WORLD FOOD DAY, 16 OCTOBER: BOLIVIAN DEBATES

One could expect that, on the occasion of World Food Day, the Bolivian press would bring up the most burning issues in the area of food and agriculture for Bolivia. So let’s take a look at the press coverage.

While the reports took up declarations from the government and FAO, there was unusual silence about statements from civil society organisations, which probably indicates that there were no significant statements made from that side.

On the occasion of World Food Day, the Bolivian government ratified the “Law of Mother Earth and Integral Development for the Good Life” (Ley de la Madre Tierra y Desarrollo Integral para Vivir Bien). Two central objectives of this law are to counteract the concentration of land in the hands of few, and to ban genetically modified crops from Bolivia (Durán, 17 October 2012).

As Durán (17 October 2012) comments, these objectives stand in contrast with current government policies. National food security is ensured in close cooperation with private agricultural businesses, and 70 % of Bolivian soy production stems from genetically modified seeds (ibid.). Also, within the “Agrarian, Productive and Communitarian Revolution” proclaimed by the government in mid 2011, a central project is the construction of fertilizer plants (ibid.).

While Durán suggests that the objectives of the new agricultural law are simply out of place since private property and genetically modified seeds are necessary to establish food security, an observer more sympathetic to the ideas presented by the government at least has to say: Implementing the new law will require a full turnaround in government policies.

The government itself, however, seems to be happy on the occasion of World Food Day. As the vice-minister of Rural Development states, the production of food has increased during 2012, thus ensuring “food security with sovereignty” (El Diario, 17 October 2012). For him, this is due to the national projects supporting particularly small-scale farmers (ibid.). At the same time, the minister mentions that the most important agricultural products have been sugar cane and soya – which are produced in large-scale cultivations by agribusinesses (Quispe, 16 October 2012).

This contradiction brings out an actual lack of support for small-scale farmers, a conclusion that is confirmed by statements of the La Paz office of the Food and Agricultural Organisation FAO on the occasion of World Food Day. FAO will be supporting small-scale producers in the production and marketing of ecological products, in order to insert these farmers better in the market (ABI, 15 October 2012). The organisation also stated the necessity to create a programme of family subsidies in order to ensure the right to food (Quispe, 16 October 2012). The percentage of Bolivians suffering from hunger has lowered slightly, but still stands at 24 % of the population (ibid.). The population most affected by food insecurity are small-scale farmers (ibid.). Thus, in line with its ideology and the new agricultural law, the government will have to think seriously about support for small-scale farmers.

It seems, however, that the government is busy with a different topic. On World Food Day, a Chinese online newspaper reminded us that 2013 will be the international year of Quinua (people daily, 17 October 2012). During this year, Bolivian president Evo Morales and FAO will be promoting the nutritional advantages of the Andean grain and its potential to contribute to world food security (ibid.).

Worldwide, Bolivia is the main exporter of Quinua (ibid.), and the grain is produced in the harsh highlands by small-scale farmers. So this will be an issue to watch. Because while Quinua will be promoted as the miracle grain to feed the world, small farmers in the Bolivian highlands might give away their source of subsistence for export, be replaced by agribusinesses – or find a sustainable way to use their miracle grain. But this will only happen if they are accompanied by smart and consistent government policies.

REFERENCES

Durán, G. P. (17 October 2012). Contradictórias políticas de gobierno. Jornada. Retrieved from http://www.jornadanet.com/Opinion/n.php?a=3263

El Diario (17 October 2012). Bolivia garantizó la seguridad alimentaria durante este año. Retrieved from: http://www.fmbolivia.com.bo/noticia99995-bolivia-garantizo-la-seguridad-alimentaria-durante-este-ano.html

Quispe, A. (16 October 2012). FAO plantea subsidio para garantizar la alimentación. La Razón. Retrieved from: http://www.la-razon.com/economia/FAO-plantea-subsidio-garantizar-alimentacion_0_1706829345.html

ABI (15 October 2012). FAO apoya a más de 8.000 productores ecológicos para reducir el hambre y la pobreza. Retrieved from: http://www.fmbolivia.com.bo/noticia99859-fao-apoya-a-mas-de-8000-productores-ecologicos-para-reducir-el-hambre-y-la-pobreza.html

People Daily (17 October 2012). Especial: Bolivia y FAO promoverán bondades de Quinua desde la ONU. Retrieved from: http://spanish.peopledaily.com.cn/31617/7979815.html

CENSUS 2012: ACCOUNTING FOR IDENTITY

Hardly on the same bench: Indigenous and non-indigenous Bolivians

In November 2012, the next census of the Bolivian population will take place. But what could be seen as a simple statistical task has become highly politicized.

The issue the whole country has been debating is question number 29, asking about the interviewee’s ethnic identity (Salazar, August 2012). The original wording of question 29, as presented by the Instituto Nacional de Estadística in August 2012, was: “Are you part of an indigenous or afro-Bolivian nation or people?” (¿Pertenece a alguna nación o pueblo indígena originario campesino o afroboliviano?) The possible answers were to declare oneself part of one of the 36 officially recognized peoples listed, or to declare oneself “none” (“ninguno”) (Salazar, August 2012).

The wording “ninguno” turned out to be highly polemic, because who would want to be “none”, or in the more literal translation “no one”?

In the last census, in 2001, the question of ethnicity was incorporated for the first time, with the same wording as  proposed for this year (Mesa, August 2012). Back then, 38 % of the Bolivian population did not identify as part of an indigenous people and thus declared themselves “ninguno” (ibid.). The result served to mark Bolivia officially as a country with an indigenous majority, a majority which had, however, been historically discriminated against (ibid.). This realisation was perfect support for the indigenous movement in Bolivia, which should take over the political power with the victory of Evo Morales and his Movimiento Al Socialismo in the 2005 presidential elections.

Since then, the political discourse in Bolivia has changed drastically. The Republic of Bolivia has become the Plurinational State of Bolivia, and the new constitution, approved in 2009, acknowledges 36 “indigenous nations” within Bolivia (ibid.). But instead of closing the gap of discriminations and inequalities between the indigenous and the non-indigenous population, it seems that the politics of the Morales government have led to an increased fragmentation of Bolivian society. Racism remains an important problem, and the population feels a form of “reversed racism”: More than half of the non-indigenous population claim to have been discriminated against by members of the indigenous population (Los Tiempos, 6 August 2012). And although social mobility has not improved greatly in Bolivia, there have been conflicts between established urban elites and “new rich” members of the indigenous population (PNUD, 2011).

It is because of this polarization of Bolivian society why, in this year’s census, the non-indigenous population does not want to be “no one”, does not want to be made invisible in favour of the politically convenient indigenous identity of Bolivia (Mesa, August 2012).

The government has recognized the conflictive nature of question 29 and hurried to find alternative wordings. After all, the government wants the census to be representative and not to be used as a platform for political declarations, such as a higher than actual number of “no ones” in protest against this wording (Salazar, August 2012). And that the Bolivian population is capable of such forms of protest has shown in the last rounds of local elections, where a majority of votes was not valid (ibid.).

But what would the alternative to “no one” be? It has been suggested to call the non-indigenous population “mestizos”, a term that has created even greater difficulties (Los Tiempos, 6 August 2012). First of all, the term “mestizo” has been considered racist, since it was introduced by the Spaniards in order to distinguish those who were born to a white father / mother and an indigenous mother / father (ibid.). And then, it is hard to determine who in Bolivia would not be genetically “mestizo” (Salazar, August 2012). The government itself seems to have a conflict over this definition. While vice-president Garcia Linera declared that “all peoples, all cultures are biologically mestizos” (ibid., par. 2), the Minister of Decolonization states that there is no mestizo culture, compared to the “pure” Aymara culture (ibid., par. 12).

Therefore, the option “mestizo” has been abandoned as well, since it did not prove to be less polemic. The current wording of question 29 is: Being Bolivian, are you part of an indigenous or afro-Bolivian nation or people? The answers are: “Yes”, indicating one of the 36 indigenous nationalities listed, “No”, or “No, I am not Bolivian” (ibid.). This wording seems to have calmed the situation, since it starts from the premise that everybody is, firstly, Bolivian, and then belongs or does not belong to an indigenous nation (Mesa, August 2012).

As small as this change seems, it indicates that Bolivian identities need to be conceptualised carefully, with the deeply rooted historical fragmentations in mind, and that there is an urgent need for a common sense of “Bolivianness”.

REFERENCES

Los Tiempos (6 August 2012). La mayoría se reconoce y siente mestizo. Special Edition on the Bolivian National Holiday.

Mesa, C. (August 2012). ¿Naciones? Commentary by Carlos D. Mesa Gisbert. Retrieved from http://carlosdmesa.com/2012/08/28/naciones/#more-1709

PNUD – Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo. (2011). Los cambios detrás del cambio. Desigualdades y movilidad social en Bolivia. (The changes behind the "process of change". Inequality and social mobility in Bolivia.).  La Paz: PNUD.

Salazar, J. C. (August 2012). Sin Dios ni Patria. Nueva Cronica y Buen Gobierno, 2da. quincena de agosto 2012, p. 5