Chapter 18 - Public procurement from Uruguayan family producers and fishers and cross-cutting rural development policies
p. 399-418
Texte intégral
Introduction
1The Oriental Republic of Uruguay, a denomination the country owes to its geographical position to the east of the Uruguay River, borders southern Brazil (the state of Rio Grande do Sul – a dry border) and eastern Argentina (the provinces of Entre Ríos and Corrientes – a border formed by the Uruguay River). To the south of the country lies the River Plate (the estuary of the Uruguay River), which separates the Uruguayan capital of Montevideo from the Argentinian capital of Buenos Aires.
2Uruguay is one of the smallest countries in South America. Covering an area of 176,000 km2, it has 3.5 million inhabitants (5% rural), a Human Development Index (HDI) of 0.808 (very high human development), a GDP of USD 60bn, and a per capita income of USD16,200. It is also seen as a country with an equal society, broadly stable institutions, a high degree of confidence in government, and low levels of corruption, and it has the highest levels of well-being in the region (INE, 2020; UNDP, 2020; World Bank, 2020).
3Uruguayan farming, which makes use of just over 16 million hectares, is a driving force of society and the national economy and is characterized by its high food production capacity. According to studies by Mondelli (2014) and Gómez Perazzoli (2019), this small country produces more than domestic demand, with family farming leading the way, and provides food for 20 to 28 million people all over the world.
4According to Fernández et al. (2015) and Pereyra (2019), the country currently has sufficient expertise in energy and protein generation (production of 3,206 kcal/inhabitant/day, as opposed to the requirement of 2,180 kcal/inhabitant/day – Torres Ledezma, 2010; FAO, 2020), though this was not always the case. In a brief analysis of food problems, Pereyra (2019) pointed to the fact that one of the main difficulties faced between 1900 and 1990 (economic models that alternated between growth and recession – crises and periods of authoritarian rule [1973/1985] – Lanzaro, 2004) was malnutrition. Following a period of improvement in the référentiels (the return of democracy), the economic and financial crisis of 2002 saw the threats of poverty and malnutrition reappear. These gradually receded after 2005 (progressive government) only to resurface with the global recession of 2008/09 (Hristoff & Saravia, 2010). This brief historical review must also consider the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic, though more in terms of access to food than production capacity.
5According to the latest reports published by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), the World Health Organization (WHO), the World Food Program (WFP), and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), extreme poverty affects approximately 0.3% of the population in Uruguay, poverty 9.4% (mainly in peripheral urban and rural areas), severe food insecurity 7.6%, and moderate to severe food insecurity 25.3%, while the proportion of undernourished people is 2.5% (FAO et al., 2018; FAO et al., 2019).
6Obesity (over 18s) is also a cause for concern in Uruguay, having risen from 12.9% of the population in the 1980s to 27.9% in 2016. It is now regarded as the biggest public health problem in the country (consumption of highly processed food stands at more than 15% over the regional average of 129.6 kg per capita year) (FAO et al., 2018; FAO et al., 2019). Access to food in quantity and quality is also revealed as a serious threat to food and nutrition security (Comisión Especial de Población y Desarrollo, 2014; Pereyra, 2019; Torres Ledezma, 2010).
7The gradual reduction of poverty and food insecurity and the alternatives designed to mitigate obesity are the result of a set of public policies adopted over time. The most notable of these are as follows (Calanchini et al., 2017; Pereyra, 2019):
1920: School Feeding Program, aimed at supplementing and providing food aid to students in rural areas and open-air schools (a glass of milk) and later extended to urban areas (1930);
1942: National Food Institute (INDA – current name), which had the role of protecting the most vulnerable members of society and responding to nutrition-related issues;
1987: At-Risk Nutrition Program, which promoted health and nutrition in families with children under 18;
2005: Creation of the Ministry of Social Development (MIDES) with the aim of promoting social equity and wealth distribution (it later absorbed INDA – action on food and nutrition vulnerability);
2005: Food Guide for the Uruguayan Population, reprinted in 2016 and 2019, which aims to inform people about a healthy diet – involving enjoyable, shared meals – with a view to reducing diseases caused by nutrition deficit;
2006: ‘Tarjeta Uruguay Social’ (Social Uruguay Card), aimed at people who have problems securing a basic amount of food and also designed to ensure recipients achieve food and nutrition security;
2008: Food and Nutrition Security Observatory (ObSAN), a tool created to provide information on food and nutrition security;
2014: Act No. 19.292, dated 16 December 2014, which establishes a market reserve mechanism for agricultural food goods and services from family farming and artisanal fishing.
8State procurement in Uruguay is regulated by the Consolidated Accounting and Financial Administration Text (TOCAF – Ministry of Economy and Finance – MEF) and follows a preference scheme, i.e. a device that directly prioritizes certain socioeconomic sectors or companies in order to supply the state through public contracting. There are currently four schemes: Preference for National Industry (goods and services of national origin), Public Procurement Development Program (national suppliers – micro, small and medium-sized enterprises and small agricultural producers), Public Contracting for the Development of the Textile and Clothing Industry (stimulus for the national textile and clothing industry), and Family Farming and Artisanal Fishing (ARCE, n.d.).
9It should be pointed out that Uruguayan public procurement does not solely involve foodstuffs from family farming. It is a tool for supplying different products to the state (food, hygiene, office supplies, software, inputs, etc.) and follows the regulations and budgets set out in the TOCAF. The only type of public procurement that has been researched is solely and exclusively food purchases from rural family producers.
10Given that rural families are fundamental to food production, food and nutrition security, and rural/economic development (Chiappe et al., 2015; Machado et al., 2018), and that the Public Procurement Act (LCP) is structured around the marketing of family production and artisanal fishers, three questions should be asked: i) Was the framework of the act designed from the perspective of sustainable food production? ii) Which public policies are linked to the institutional market and are capable of promoting sustainable development for rural families? iii) Does this set of policies shape and/or promote sustainable food systems for family producers?
11The aim of the research was thus to understand the operational framework of the Public Procurement Act and to ascertain how it interacts with other government policies promoting the sustainable rural development of the food production of Uruguayan family producers and artisanal fishers.
12The research, which was qualitative in nature, was based on a review of the LCP’s normative texts and the regulatory decree, relating it to an understanding of the institutional framing of the agenda, the structure of the problem that the LCP sought to minimize/remedy, the objective of public procurement, the target audience for which the action was created, the general composition of the LCP’s structure, the marketing data collated to that point, the setting of food prices, and public government transparency regarding the implementation of the LCP.
13For the second part of the objective, we analyzed the state framework to identify the main public policies that in some way interact with the LCP and that permeate, as far as possible, sustainable food systems. As well as highlighting procedures, we examined the state of the art in related themes. The linking, interaction and/or set of policies is a departure from the concept of policy mix, i.e. the ability of a set of public instruments to achieve a certain end (Milhorance et al., 2019; Rogge & Reichardt, 2013). In this case, the “end” relates to assessment of the LCP, and other policies, as mechanisms for the sustainable promotion of food by rural households.
14Aside from the introduction of the topic, the objective, and the research methodology, this chapter comprises three other sections:
15The first of them presents the operational framework of the LCP in terms of agenda, problem, objective, target audience, structuring, marketing, pricing, and public transparency.
16The second section discusses a mix of policies that are linked to the LCP, such as the definition of family producer and artisanal fisher, the National Agroecology Plan, food and nutrition security, the School Feeding Program, food safety, the Family Producer Seal, Rural Development Forums, and other public policies.
17Finally, we provide some passing thoughts on the LCP and the policy mix.
Understanding the operational framework of the LCP
The public procurement agenda
18Uruguay’s Public Procurement Act has antecedents in the policies developed by neighboring countries. A concept discussed by Solanas (2009), “Mercosurization” refers to the dissemination of cognitive, normative, organizational and strategic processes instigated by the political structures and public policies of the members of the Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR) in other countries in the region.
19According to De Torres et al. (2018), the agenda around institutional markets and the sale of family farming produce (among other public policies – Grisa & Niederle, 2018) was made possible by the Specialized Meeting on Family Farming (REAF – a political dialogue between MERCOSUR governments and organizations), and a line of research conducted by the Cooperative Program for the Development of AgriFood and Agro-Industrial Technology in the Southern Cone. The issues presented at the REAF have become regulatory instruments (proposals and recommendations) for differentiated public policies for family farming, which may or may not be taken up by member states or parties (Grisa & Niederle, 2018). In 2010, state procurement policies were highlighted in the REAF and Brazil, a pioneer in the field with the Food Procurement Program (2003) and the National School Feeding Program (introduced in the 1950s and reformulated in 2009), with the experience acquired being passed on in exchanges with government officials and civil society in Argentina, Chile, Ecuador, Paraguay and Uruguay (REAF, 2014).
20At a local level, policies relating to rural families are disseminated through the General Directorate of Rural Development (DGDR) of the Ministry of Livestock, Agriculture and Fishing (MGAP) and social organizations such as the National Commission for Rural Development and the Association of Rural Women of Uruguay (De Torres et al., 2018).
21Grisa and Niederle (2018, p. 18) argue that the Uruguayan agenda was implemented through dialogues promoted mainly by the REAF and the “(…) debate on public procurement in the region (…) led by Brazil [ideological leadership – Ramos, 2019], on the basis of the [Food Procurement Program and the National School Feeding Program] raised (…) in line with the needs of each country and the political agenda (…)”.
22The agenda in question was shaped by the Uruguayan executive branch in a pilot project implemented between 2009 and 2010 as part of the Rural Uruguay Program (Chiappe et al., 2015). The experiences acquired (local and international) enabled an interinstitutional team (the MIDES and the MGAP – with the DGDR playing a leading role) of the executive branch to draft a bill (Machado et al., 2018), with discussions then being taken up by the legislative branch of the Population and Development Commission. This culminated in 2014 in the passing of the Public Procurement Act (Act No. 19.292) (Parlamento del Uruguay, 2014).
The structure of the LCP problem
23Article 1 of Act No. 19.292 and regulatory decree No. 86, dated 27 February 2015, state that the production of family farming and artisanal fisheries is of general interest. The official presentations of the LCP contain no specific explanation of the problems that the act seeks to address.
24In addressing the problem (based on other studies) there are two points that stand out: production capacity and marketing. With regard to the first point, family producers account for 62% of agricultural establishments in the country (25,285 farms across 15% of the area farmed) and are responsible for 88% of pork production, 84% of poultry, 80% of vegetables, 78% of fodder seeds, 73% of milk, 69% of viniculture, 66% of sheep, 59% of cereal seeds, 58% of cattle, and 38% of fruit (Leporati et al., 2014; MGAP, 2011; Sganga et al., 2016), among others. According to De Torres et al. (2018), much of the food consumed in Uruguay originates from family farming. It can thus be said that while there is production competence, family farmers are hindered or restricted when it comes to selling their produce/putting it on the market. The second point addresses the structural problem of family production, taking into account its limited competitiveness in relation to non-family producers and the ability to negotiate with buyers, with marketing to intermediaries seen as a solution to this (Machado et al., 2018). The consequence of this state of affairs is a perception of prices below the market level (less than half the retail price) and limited access to certain points of sale (Mila, 2015).
25In looking at the two points together, it could be inferred that policy makers identified the commercial limitations of family producers and the payment of low prices for their production as a problem. The LCP plays its part here by facilitating the flow of production and allocating part of family farming production to state-run institutional markets (short supply chains), reducing the effects of commercial oligopolies (Chiappe et al., 2015) on price formation and market ownership.
Purpose of the LCP
26The stated objective of the LCP is to enable family producers and artisanal fishers to flourish by allowing them to access better prices for what they produce (reduction of marketing intermediaries) and through the creation of a state-wide market reserve (guaranteed sales to the state as part of short supply chains). Such measures allow for planning in the production system (production/marketing) and closer organizational ties with the target audience (social capital) (Centro de Información Oficial, 2014).
27Although the LCP aims to promote family producers and artisanal fishers, it is understood that its main objective (interpretation and disclosure of arguments throughout the text) is to ensure the supply of foodstuffs to the state through the procurement of family production, which has certain priorities in terms of marketing.
28Policy makers have not, therefore, determined the mechanisms or types of specific support for promoting family production. Article 3 of the LCP explicitly states that the market is reserved for the target audience but adds that this reserve will be maintained unless there is supply (Centro de Información Oficial, 2014). This passage exempts the government from committing itself to promoting family production through specific public policies or a set of policies (policy mix), including food and nutrition security, production sustainability (organic or agroecological), technical support, training, rural credit, etc.
29The decree states, however, that the MIDES is responsible for promoting and providing support to socially vulnerable family producers and artisanal fishers (a specific group) (Centro de Información Oficial, 2015), but does not specify any actions or link them to other government policies and/or programs. This somewhat confused role assigned to the MIDES is disproportionate to its capabilities. It is the MGAP/DGDR that has the tools (mainly financial and human) to develop sustainable agrifood systems for family farmers.
Target audience of the LCP
30By way of context, Uruguay refers to the family unit as “family producers”, unlike Brazil and other countries in the region, which use the term “family farming” (campesina). This terminology (widely recognized in institutional regulations) is often used erroneously by government agencies and even academics.
31To avoid confusion and conceptual frustrations, we define family producers and family fishery producers in line with the text of MGAP resolution No. 1.013, dated 11 November 2016 (revised version of the first resolution of 2008). “Family producers” are understood as being natural persons with direct responsibility for the management of an agricultural establishment and/or production activity allowing for the hiring of up to two wage earners (or 500 hours of work per year), with a land area not exceeding 500 hectares, the family residence located on the property or nearby (within 50 km), and whose additional property income cannot exceed a monthly average of USD500 (value set out in 14 Benefits and Contributions Thresholds – BPC) (MGAP, 2016a).
32Family fishing producers are natural persons directly responsible for artisanal fishing activities (vessels under 10 tons and in possession of a valid fishing permit) or for fishing from land (permit for fishing from the banks of waterways), who do not have more than one permit (artisanal fishing or fishing from land), most of whose family income comes from fishing, and who do not hire more than three non-family wage earners or the equivalent of an annual workload of 1,250 hours (MGAP, 2016a).
33The LCP target audience is composed solely of family farmers and artisanal fishers with links to a company (registered, development and agricultural), association (agricultural) or cooperative (production, social and agricultural), composed of at least five producers, with at least 70% of them of family origin. Such organizations are known as Qualified Organizations (OHs) and such groups of producers must apply to the DGDR to register an OH in the National Registry of Qualified Organizations (RENAOH), which grants the right to sell part of what they produce to the state (Centro de Información Oficial, 2014).
34Groups of family producers and/or artisanal fishers that are organized (OH) and registered (RENAOH) are required to report the type of agricultural production they engage in and their expected potential, the seasonality of their produce, and compliance with Best Agricultural Practices. Organizations are asked to register in the Single Registry of Providers to the State (Centro de Información Oficial, 2015).
35It is noteworthy that the LCP requires the target audience (family producers and artisanal fishers) to become organizations, or, in Mila’s interpretation (2015), collectives. This requirement encourages the creation of associative and cooperative ties between participating groups, resulting in the construction of social capital, the creation of social actors with “powers” to demand new avenues and/or amendments to the LCP (though there is no means for this in the LCP, it is present in the Rural Development Forums as a cross-cutting element – subheading “3.7. Rural Development Forums”) and, according to Machado et al. (2018), in the organization of families as a strategy for economic and rural development.
36Although the target audience is outlined, the LCP and the decree do not set out criteria for prioritizing the potential beneficiaries of public procurement. In Article 5 of the LCP (Centro de Información Oficial, 2014, p. 1), it is stated that “(…) at least 70% [of the OH] must be made up of family farmers and/or artisanal fishers”. This means to say that there is legal margin in the LCP for the inclusion of agricultural producers who are not “family farmers”, as defined in MGAP resolution No. 1.013 (MGAP, 2016a).
37The LCP thus sets out a margin of 30% (excluding the 70% made up by family producers) of producers not defined as family producers in the OH. The regulatory decree of the LCP (Centro de Información Oficial, 2015) establishes the target audience as family producers (our emphasis) and artisanal fishers duly registered and accredited in the Register of Family Producers and in the Register of Family Fishing Producers (DGDR tools for the recognition of family status – see subheading “3.1. Definition of family farmers/producers and artisanal fishers”). Furthermore, one of RENAOH’s functions is specifically to “(…) carry out the necessary checks so that the true ‘beneficiaries’ of the system are mostly family producers” (Mila, 2015, p. 14).
38In line with analysis and in an update of the LCP in 2018 (Act No. 19.685, dated 17 October 2018 – Centro de Información Oficial, 2018a), an indirect prioritization criterion of the target audience can be inferred through the encouragement given to women to take part in institutional markets (see “2.5. Operational framework of the LCP”), provided that the female audience performs operational functions in the organization and in the production system itself.
39The lack of an specific prioritization criterion in the LCP may be attributable to the intention of the LCP to largely benefit family producers (and some non-family producers), regardless of their socioeconomic situation. This hypothesis is unlikely, owing to the LCP’s objective of not giving due prominence to the sustainable rural development of family producers, with the main role involving the supply of food to state institutions.
40In addition, the budget and/or funding for public procurement (conditional on the procurement mechanism and the prices detailed in the TOCAF) are not set out primarily for the target audience. In other words, the LCP does not have a budget of its own for the procurement of food from family producers but has funding for state procurement in general.
Operational framework of the LCP
41The LCP is essentially structured in two ways: centralized and decentralized procurement. In centralized mode, purchases are made by the Centralized Procurement Unit (UCA) of the MEF, with a partial market reserve of at least 30% of the procurement of foodstuffs from family producers and artisanal fishers (in relation to the funding sum). The UCA (the centralizing mechanism) issues an annual public call for tender for the procurement of products (in this case, foodstuffs) to supply state bodies that wish to be included in this mode (which is autonomous in terms of decision making) (Centro de Información Oficial, 2014).
42In the decentralized mode, purchases are made directly from the target audience (family producers and artisanal fishers). The market reserve reaches 100% (of funding), regardless of the tool used (tender or direct purchase) and pricing (Centro de Información Oficial, 2014). In conjunction to both modes, Act No. 19.685 established a minimum market reserve for Gender-Equal Qualified Organizations (OH+G) of 50% in both centralized and decentralized procurement processes (Centro de Información Oficial, 2018a).
43Purchases are made through one of the following mechanisms (depending on their cost): public tender, shortened tender (common and extended), direct purchase (common and extended) and purchase by exception. Procurement is managed (own procedures and operations) by the State Contracting and Procurement Agency (ARCE – which enjoys technical autonomy) or the UCA (ARCE, 2019; Chiappe et al., 2015; Mila, 2015).
44State procurement is coordinated through the joint intra- and inter-institutional efforts of the MGAP and DGDR, responsible for the OH and RENAOH and for support/information on the origin of agricultural products; the Directorate General of Farming Establishments (support/information on bee products and fresh and/or processed fruit and vegetables); the Agricultural Observatory (which determines foodstuff prices); the National Directorate of Aquatic Resources (support/information on products from artisanal fisheries); the MGAP and the MIDES (intra-institutional communication of the LCP and development of the capabilities of OHs); the MEF (a body represented by the UCA); and the ARCE (support/information and processing procedures and procurement), with each performing particular activities and allowing the LCP to function.
45The implementation of state procurement follows the top-down concept (vertical governance), with actors from the institutional hierarchy to the target audience determining and rolling out LCP decisions and actions (Scheuer & Vassallo, 2019). Although the participation of civil society (Carvalho, 2011) in the LCP (previously established rules and resources – TOCAF) involves friction, the Rural Development Forums (subheading “3.7. Rural Development Forums”) provide a platform for debates that can, in theory, lead to structural changes in the LCP.
46Executive, legislative and judicial branches, bodies with functional autonomy, decentralized services, autonomous entities and state governments are required to follow the aforementioned modes (Centro de Información Oficial, 2014) (figure 18.1).
Figure 18.1. Structure of the Uruguayan State.
47A broad section of the Uruguayan state is required to comply with the LCP’s guidelines. According to a survey conducted by Chiappe et al. (2015), the largest volume of foodstuffs were requested by the Ministry of National Defense (Army, Navy and Air Force); the Ministry of the Interior (prisons – around 10,000 inmates – police hospitals, the fire service, central offices, National Police School, Republican Guard); the State Health Services Administration (approximately 37 hospitals); the National Administration of Public Education (around 255,000 students benefit from the School Feeding Program); and the National Food Institute (meals for more than 10,000 people and 49,000 children up to the age of three), among other institutions.
Marketing and pricing
48Family production marketable through the LCP is divided into four groups: i) natural produce; ii) artisanal processed products; iii) agroindustrial processed products; iv) artisanal fishing products. With regard to processed food, it should be pointed out that the LCP states that the source or intermediate product and processed or final product must originate from the same establishment belonging to the OH (Centro de Información Oficial, 2014).
49As regards the processed foods group, Article 4 of the LCP regulatory decree provides for a compromise with the provisions of Article 3 of the Act: “(…) at least half of the supply must come from family producers belonging to the Qualified Organization” (Centro de Información Oficial, 2015, p. 2). This passage allows for reinterpretation. In other words, it does not make the source of the food clear, whether it originates entirely from family producers (the act) or only 50% of it originates from them (the decree).
50The safety of foodstuffs is achieved through the health and food standards set out in the Best Agricultural Practices. HOs must fulfil this requirement if they are to register as suppliers to the state. However, there are no restrictions in the LCP and the decree – beyond the aforementioned groups – as to which types of products may be sold. The types of food are only specified at the request stage by the UCA and ACCE, which somewhat undermines the LCP’s objective of allowing family farmers to plan their production system, while also disregarding issues linked to sustainable food systems.
51Food prices, which are slightly above market prices, are usually set in line with the prices published in the Agricultural Observatory. For fruits, vegetables and eggs, the pricing of products cannot exceed 40% of the pricing published by the Observatory and, for those not included, the respective amount is limited to the average price of the Consumer Price Index of the National Institute of Statistics (a public body). Should it not be possible to set amounts using these tools, the MGAP (executive branch) will set the best price in line with circumstances. In exceptional situations of high food price rises (above 25%), the state reserves the right to suspend public procurement in part or in full (Centro de Información Oficial, 2014).
52There are currently 15 OHs. The food they sell to the state is of agricultural origin (bee products, fruit, vegetables, fodder, cereals, grains, mushrooms, pulses, and eggs), processed food and beverages (fresh and processed red meat, fresh and processed white meat, cold cuts and sausages, frozen and/or processed food, canned and dried food, milk and dairy products, non-alcoholic beverages, alcoholic beverages), and fish (unprocessed fish and seafood). In geographical terms, access to public procurement is afforded to family producers and artisanal fishers in the states of Canelones, Flores, Florida, Montevideo, Paysandú, Salto and Soriano (37% of the national territory) and in some municipalities (DGDR, n.d.).
Public transparency
53Act No. 18.381, dated 17 October 2008, addresses the right of access to public information. Article 1 of the Act sets out the objective of “(…) promoting transparency in the administrative functions of all public bodies, whether state bodies or not, and guaranteeing people’s fundamental right of access to public information”. Article 2 states that public access shall be curtailed for “(…) restricted or confidential information” (Centro de Información Oficial, 2008b).
54The importance of this act is consistent with a governance problem found in the LCP. Both the LCP and the decree affirm the transparency of procurement-related data, prices obtained from family producers and artisanal fishers, quantity/volume, and suppliers, among other data.
55In more specific terms, insufficient data and (public) microdata was identified to ascertain the number of producers taking part in the LCP, their geographical distribution, end consumers, the prices applied in procurement from family producers and artisanal fishers, and the volume of food sold, etc., which renders the task of conducting a preliminary study of the LCP problematic. Furthermore, this information cannot be described as being “restricted or confidential” in nature.
56Research conducted by Chiappe et al. (2015, p. 3) also revealed the problem of the public transparency of data, with the authors stating that in “(…) various state bodies [carrying out procurement] have no documents that may be consulted in order to ascertain sales volume, (…) and their estimation on the basis of certain considerations and assumptions, applied to partial data”.
Interaction of the LCP with other policies
57The state, through policy makers and the proactive participation of society, has the prerogative of providing and promoting mechanisms that enhance its ability to implement public policies in a progressive manner (Kattel & Lembert, 2010). In addition, there is also a need to understand the issues under discussion and to develop and link existing public policies; in other words, a policy mix of actions that are guided by one main purpose, particularly in the creation of policies regarding sustainable food production, the rural development of family producers and artisanal fishers, and sustainable procurement by the state.
58Taking the description of the operational structure of the LCP as a starting point, a limitation was observed in relation to the promotion of the sustainable rural development of family producers and artisanal fishers (“end”). The limitations of the LCP refer mainly to the weakness of the objective, the prominent role of food supply to the state, the absence of sectoral support, the interrelationship with other public policies (with the exception of the characterization of family producer and artisanal fisher), and the lack of any strong connection between the financial resources made available for public food procurement and rural families.
59This section presents the possible links between the LCP and other government policies that directly or indirectly promote sustainable food systems. We thus highlight the definition of family farmer/producer and artisanal fisher (institutional recognition of rural families), the National Agroecological Production Plan (sustainable food systems), food and nutrition security (social regulatory framework), the School Feeding Program (access to food), food safety (quality controls), the Family Producer Seal (recognition of rural families), Rural Development Forums (decentralization and participation in public policies), among other public policies (sectoral and cross-cutting initiatives).
Definition of family farmer/producer and artisanal fisher
60As explained in subheading “2.4. LCP Target Audience”, the LCP is integrated with the MGAP resolution defining what is a family farmer/producer. In other words, only family producers and artisanal fishers (unless otherwise stated) who meet the specific requirements set out in the ministerial resolution can benefit from the LCP.
61In addition to the defining of what is a family farmer/producer (and not artisanal fishers, who were included in the MGAP resolution following their inclusion in the LCP – Machado et al., 2018), the MGAP resolution also establishes a registry (compulsory for the everyone in this category) with the purpose of identifying the potential target audience and implementing separate public policies (cross-cutting, complementary, and specific – De Torres et al., 2018 – from the MGAP to other entities) for the sector, including the LCP.
National Agroecological Production Plan
62As a result of popular and academic pressure, the government was compelled to enact Act No. 19.717, dated December 21, 2018. The Agroecology Act aims to strengthen food sovereignty and security by protecting the environment (production, distribution and consumption of agroecological foodstuffs – natural or processed), creating benefits that enhance the quality of life of Uruguayan people (Centro de Información Oficial, 2018b).
63The law established an Honorary Commission (under the auspices of the DGDR/MGAP) with the aim of drafting the National Agroecological Production Plan and coordinating (implementation) and monitoring (execution) its operation, promoting discussions on and consideration of agroecology, creating theme-based commissions, and bringing different institutions and the government into the development of the agroecology plan (Centro de Información Oficial, 2018b). The document, which has yet to be finalized, is in the public consultation phase. Funding for the act’s implementation has not been included in the government’s budget for the 2020-2024 period.
64There are essentially four aspects to the potential link between the National Agroecological Production Plan and the LCP. Firstly, both government tools are aimed at the same target audience, i.e. family farmers/producers (previously defined in the MGAP resolution – “3.1. Definition of family farmers/producers and artisanal fishers”). Secondly, the drafting of the plan should encompass promotion and ease of access to differentiated, local and neighborhood markets (short supply chains) and especially those markets already in place (for example, the LCP). Thirdly, it deals with mechanisms for the sustainable development of family production, which are overlooked in the LCP. Finally, it provides for the consolidation of food sovereignty and food security by means of an accessible supply of safe food products (see “3.5. Food safety”), impacting on the quality of life of the people of Uruguay.
Food and nutrition security
65The regulatory framework pertaining to food and nutrition security is still negotiating though the bureaucratic procedures of the Uruguayan legislature. The “Right to Food, Food and Nutrition Security of the Population” project came up for discussion for the first time in the Chamber of Deputies’ Special Population and Development Commission in June 2015. There has been no further movement since 19 February 2020, when its status was recorded as “archived at the end of the legislature” (Parlamento del Uruguay, 2020).
66The project aims to “(…) establish a legal référentiel (…)” that allows the state to develop permanent public policies and strategies of national importance for the population’s right to food and food and nutrition security, with a view to ensuring a healthy lifestyle and diet. The text also refers to a sustainable production system and the availability and accessibility of food produced by family producers and artisanal fishers for the population (Cámara de Representantes, 2015, p. 5), issues that are linked to both agroecology and the LCP.
67The legislative dispute over the framework in question has not curtailed the actions of the Uruguayan state. Implicitly, the issue has been addressed since the 1920s, through the School Feeding Program, while Article 72 of the Constitution of the Republic implies the inherent right to access to food (Centro de Información Oficial, 1967). The study conducted by Calanchini et al. (2017) provides an in-depth regulatory review of the state’s responsibilities with regard to food and nutrition security. This text is recommended for further consideration of the issue.
68More specifically, the purpose of the INDA and ObSAN is to provide the state, policy makers and society (Fernández et al., 2015) with detailed information on the subject and shape projects and/or policies for overcoming obstacles related to poverty and food and nutrition insecurity. The INDA promotes food-support initiatives (food packages) for the socioeconomically vulnerable through the purchase of food products and donations (a useful tool for linking with the LCP).
School Feeding Program
69In the same vein as the issue of food and nutrition security addressed in this introduction, the program (under the auspices of the Board of Elementary and Primary Education – National Administration of Public Education) is designed to ensure that students in the public and private network eat sufficiently nutritional diets, the aim being to improve their education and reduce food-risk situations (DGEIP, 2020). The aforementioned program is part of Act No. 19.140, dated October 11, 2013 (Centro de Información Oficial, 2013), which safeguards the health of schoolchildren (public and private) by promoting healthy eating habits and a nutritious diet and thereby prevent overweight, obesity, and other related diseases. It puts the emphasis on the consumption of natural foods that are minimally processed and prepared in accordance with specific recommendations.
70The survey revealed an interrelationship between the LCP and the School Feeding Program, discussed under subheading “2.5. Operational framework of the LCP”, and Act No. 19.140 (The procurement of food from family producers – Chiappe et al., 2015). However, owing to the difficulty in obtaining microdata and to the public transparency of the LCP, drawing a direct parallel between these government instruments is not an easy task.
Food safety
71Created in 2015, the Directorate General of Food Safety Control forms part of the MGAP (there had been related initiatives prior to its creation). It was set up with the objective of planning, formulating, coordinating and implementing policies at three levels: health barriers, biosecurity, and food safety (MGAP, 2017).
72The food safety plan provides for the creation of health standards for food and feed, the adoption of quality procedures (Best Practices for Production, Processing and Storage), the encouraging of agricultural producers to participate in quality and safety procedures, and the certification of organic produce, etc. (MGAP, n.d.-b). Among other precepts of food safety (observed in the LCP), there is an emphasis on promoting the safety and quality of foodstuffs for domestic consumption (including public procurement), which in turn promotes the supply to the population of products of recognized quality (national and international standards) and which are detailed in Best Agricultural Practices (for the production of fruit and vegetables).
73Best Agricultural Practices are a set of technical procedures relating to the production system (producer, production, plant material, soil and water management, disease control, pest management, etc.), harvesting (the stages before and during harvest), post-harvesting (treatment, handling, packaging, storage and transport), water management, pesticide management, general equipment, animal management, waste management, worker management, and general operations and traceability (MGAP, 2016b).
The Family Producer Seal
74The DGDR/MGAP and the Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA – also discussed in the REAF) carried out studies and engaged in activities on the project “Towards the construction of a family farming seal in Uruguay”. Essentially, it seeks to enhance the value of family production through a seal that certifies and denotes food produced by family producers and artisanal fishers (MGAP, n.d.-a). According to De Torres et al. (2018), the project’s main target audience is rural families producing vegetables, fruit, and small animals (poultry and pigs).
75As well as a kind of “trademark”, the seal affords a competitive advantage (over other companies) that adds value to produce and provides a range of information to the consumer (production processes and traceability), thus ensuring wider access to formal markets and also within the LCP.
Rural Development Forums
76Created as part of Act No. 18.126, dated 15 May 2007, Rural Development Forums reflect the complete decentralization of public rural development policies. The regulatory hierarchy provided for by the Act is composed of the Rural Development Forums (local level), which is subject to the State Agricultural Council (regional), which is answerable to the National Agricultural Council (national), a triumvirate supported by the Agricultural Council – overseen by the MGAP (Centro de Información Oficial, 2007).
77The objective of the Rural Development Forums is to encourage social agricultural sectors to become fully involved in and participate in the debate on public policies as they relate to the rural world (demands and concerns beyond production – De Torres et al., 2018). As part of a staggered process, arguments are forwarded to the State Agricultural Council, which is responsible for identifying and putting forward local concerns and disseminating and assisting with MGAP initiatives. The National Agricultural Council receives regional recommendations and advises the MGAP on the creation of national agricultural policies aimed at rural development. Finally, the Agricultural Council helps develop, link and coordinate agricultural policies with the MGAP’s decentralized initiatives and encourages all regions to participate and become fully involved (Centro de Información Oficial, 2007).
78As seen, the forums encourage the emergence of new, bottom-up social actors (horizontal governance), who make their demands to the state itself, especially to the MGAP (De Torres et al., 2018). Although the LCP does not establish a direct relationship with the decentralization provided for in Act No. 18.126, some family producers are regarded as new social actors because they set up OHs and also participate in Rural Development Forums, as is the case with family producers in the states of Maldonado and Florida. In other words, the LCP provides an opportunity for the formation of new actors and the Forums give them a platform for discussing public policies (a participative and intersectoral role – Sabourin & Arbeletche, 2018).
Other public policies
79Other public policies for which the government is responsible (state capacity) and which are linked to the LCP are the Rural Microcredit Program, Technical Support and Rural Extension (ATER), “Somos Mulheres Rurais” (We Are Rural Women), ‘Somos Daqui’ (We Are From Here), the Regional Planning and Sustainable Development Act, and the Agricultural Insurance Law.
80Coordinated by the DGDR and the Uruguayan Foundation for Cooperation and Mutually Supportive Development, the Rural Microcredit Program provides short-term financing to family producers who do not have access – due to a lack of financial means – to the mechanisms available on the formal credit market. The purpose of the program is to answer their financial needs and promote local production. It is a mechanism that to some extent addresses the absence of such an instrument in the LCP and which supports the structure of the production system of the LCP’s target audience.
81In addition to rural credit, Technical Support and Rural Extension is a fundamental tool for the sharing of technical and unspoken knowledge and the optimization and promotion of sustainable food systems for family producers and artisanal fishers (MGAP, n.d.-a).
82Like the LCP, the Somos Mulheres Rurais program promotes OH+Gs. It also allocates resources to rural women to help bring about social inclusion and sustainable rural development. The Somos Daqui program is a similar initiative and provides funding for rural youth projects aimed at rural and non-rural development.
83Act No. 18.308, dated 18 June 2008, concerns regional planning and sustainable development through cross-cutting actions aimed at enhancing the quality of life of Uruguayan people, social integration, and the democratic and sustainable use and enjoyment of natural and cultural resources (Centro de Información Oficial, 2008a). This piece of legislation complements the Agroecology Act and is linked to the LCP in terms of non-compliance with the sustainable agricultural production system.
84Finally, the Agricultural Insurance Act (Act No. 19.678, dated 26 October 2018) supports family and non-family producers in the event of adverse weather (catastrophe or disaster) and health events, providing economic-productive stability for its beneficiaries (Bado Cardozo, 2019) and the continuation of the family production model.
Passing thoughts
85Uruguay’s LCP arose out of regional discussions promoted by the REAF, with the Uruguayan state adapting it to the socioeconomic context of the country. Unlike Brazil, where state procurement programs for family farming have a strong slant towards rural development and sustainable food systems, the Uruguayan LCP instead gives the state a central role in the supply of food products, with preference given to family producers and artisanal fishers.
86With regard to the problem, the LCP does not specifically determine what it intends to address/remedy, but it can be inferred that public procurement allows family producers and artisanal fishers to sell part of their production to the state (short supply chains) and to obtain better prices. This aspect has in all probability contributed to the setting of an objective that does not seek the sustainable rural development of beneficiaries (as explained above), despite the state’s demand that rural families receive encouragement.
87Though the target audience is stipulated (family producers and artisanal fishers), non-family producers are included as beneficiaries of the LCP, undermining the Act’s objective of helping rural families. Furthermore, there is no explicit prioritization criterion for potential beneficiaries, which leaves access open to all family (and non-family) producers, regardless of their socioeconomic status.
88The LCP is vague in other ways and/or has other limitations, such as the source of processed food (whole or partial) and difficulties faced by rural families with planning the production system. Nor does the LCP promote sustainable (organic or agroecological) food production or provide a price differentiation mechanism for family producers (FS) that operate in a sustainable way. Although a market reserve is determined for these types of food, there are no resources for procurement from the target audience, not to mention the lack of public transparency of the mechanisms/results employed/obtained. The LCP is not widely implemented across the country and there are few HOs in relation to the production capacity of rural families.
89An exception to all this is the requirement for rural families to organize themselves into HOs in order to participate in state procurement, forming social capital and social actors (although no direct participation mechanism is discussed). The promotion of gender equality is another extremely positive aspect of the LCP, bringing women into the production cycle and the organization of OHs. In addition to these two factors, it is also worth highlighting the setting of food prices above market prices.
90The arguments raised about the structural weaknesses of state procurement in promoting the development of sustainable food systems can be remedied through linkage with other policies, in other words, a policy mix that encompasses a set of actions and dynamics that optimize the sustainable development of family producers and artisanal fishers.
91The study provides examples of some policies: the LCP is heavily dependent on the definition and registration of family producers, which directs the potential target audience towards state procurement; the Agroecology Plan addresses the gap in the LCP on sustainable food production; in the LCP there is no relationship with food and nutrition security (nor is there a government definition), though the state does have solid tools (INDA and ObSAN) for developing the subject and linking it to family production; the interaction of the LCP with the School Feeding Program in the supply of food for rural families; food safety, which determines quality parameters for the production and sale of food; the Family Producer Seal project, which is designed to make family production competitive; the Rural Development Forums, which influence debate on public policies (including the LCP) for sustainable rural development; as well as the Rural Microcredit Program (credit for production), ATER (technical support), Somos Mulheres Rurais (female empowerment), Somos Daqui (support for young people), the Regional Planning and Sustainable Development Act (sustainable planning), and the Agricultural Insurance Act (continuation of the family model).
92The policy mix in question consists of actions ranging from institutional recognition of rural families to sustainable food systems, linking with a social regulatory framework for food and nutrition security, influencing access to food for schoolchildren, establishing quality controls on food production, recognizing rural families in the shape of a seal, the decentralization of and public participation in the debate on public policies, as well as other sectoral and cross-cutting tools. This path addresses (or would address) the gaps in the LCP and enables the “end” with regard to the sustainable rural development of food by family producers and artisanal fishers.
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
References
ARCE (Agencia Reguladora de Compras Estatales). (n.d.). Regímenes de preferencia. República Oriental del Uruguay. Retrieved March 9, 2020 from https://www.gub.uy/agencia-compras-contrataciones-estado/politicas-y-gestion/planes/regimenes-preferencia
ARCE. (2019). Manual de Contratación Pública (version 11). República Oriental del Uruguay. https://www.comprasestatales.gub.uy/ManualesDeUsuarios/manual-procedimiento-compras/Compraporexcepcion.html .
10.22187/rfd2019n47a2 :Bado Cardozo, V.S. (2019). Ámbito de aplicación y eficacia de la Ley de Contratos de Seguros uruguaya. Revista de la Facultad de Derecho, 47, Article e20194702. doi:10.22187/rfd2019n47a2
Calanchini, J., Borche, A., & Canclini, G. (2017). El derecho a la alimentación en el marco normativo de Uruguay 1985–2014. Observatorio del Derecho a la Alimentación, Facultad de Derecho (UDELAR). https://www.fder.edu.uy/sites/default/files/2018-02/EL%20DERECHO%20A%20LA%20ALIMENTACIÓN%20EN%20URUGUAY%20%20(2017).pdf
Cámara de Representantes. (2015). Comisión Especial de Población y Desarrollo (carpeta n.° 198). Parlamento de la República Oriental del Uruguay.
Carvalho, P. D. (2011). Ação coletiva transnacional e Mercosul: organizações da sociedade civil do Brasil e do Paraguai na construção da reunião especializada sobre agricultura familiar (REAF) [Master’s thesis, Universidade de Brasília]. UnB Repository. http://repositorio.unb.br/bitstream/10482/8836/1/2011_PriscilaDelgadoDeCarvalho.pdf
Centro de Información Oficial. (1967). Constitución de la República. Dirección Nacional de Impresiones y Publicaciones Oficiales, Uruguay. https://www.impo.com.uy/bases/constitucion/1967-1967
Centro de Información Oficial. (2007). Ley no. 18.126, del 12 de mayo de 2007. Dirección Nacional de Impresiones y Publicaciones Oficiales, Uruguay. https://www.impo.com.uy/bases/leyes/18126-2007/8
Centro de Información Oficial. (2008a). Ley no. 18.308, del 18 de junio de 2008. Dirección Nacional de Impresiones y Publicaciones Oficiales, Uruguay. https://www.impo.com.uy/bases/leyes/18308-2008
Centro de Información Oficial. (2008b). Ley no. 18.381, del 17 de octubre de 2008. Dirección Nacional de Impresiones y Publicaciones Oficiales, Uruguay. https://www.impo.com.uy/bases/leyes/18381-2008/9
Centro de Información Oficial. (2013). Ley no. 19.140, del 11 de octubre de 2013. Dirección Nacional de Impresiones y Publicaciones Oficiales, Uruguay. https://www.impo.com.uy/bases/leyes/19140-2013
Centro de Información Oficial. (2014). Ley no. 19.292, del 16 de diciembre de 2014. Dirección Nacional de Impresiones y Publicaciones Oficiales, Uruguay. https://www.impo.com.uy/bases/leyes/19292-2014
Centro de Información Oficial. (2015). Decreto no. 86/015, del 27 de febrero de 2015. Dirección Nacional de Impresiones y Publicaciones Oficiales, Uruguay https://www.impo.com.uy/bases/decretos/86-2015
Centro de Información Oficial. (2018a). Ley no. 19.685, del 26 de octubre de 2018. Dirección Nacional de Impresiones y Publicaciones Oficiales, Uruguay. https://www.impo.com.uy/bases/leyes/19685-2018/2
Centro de Información Oficial. (2018b). Ley no. 19.717, del 21 de diciembre de 2018. Dirección Nacional de Impresiones y Publicaciones Oficiales, Uruguay. https://www.impo.com.uy/bases/leyes/19717-2018
Chiappe, M., Oyhantçabal, G., Pizzolón, A., & Rodríguez, L. (2015). Informe final: desarrollo rural y aplicación de políticas de compras públicas a productos alimenticios provenientes de la agricultura familiar. FAO, Facultad de Agronomía de la Universidad de la Republica.
Comisión Especial de Población y Desarrollo. (2014). Producción familiar agropecuaria y pesca artesanal. Cámara de Representantes, Parlamento de la República Oriental del Uruguay. https://parlamento.gub.uy/documentosyleyes/ficha-asunto/120934/tramite
10.37370/raizes.2018.v38.42 :De Torres, M.F., Arbeletche, P., & Sabourin, E. (2018). Agricultura familiar en Uruguay: reconocimiento y políticas públicas. Raízes: Revista de Ciências Sociais e Econômicas, 38(1), 116–128. doi:10.37370/raizes.2018.v38.42
DGDR (Dirección General del Desarrollo Rural). (n.d.). Organizaciones autorizadas a operar. Ministerio de Ganadería, Agricultura y Pesca, Uruguay. Retrieved March 9, 2020 from http://www.mgap.gub.uy/organizaciones/organizacionesmostrar.aspx
DGEIP (Dirección General de Educación Inicial y Primaria). (2020). Programa de Alimentación Escolar. Administración Nacional de Educación Pública, Uruguay. https://www.dgeip.edu.uy/finalidad-del-pae/
FAO. (2020). Perfil nacional de seguridad alimentaria y nutricional Uruguay. FAO, ALADI, ECLAC.
FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP, & WHO. (2019). El estado de la seguridad alimentaria y la nutrición en el mundo 2019. Protegerse frente a la desaceleración y el debilitamiento de la economía [The state of food security and nutrition in the world 2019. Safeguarding against economic slowdowns and downturns]. FAO. https://www.fao.org/3/ca5162es/ca5162es.pdf
FAO, OPS, WFP, & UNICEF. (2018). Panorama de la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional en América Latina y el Caribe 2018. https://www.fao.org/3/CA2127ES/CA2127ES.pdf
Fernández, V., Arciet, J., Bove, I., Rodríguez, S., Camacho, S., Curutchet, M.R., Magnani, D., & Sampayo, V. (2015). Derecho a la alimentación, seguridad alimentaria y nutricional: logros y desafíos de Uruguay. Facultad de Ciencias de la Universidad de la República Uruguay. https://www.gub.uy/ministerio-desarrollo-social/comunicacion/publicaciones/derecho-alimentacion-seguridad-alimentaria-nutricionallogros-desafios
10.31285/agro.23.1.8 :Gómez Perazzoli, A. (2019). Uruguay: país productor de alimentos para un sistema alimentario disfuncional. Agrociencia (Uruguay), 23(1), Article e70. doi:10.31285/agro.23.1.8
Grisa, C., & Niederle, P. (2018). Difusão, convergência e tradução nas políticas de compras públicas da agricultura familiar no âmbito da REAF Mercosul. Revista Latinoamericana de Políticas y Acción Pública, 5(2), 9–30. https://repositorio.flacsoandes.edu.ec/bitstream/10469/14612/2/RFLACSO-MP5%282%29.pdf
Hristoff, A., & Saravia, L. (2010). Situación de la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional en Uruguay 2009. Observatorio de Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutricional Uruguay, Instituto Nacional de Alimentación. http://dspace.mides.gub.uy:8080/xmlui/handle/123456789/566
INE (Instituto Nacional de Estadística). (2020). Demografía y estadísticas sociales. http://www.ine.gub.uy/web/guest/censos-2011
10.1108/JOPP-1010-0303-20102010-B003 :Kattel, R., & Lember, V. (2010). Public procurement as an industrial policy tool: an option for developing countries? Journal of Public Procurement, 10(3), 368–404. doi:10.1108/JOPP-10-03-2010-B003
Lanzaro, J. (2004). Fundamentos de la democracia pluralista y estructura política del Estado en el Uruguay. Revista Uruguaya de Ciencia Política, 14, 103–135. https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12008/6914
Leporati, M., Salcedo, S., Jara, B., Boero, V., & Muñoz, M. (2014). La agricultura familiar en cifras. In Salcedo, S., & L. Guzmán (Eds.), Agricultura familiar en América Latina y el Caribe: recomendaciones de política (pp. 35–56). FAO. https://www.fao.org/3/i3788s/i3788s.pdf
10.7476/9788564905726 :Machado, A., Pizzolon, A., & Vaz Tourem, J. (2018). Compras institucionales: estado del arte del proceso uruguayo. In Perez-Cassarino, J., Triches, R.M., Baccarin, J.G., & C.R. Paz Arruda Teo (Eds.), Abastecimento alimentar: redes alternativas e mercados institucionais (pp. 121–136). UFFS, UNICV. doi:10.7476/9788564905726
MGAP (Ministerio de Ganadería, Agricultura y Pesca). (n.d.-a). Dirección General de Desarrollo Rural. República Oriental del Uruguay. Retrieved March 18, 2020 from https://www.gub.uy/ministerio-ganaderia-agricultura-pesca/dgdr
MGAP. (n.d.-b). División inocuidad y calidad de alimentos. Retrieved April 18, 2020 from https://www.gub.uy/ministerio-ganaderia-agricultura-pesca/institucional/estructura-del-organismo/division-inocuidad-calidad-alimentos
MGAP. (2011). Censo general agropecuario 2011: resultados definitivos. República Oriental del Uruguay. https://www.gub.uy/ministerio-ganaderia-agricultura-pesca/sites/ministerio-ganaderia-agricultura-pesca/files/2020-02/censo2011.pdf
MGAP. (2016a, November 11). Resolución No. 1.013/016 - Definición del productor familiar agropecuario. República Oriental del Uruguay. https://www.gub.uy/ministerio-ganaderia-agricultura-pesca/institucional/normativa/resolucion-1013016-definicion-del-productor-familiar-agropecuario
MGAP. (2016b, December 6). Guía de buenas prácticas agrícolas para la producción de frutas y hortalizas frescas en Uruguay. República Oriental del Uruguay. https://www.gub.uy/ministerio-ganaderia-agricultura-pesca/comunicacion/publicaciones/guia-buenas-practicas-agricolas-para-produccion-frutas-hortalizas
MGAP. (2017). Uruguay agrointeligente: los desafíos para un desarrollo sostenible. República Oriental del Uruguay. https://www.gub.uy/ministerio-ganaderia-agricultura-pesca/sites/ministerio-ganaderia-agricultura-pesca/files/2019-12/libro%20completo%20con%20hipervinculos.pdf
Mila, F. (2015, November 11–12). La agricultura familiar como proveedora de las compras públicas de productos agrícolas y alimentos [Workshop presentation]. Programa Regional FIDA MERCOSUR, Montevideo, Uruguay.
Milhorance, C., Sabourin, E., & Mendes, P. (2019). Implementation and coordination of climate change adaptation policies in Bahia and Pernambuco semi-arid regions (Working Papers Series no. 3). UNB, CIRAD.
Mondelli, M. (2014, September 2). Lineamientos estratégicos para el desarrollo competitivo agroexportador [Conference presentation]. II Foro Cooperativo Agropecuario CAF 2014, Montevideo, Uruguay. http://www.caf.org.uy/site/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Documento-PDF-4.pdf
Parlamento del Uruguay. (2014). Produccion familiar agropecuaria y pesca artesanal. Interes general. Declaración. https://parlamento.gub.uy/documentosyleyes/ficha-asunto/120934/tramite
Parlamento del Uruguay. (2020). Alimentacion, seguridad y soberania alimentaria. Derecho. Ley marco. Aprobacion. https://parlamento.gub.uy/documentosyleyes/ficha-asunto/124753/ficha_completa
Pereyra, I. (2019). Políticas públicas sobre nutrición en Uruguay y la autonomía de las personas. Revista Cubana de Salud Pública, 45(1), Article e1238. https://www.scielosp.org/article/rcsp/2019.v45n1/e1238
Ramos, Á. (2019). Estado de las políticas diferenciadas para la agricultura familiar campesina y indígena en siete países de América Latina. COPROFAM.
REAF (Reunión Especializada sobre Agricultura Familiar). (2014). 10 años cambiando realidades.
Rogge, K.S., & Reichardt, K. (2013). Towards a more comprehensive policy mix conceptualization for environmental technological change: a literature synthesis (Working Paper Sustainability and Innovation, no. S3/2013). Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research.
Sabourin E., & Arbeletche, P. (2018). Rapport final du projet "Comprendre le fonctionnement et les effets de dispositifs participatifs innovants à l'interface entre élevage et environnement. Le cas des Forums de Développement Rural en Uruguay". Projet ECOS, CIRAD, UDELAR. https://agritrop.cirad.fr/586173/1/Rapport%20final%20Projet%20MESAS%20Uruguay%20ECOS-UDELAR%202017.pdf
Scheuer, J.M., & Vassallo, M. (2019). Análise do Programa Nacional de Fortalecimento da Agricultura Familiar no município gaúcho de Roque Gonzales, Brasil. Revista Geográfica Acadêmica, 13(1), 40–61. https://revista.ufrr.br/rga/article/view/5376
Sganga, F., Cabrera, C., Gonzalez, M., & Rodriguez, S. (2016). Producción familiar agropecuaria uruguaya y sus productores familiares a partir de los datos del Censo General Agropecuario y el Registro de Productores Familiares. Ministerio de Ganadería, Agricultura y Pesca, Oficina de Programación y Política Agropecuaria.
Solanas, F. (2009). El impacto del impacto del MERCOSUR en la educación superior: un análisis desde la “Mercosurización" de las políticas públicas. Education Policy Analysis Archives/Archivos Analíticos de Políticas Educativas, 17, 1–18. http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=275019727017
Torres Ledezma, C. (2010). Informe final de la consultoria realizada en el marco del proyecto Fortalecimiento del Observatorio de Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutricional. Observatorio de Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutricional, Uruguay.
UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). (2020). El PNUD en Uruguay. https://www.uy.undp.org/content/uruguay/es/home/about-us.html
World Bank. (2020). Uruguay: panorama general [Uruguay: overview]. https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/uruguay/overview
Auteur
-
Junior Miranda Scheuer
Assistant professor at the Faculty of Agronomy, Universidad de la República (UDELAR), Montevideo, Uruguay. scheuerjr@gmail.com
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.
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
Sébastien Boulay et Sylvie Fanchette (dir.)
2019
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
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
L’apport de l’étude des réseaux de dialogues entre pairs
Claude Compagnone
2019
Construire des politiques alimentaires urbaines
Concepts et démarches
Caroline Brand, Nicolas Bricas, Damien Conaré et al. (dir.)
2017
Services écosystémiques et protection des sols
Analyses juridiques et éclairages agronomiques
Carole Hermon (dir.)
2018
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
Sébastien Gardon, Amandine Gautier et Gwenola Le Naour
2020
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
MIAM
Olivier Lepiller, Tristan Fournier, Nicolas Bricas et al. (dir.)
2021
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
