English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Food sovereignty proponents find the terms ‘security’ and ‘right’ associated with ‘food’ as not covering the entire gamut of food and agricultural issues, especially in addressing small farmers’ and peasants’ concerns and ensuring sustainable agriculture development. Hence, they have conceptualized an alternative food paradigm and called it ‘food sovereignty’. However, food sovereignty has been interpreted and operationalized in various forms. Perhaps the choice of the term sovereignty has rendered the idea of food sovereignty ideal for co-optation because sovereignty is a historically and politically contested concept with multiple meanings attached to it. Some scholars argue that there are multiple sovereignties in food sovereignty that can be reconciled. This article analyses the case of Nepal that has adopted the idea of food sovereignty, and finds that the argument of multiple sovereignties exercised through relational and interactive measures can only be aspirational and normative at best.

Does ‘food sovereignty’ engender paradigm shift or co-optation? Insights from Nepal