

    Catia Grisa, Paulo Niederle, Stéphane Guéneau et al.

    Accès ouvert

    Accès ouvert

    ePub

    PDF

    PDF du chapitre

    Acheter

    Édition imprimée

    Éditions Quæ
    • amazon.fr
    • decitre.fr
    • mollat.com
    • leslibraires.fr
    • placedeslibraires.fr

    127 It is worth specifying that, according to the 2018 National Agricultural Census, only 10% of agricultural holdings in Argentina declare they develop commercial activity on the basis of their production.

    128 The policy adopted by Brazil was decisive for the establishment of family farming in other Mercosur countries. In this context, its proposal was accepted to create a specific regional body – REAF – made up of States and organizations representing civil society to agree common policy criteria. Prior to this, Argentina had undertaken actions aimed at what was then known as “small production” or “smallholding,” which focused on the most undercapitalized segments of the sector. For more details, see Craviotti (2015).

    129 In the case of dairy facilities, both areas of government have joint competence. However, there are variations depending on the destination of the products.

    130 According to Decree 815/88, CONASE is made up of four representatives from the business sector, one of which should be from an SME, two from consumer organizations and one from a worker’s organization. The current composition demonstrates the influence acquired by representatives of supermarkets and big industry.

    131 Other international benchmarks mentioned in the interviews were the FAO’s work on exemptions for the family farming sector and a US FDA rule regulating on-farm processing.

    132 Prior to this, the organization underwent other internal changes, whereby a system of family farming coordination was established, reporting directly to the presidency, as well as points of reference at the territorial level. The membership of its Family Farming Commission was also modified, specifically incorporating family farming organizations (Resolutions 186 and 187).

    133 Representatives of the Ministry of Agriculture, INAL, SENASA, INTA, IPAF, INTI, the Prohuerta Program and 14 provinces participated in the subgroup.

    134 They are exempted from certain obligations in terms of facilities (cloakrooms, separate toilets for both sexes; capacity of 15 cubic meters per operator and perimeter fence). The food processing areas can be in the producer’s own home, but they must have a separate entrance and be an area exclusively used for processing (i.e., the use of household kitchens is not permitted).

    Public policies and food systems in Latin America

    X Facebook Email

    Public policies and food systems in Latin America

    Vous pouvez vous connecter à votre bibliothèque à l’adresse suivante : https://freemium.openedition.org/oebooks

    Suggérer l’acquisition à votre bibliothèque

    Si vous avez des questions, vous pouvez nous écrire à access[at]openedition.org

    Public policies and food systems in Latin America

    Vérifiez si votre bibliothèque a déjà acquis ce livre : authentifiez-vous à OpenEdition Freemium for Books.

    Vous pouvez suggérer à votre bibliothèque d’acquérir un ou plusieurs livres publiés sur OpenEdition Books. N’hésitez pas à lui indiquer nos coordonnées : access[at]openedition.org

    Vous pouvez également nous indiquer, à l’aide du formulaire suivant, les coordonnées de votre bibliothèque afin que nous la contactions pour lui suggérer l’achat de ce livre. Les champs suivis de (*) sont obligatoires.

    Veuillez, s’il vous plaît, remplir tous les champs.

    La syntaxe de l’email est incorrecte.

    Référence numérique du chapitre

    Format

    Craviotti, C. (2022). Chapter 17 - Family farming food and its relationship with the state: the crystallization of differentiated norms within Argentina’s public policy agenda. In J.-F. Le Coq, C. Grisa, S. Guéneau, & P. Niederle (éds.), Public policies and food systems in Latin America. Versailles: Éditions Quæ. Consulté à l’adresse https://books.openedition.org/quae/43310
    Craviotti, Clara. « Chapter 17 - Family Farming Food and Its Relationship With the State: The Crystallization of Differentiated Norms Within Argentina’s Public Policy Agenda ». In Public Policies and Food Systems in Latin America, édité par Jean-François Le Coq, Catia Grisa, Stéphane Guéneau, et Paulo Niederle. Versailles: Éditions Quæ, 2022. https://books.openedition.org/quae/43310.
    Craviotti, Clara. « Chapter 17 - Family Farming Food and Its Relationship With the State: The Crystallization of Differentiated Norms Within Argentina’s Public Policy Agenda ». Public Policies and Food Systems in Latin America, édité par Jean-François Le Coq et al., Éditions Quæ, 2022, https://books.openedition.org/quae/43310.

    Référence numérique du livre

    Format

    Le Coq, J.-F., Grisa, C., Guéneau, S., & Niederle, P. (éds.). (2022). Public policies and food systems in Latin America. Versailles: Éditions Quæ. Consulté à l’adresse https://books.openedition.org/quae/42980
    Le Coq, Jean-François, Catia Grisa, Stéphane Guéneau, et Paulo Niederle, éd. Public Policies and Food Systems in Latin America. Versailles: Éditions Quæ, 2022. https://books.openedition.org/quae/42980.
    Le Coq, Jean-François, et al., éditeurs. Public Policies and Food Systems in Latin America. Éditions Quæ, 2022, https://books.openedition.org/quae/42980.
    Compatible avec Zotero Zotero

    1 / 3

    Éditions Quæ

    Éditions Quæ

    • Plan du site
    • Se connecter

    Suivez-nous

    • Flux RSS

    URL : https://www.quae.com

    Email : serviceclients@quae.fr

    Adresse :

    RD 10

    78026

    Versailles

    France

    OpenEdition
    • Candidater à OpenEdition Books
    • Connaître le programme OpenEdition Freemium
    • Commander des livres
    • S’abonner à la lettre d’OpenEdition
    • CGU d’OpenEdition Books
    • Accessibilité : partiellement conforme
    • Données personnelles
    • Gestion des cookies
    • Système de signalement