ewonosaputra_insights from indigenous food sovereignty_dissertation

INSIGHTS FROM INDIGENOUS FOOD

SOVEREIGNTY:

UNDERSTANDING CHALLENGES FACED

BY ADIVASIS IN THE CHITTAGONG HILL

TRACTS, BANGLADESH

Evelyn Wonosaputra

BCom (Accounting and Finance), CA

A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of a

Master of Development Studies (International Development) degree

June 2016

School of Social Sciences

Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences

University of New South Wales, Sydney

Insights from Indigenous Food Sovereignty Evelyn Wonosaputra

2

Statement of originality and certificate of approval

I hereby declare that this submission is my own work and to the best of my

knowledge it contains no materials previously published or written by another

person, or substantial proportions of material which have been accepted for the

award of any other degree or diploma at UNSW or any other educational

institution, except where due acknowledgement is made in the thesis. Any

contribution made to the research by others, with whom I have worked at UNSW

or elsewhere, is explicitly acknowledged in the thesis. I also declare that the

intellectual content of this thesis is the product of my own work, except to the

extent that assistance from others in the project's design and conception or in

style, presentation and linguistic expression is acknowledged.

Signed ……………………………………………..........

Date 13 June 2016

Approved as suitable for submission by

________________________________________________

(supervisor)


3

Table of Contents

Abstract ........................................................................................................................ 5

Abbreviations and acronyms ........................................................................................ 6

Chapter 1. Introduction ................................................................................................ 7

Food sovereignty .......................................................................................................... 9

The Chittagong Hill Tracts, Bangladesh ....................................................................... 12

Research Question, Method and Design ..................................................................... 13

Thesis Outline ............................................................................................................. 15

Chapter 2. Food Sovereignty Literature Review ......................................................... 16

Rights-based approaches to food sovereignty ............................................................. 16

Multiple and Competing Sovereignties: Power Relations ............................................ 19

Indigenous movements and food sovereignty ............................................................. 22

Chapter 3. Ethnic Minorities and Food Insecurity in the CHT ..................................... 26

Food insecurity and land displacement ....................................................................... 26

Changing food system and ecology ............................................................................. 28

CHT Conflict and insurgency ........................................................................................ 32

Indigenous movements in the CHT.............................................................................. 33

Chapter 4. Insights from a food sovereignty framework ........................................... 35

Shifting cultivation beyond food security .................................................................... 36

Agroecology for a sustainable food system ................................................................. 39

Rights-based approaches to food sovereignty ............................................................. 41

Rethinking relationships across scales ......................................................................... 44

Rethinking belonging and territory.............................................................................. 48

Chapter 5. Conclusion ................................................................................................ 51

Implications for theory and practice ........................................................................... 53

Suggestions for further research ................................................................................. 55

References.................................................................................................................. 57

Appendix A ................................................................................................................. 74


4

Appendix B ................................................................................................................. 75

Appendix C ................................................................................................................. 76

Appendix D ................................................................................................................. 77

Appendix E ................................................................................................................. 78

Appendix F ................................................................................................................. 80

Appendix G ................................................................................................................. 81

Abstract

The thesis examines the relevance of food sovereignty towards better

understanding the challenges faced by the ethnic minorities (Adivasis) in the

Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT) region of Bangladesh. History demonstrates that

the incessant socio-economic exploitation and high prevalence of food

insecurity ultimately fostered indigenous movements in the CHT. The

research employs secondary analysis to critically examine the conceptual and

theoretical application of an indigenous food sovereignty framework, as a

bridge between food security and indigenous movements in the CHT. The

framework reveals the importance of restoring and developing the Adivasis’

traditional food system and indigenous knowledge as a prerequisite to

indigenous food sovereignty and wellbeing. A food sovereignty approach also

offers a means to repolitise rights as an active form of citizenship, whereby

the right to food is inseparable from the right to produce, such as right to

land and right to seeds. Significantly, this study brings a fresh perspective in

reshaping the politics of indigenous movements within the domain of food

sovereignty. An indigenous food sovereignty framework provides an

alternative view that shifts the indigenous discourse from one on state-

centric autonomy to one that characterises autonomy as control of the food

system. The latter allows for the Adivasis’ cultural integrity and relationships

with human and nonhuman environment to be maintained. These insights

provide the scope for policy makers and non-state actors in the CHT and

Bangladesh for rethinking their approach towards a more sustainable and

just food system.


6

Abbreviations and acronyms

BARCIK: Bangladesh Resource Center for Indigenous Knowledge

BBS: Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics

CHT: Chittagong Hill Tracts

CHTDF: Chittagong Hill Tracts Development Facility

EEP/Shiree: Economic Empowerment of the Poor

FAO: Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations

FFS: Farmers Field Schools

ICESCR: International Covenant on Economics, Social and Cultural Rights

ICIMOD: International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development

ITPGRFA: International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and

Agriculture

GED: General Economic Division (of the GOB)

GMO: Genetically Modified Organism

GOB: Government of Bangladesh

LVC: La Via Campesina

NGO: Non-Governmental Organisation

OHCHR: Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights

PCJSS: Parbatya Chattagram Jana Samhati Samiti

RtAF: Right to Adequate Food

UDHR: Universal Declaration of Human Rights

UN: United Nations

UNDRIP: United Nation Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples


7

Chapter 1. Introduction

This thesis aims to explore the relevance of a food sovereignty approach

within the context of the ethnic minorities in the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT)

in Bangladesh with respect to their concurrent indigenous movements.

Focusing on the concept of food sovereignty and in setting out the

parameters of this study, this research seeks to answer the question: What

insights does food sovereignty provide towards better understanding the

challenges faced by the ethnic minorities in the Chittagong Hill Tracts?

This study also seeks to understand whether a food sovereignty approach

may enhance or impede the indigenous discourse in the CHT. The

contributions of indigenous peoples to sustainable agricultural practices are

increasingly being recognised (FAO 2009, FAO 2015). This is particularly so

post the adoption of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

(UNDRIP) by the UN General Assembly in 2007. Admittedly, one of the key

conclusions to the Forum on indigenous peoples in Bangkok 2013 was the

need to understand the in-depth challenges faced by the indigenous

communities in order to identify opportunities that are socially and culturally

acceptable (FAO 2015: vii). Thus the socioeconomic and political situations of

indigenous peoples have become one of the most researched topics among

sociologists and anthropologists in recent times (Hossain 2013).

In the last two decades, the concept of food sovereignty has become the most

promising yet highly debated alternative paradigm to the mainstream food

security agenda that dominates global, regional and national food systems.

The mainstream food regime was built on decades of food security policies

that favoured a global corporatised food system and free trade agreements

(Jarosz 2014: 172). Food sovereignty movements notably gained more

popularity after the global 2007-2008 price rise in agricultural commodities,

which was partly fuelled by speculation of commodities (Bernstein 2014:

1033). As a result, it added 105 million to the global poor, mostly in South

Asia and sub-Saharan Africa (Ivanic and Martin 2008: 415). This crisis


8

provided a clear indication that food security policies in the past have failed

to promote, respect, protect and fulfil the rights of farmers (La Via Campesina

2009). While food security discussions avoid the structural causes of hunger,

food sovereignty outrightly questions relations of power as the cornerstone

of good governance (Patel 2009: 665). Food sovereignty questions how food

is produced, where, by whom, and at what scale (Desmarais 2007, McMichael

2009). The discourse on food sovereignty has gained much interest from

food scholars and non-academics alike. The concept is slowly being

integrated in the terminology of many development agencies and is

beginning to find its way in United Nations’ (UN) policy debates as well as in

national constitutions (Desmarais 2008, Claey 2012).

Meanwhile, food insecurity1 is increasingly becoming a grave issue in the

CHT, a region located in the Southeast of Bangladesh and home to 11 ethnic

groups. The latest survey of the socio-economic status in the CHT found that

rural poverty is 1.6 times higher there than in the rest of the country (CHTDF

2009: viii). Moreover, 89% of its people are living under the higher poverty

line2 and most households were found to be food insecure throughout the

month of Jaistha (May-June), Ashar (June-July) and Sravan (July-August)

(CHTDF 2009: viii, 113-114, see Appendix A for a food security map of the

CHT). This case study has been selected as it is evident that the mainstream

food security approaches propagated by the government and development

agencies have not been able to reduce food insecurities in the region.

Additionally, the struggles of the ethnic minorities in the CHT have mirrored

the struggles of the peoples that have joined forces in La Via Campesina’s

(LVC) food sovereignty movements. For instance, the latter had been victims

of mainstream food security approaches with concrete struggles for land and

1 Food security is defined in the World Food Summit of 1996 as a situation ‘when all people,

at all times, have physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food

which meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life’ (FAO

2002). 2 The survey measured food insecurity based on the cost of basic needs of Tk 1,025/per

person/month (approx. USD13) for higher poverty line.


9

territory (Martinez-Torres and Rosset 2014). This next section outlines a

brief history of food sovereignty movements, their origins, and how the

concept of food sovereignty is collectively defined. This chapter then

presents a more detailed background of the CHT case study and concludes

with the research scope and structure of this thesis.

Food sovereignty

The term food sovereignty originated from the Mexican government’s 1983

National Food Program (Programma Nacional de Alimentacion) and was

used by peasant movements in Central America in the early 1990s (Edelman

2014a: 183). Nonetheless, it was LVC that introduced this term globally in a

FAO-sponsored World Food Conference in 1996 in an uprising to stop the

dumping of large amounts of subsidised American corn into Mexico that

forced many small-scale farmers out of business (Edelman 2014a: 183). Over

600 representatives of peasants, fisherfolks, pastoralists, indigenous peoples,

youth, women, urban dwellers and farm workers gathered together (Jarosz

2014). LVC’s notion of food sovereignty that emerged in this international

public space consolidated peasants, indigenous peoples and farmers as a

‘transnational community of resistance’ united through the persistent,

diverse and interconnected struggles of the peasants3 (Desmarais & Wittman

2014: 1157). Thereafter, other food sovereignty movements also gained

traction in South Asia; from the protest march of small farmers in Karnataka

who have now formed the most visible food sovereignty movements in the

region (i.e. the Karnataka State Farmers’ Association), to the People’s

Coalition on Food Sovereignty forum held in Dhaka, who later published ‘The

People’s Convention on food sovereignty’ in 2004 as a declaration on the

right of peoples to have control of their food systems (PCFS 2004, de Schutter

2015).

3 While the connotation of the term ‘peasant’ in English is often negative, the term is used in

the movement with pride (Desmarais 2008).


10

The Declaration of Nyeleni in 2007 is now regarded as the most

representative definition of food sovereignty (NGO/CSO Forum for Food

Sovereignty 2007). It states:

Food sovereignty is the right of peoples to healthy and culturally

appropriate food produced through ecologically sound and sustainable

methods, and their right to define their own food and agricultural

systems…It ensures that the rights to use and manage our lands, territories,

waters, seeds, livestock and biodiversity are in the hands of those who

produce food. Food sovereignty implies new social relations free of

oppression and inequality between men and women, peoples, racial groups,

social classes and generations. (see NGO/CSO Forum for Food Sovereignty

2007 for the full definition).

One major change in this definition from its previous version was the term

‘right to nation’, which was attributable to the original intent against trade

liberation, to the ‘right of peoples’ (Claeys 2015). Nevertheless, this definition

continues to be debated today due to the diverse politics behind the

movement4 (Grey and Patel 2015). Food sovereignty also requires the

implementation of all its components (Beauregard 2009, Pimbert 2008), as

follows. It:

(1) focuses on local people (2) values and respects the rights of women and

men, peasants and small scale family farmers and indigenous people who

cultivate, grow, harvest and process food (3) localises food system (4) puts

control of resources locally (5) builds local knowledge and skills of food

providers, and (6) works with nature (NGO/CSO Forum for Food

Sovereignty 2007).

The Declaration advocates for the use of agroecology as an alternative to

monoculture production and urges the ban on Genetically Modified Organism

4 It is outside the scope of this thesis to outline these debates; however, see Anderson and

Bellows 2012 Bernstein 2014, Agarwal 2014, Clapp 2014, Edelman et al. 2014 and Alonso-

Fradejas et al. 2015 for ongoing debates on the definition and interpretation of food

sovereignty.


11

(GMO) food and seeds while preserving traditional production system and

indigenous knowledge (Putnam et al. 2014, Jarosz 2014, Edelman 2014a,

Anderson and Bellows 2012). In brief, food sovereignty seeks a

transformational social change to recuperate rights and policies of those who

have previously been excluded.

As food sovereignty movements first originated in Latin America, there has

been proportionately more research conducted in the region, particularly

where food sovereignty has been adopted in national constitutions (see

McKay et al. 2014, Schiavoni 2014). In contrast, there is a dearth of food

sovereignty research in South Asia region, particularly in Bangladesh. This is

despite the fact that food sovereignty has been recognised in Bangladesh as

one of the most important practices to mitigate and adapt to climate change

(Bangladesh Krishok Federation 2011). It is surprising that there is such

scant research in the area of food sovereignty in South Asia given that this

region alone hosted 35.4% of the world’s hunger in 2014-2016 (FAO 2016).

Recent food sovereignty literature highlights the need to understand the local

context – the political, social, economic, institutional and cultural dimensions,

including: (i) the social organisations and social actors involved and (2) how

power operates within the society, in order to better understand the

potential, challenges and limitations of food sovereignty as a framework for

an alternative food system (see Wald and Hill 2016, Agarwal 2014,

Desmarais and Wittman 2014). Thus, opportunity exists to investigate the

relevance of food sovereignty in the CHT region of Bangladesh, which

remains underexplored by scholars within and beyond the region. The

following section outlines the traditional food system of the ethnic minorities

in the CHT and the struggle for recognition of their distinct identities.


12

The Chittagong Hill Tracts, Bangladesh

The CHT is located in the Southeast of Bangladesh in a land area of 13,295

km2, which is approximately 10 percent of the total land area in the country.

It has the highest percentage of forests area in the country, with 1.4 million

hectares classified as the hill forests. This unique feature of the hilly and

forested terrain is suitable for jum5 (shifting) or swidden cultivation, which

distinguishes the CHT from the rest of the country. Historically, jum has been

the main agricultural system and source of livelihood in the CHT. Along with

hunting, fishing, trapping, weaving, herding and gathering, it encompasses

the economy, society and culture of the CHT (Chowdhury 2008: 63, Adnan

2004: 10). In recent decades, however, land pressure and dispossessions

forced the people to reduce the land fallow cycle, making jum cultivation an

economically and environmentally unsustainable agricultural system

(Borggaard et al. 2003, Nath et al. 2005, Karim and Mansor 2011). The CHT is

also home to the largest number of ethnic groups in Bangladesh. The term

ethnic minorities6 refer to eleven ethnic groups residing in the CHT, these

are: Chakma, Marma, Tripura, Tanchangya, Mro, Khiyang, Lushai, Khumi,

Chak, Pangkua and Bawm (UNPO 2008). The ethnic minorities differ from

their Bengali counterparts in their culture, religion, tradition, race, political

history, social organisation, language, heritage and economy. Nevertheless,

the constitution of Bangladesh adopted in 1972 had no provision recognising

the distinct identities of the ethnic groups (Roy 1996, Mohsin 1998, quoted in

Adnan 2004: 27).

5 Jum cultivation involves cutting and burning of the slashed and dried vegetation in

February to March, sowing seeds in April and harvesting between July to December (Karin

and Mansor 2011: 109, see Appendix F for a jum cultivation calendar in the CHT). Cultivation

in the same plot of land is done for one or two years before leaving the land fallow to

regenerate. 6 In the CHT literature, ethnic minorities are referred to as ‘Pahari’, which translates to Hill

people or ‘Upajati’, which translates to tribal. Meanwhile, the term ‘Adivasi’, which translates

to indigenous peoples, and ‘Jumma’ for their occupation as jum cultivators, have social and

political connotations attached to them (Chowdhury 2008: 68). In this thesis, the term Pahari

will be used in discussions around jum cultivation. This is because Paharis are generally

Adivasis but not all Adivasis are Paharis.


13

Research Question, Method and Design

In responding to the research question: What insights does food

sovereignty provide towards better understanding the challenges faced

by the ethnic minorities in the Chittagong Hill Tracts?, this study attempts

to make an important contribution to the academic literature on the small

but growing discourse on indigenous food sovereignty and the CHT (see

Morisson 2011, Rudolph and McLachlan 2013, Kamal et al. 2014, Kamal et al.

2015, Grey and Patel 2015). To date, there is limited literature on the CHT

and none of the studies have attempted to look into the role of food

sovereignty in the CHT. Research interest around the CHT generally lies in

the analysis of different land use systems and separately, the current state of

play on the fight for indigeneity (see Rasul and Thapa 2006, Karim and

Mansor 2011, Nath et al. 2011, Chowdhury 2008, Dowlah 2013). There are

few CHT studies that have integrated food security issues with indigenous

movements. The findings of the thesis may provide insights for non-state

actors such as local institutions, civil society organisations and the ethnic

minorities in the CHT themselves in re-thinking their approach and strategies

for a more equitable and just food system.

This research undertakes a qualitative methodology within a case study

design, where the case of the CHT is a ‘focus of interest in its own right’

(Bryman 2012: 50). The purpose of the research is not to generalise the

findings (external validity) but to generate quality analysis within an

inductive approach (Bryman 2012: 52).

Due to the restricted time and scope available for this study, the research is

primarily based on desk-based reviews of secondary data and publicly

available information such as peer-reviewed journal articles, government

reports, Non-Government Organisations’ (NGOs) documents, and published

papers from research centres and media articles. Moreover, only English-

written documents have been included in this study. The primary limitation


14

of this research is that no fieldwork has been conducted in the CHT. As a

result, this limits the depth of the research and the scope of this thesis, which

is more theoretical by nature. Nonetheless, it is expected that the findings of

this thesis will be valuable towards enhancing the debate on the relevance of

food sovereignty in the case of the struggles of ethnic minorities in the CHT,

and initiate discussions for further research in the future. There are also a

number of important issues within the discourse of food sovereignty,

indigenous movements and the CHT that are outside the scope of the thesis;

some warranting research on their own. These include (but are not limited

to) issues such as: the dynamic relationships amongst the ethnic groups in

the CHT and the important role that women farmers have in agricultural

production and food.

The thesis in particular examines the relevance of an indigenous food

sovereignty framework towards better understanding the challenges faced

by the ethnic minorities in the CHT. The framework is used in exploring what

a sustainable food system means to the Adivasis in the CHT. The process

reveals: (1) the importance of restoring and preserving the traditional food

system and indigenous knowledge of the Adivasis in a way that is socially and

culturally appropriate but also economically and environmentally

sustainable (2) the inseparability between the right to food and the right to

produce food, such as right to land and right to seeds, and (3) how an

indigenous food sovereignty framework helps open the space (of discourse)

to imagine social relations differently including in human and nonhuman7

environment. The application of an indigenous food sovereignty framework

in the CHT therefore reveals strategies towards a sustainable food system

that simultaneously restore the Adivasis’ cultural practices, relationships,

knowledge, power relations, and a sense of wellbeing.

7 Nonhuman environment refers to the relationship with land, soil, water, air, plants and

animals (Morrison 2011, Kamal et al. 2014).


15

Thesis Outline

This paper is divided into five chapters. Chapter Two reviews the key

components of the food sovereignty literature that are most relevant to

answering the research question, such as: rights-based approaches to food

sovereignty, the concept of multiple and competing sovereignties, as well as

the literature on indigenous food sovereignty. Chapter Three examines the

extent of the challenges facing the ethnic minorities in the CHT. It provides a

historical background on the discriminatory market-based policies that have

led to food insecurities and land displacements in the CHT. It also examines

the causes that initiated indigenous movements in the CHT. Chapter Four

analyses the application of an indigenous food sovereignty framework in the

CHT and is organised into two parts: Part I discusses how jum cultivations

not only sustain food security but also form an important part of the Paharis’

way of life, culture and identity, the concept of agroecology, and concludes

with the application of rights-based approaches to food sovereignty. Part II

investigates how an indigenous food sovereignty framework may offer a

bridge between food security and indigenous movements in the CHT. In

particular, it examines how an indigenous food sovereignty framework

challenges the mainstream thinking on the relationships of scale, and the

concepts of belonging and territory. The final chapter (Conclusion) brings

together discussions from previous chapters and summarises the

implications of the findings for theory and practice.


16

Chapter 2. Food Sovereignty Literature Review There is a ‘quantum sheer of literature’ generated in the context of food

sovereignty, which reflects the growing, collective food sovereignty

movements practiced at different scales across the world (Bernstein 2014:

1032). It is beyond the scope of this thesis to address all the voluminous

aspects and debates on food sovereignty; instead, it focuses on a few selected

emerging themes and key components of food sovereignty that are most

relevant in answering the research question. These are, firstly, the debates on

the rights-based approaches to food sovereignty; secondly, the analysis of the

political challenge in answering ‘who is the sovereign in food sovereignty’

(Edelman 2014b: 967), and finally a review of the existing literature that

directly connects indigenous movements with food sovereignty movements.

The literature reviewed in this chapter provides the analytical foundation for

the analysis in Chapter Four.

Rights-based approaches to food sovereignty

Food sovereignty movements have always been contextualised within the

rights-based language, from the ‘right of nation states’ in 1996 definition to

the ‘right of peoples’ in 2007 definition (LVC 2009). However, there are

debates between food scholars on the use of rights-based language8 within

food sovereignty movements (see Beuchelt and Virchow 2012, Patel et al.

2007, Anderson and Bellows 2012, Claeys 2012 and Dunford 2015). The

proponents of right to adequate food (RtAF) argued that the appearance of

“rights” in the definition of food sovereignty risks undermining ‘decades of

hard work in international negotiations’ to recognise human rights under

international law (Haugen 2009: 291). Therefore, it was proposed that a

8 The rights-based approach to development came to be recognised after the Universal

Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was passed in 1948, and the right to adequate food

(RtAF) was recognised and enshrined in Article 11 of the International Covenant on

Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) in 1966. Albeit that the recognition of duty-

bearers goes beyond the state, the primary obligation to respect, protect and fulfil the rights

remains with the state (OHCHR n.d.).


17

clear distinction to be made between the RtAF, which is a legal concept, and

food sovereignty, which is a political concept (Beuchelt and Virchow 2012,

see Appendix B for comparison between RtAF and food sovereignty). Given

the meaning of food sovereignty is still in ‘flux’, Anderson and Bellows (2012:

181) further warned that this can reduce its power in national food policy

implementation. In brief, these scholars believe that a food sovereignty

framework adds little value to the struggles of the people, particularly in

countries where the nation state has ratified the ICESCR. These views are

essentially valid but limited for the reasons discussed below.

Food sovereignty movements gained most of its strength from the

participation of the people in building a sustainable democracy, in order to

influence political direction and decision-making processes at different

levels, or what Patel (2007: 91) describes as making ‘transgressive use of the

discourse of rights’. According to Dunford (2014), the practice of LVC

combines the concept of Critical Security Studies that reject state-centricism

as particular agents of emancipatory change with Blakeley’s collective

politics9. The food sovereignty concept is intentionally vague about the

bodies responsible in guaranteeing these rights (Patel et al. 2007). It puts the

onus on the people to find out what the right to food10 means in their

communities, taking into account their diverse climate, geography, food

preferences, social mix and history (Patel et al. 2007: 91). The intention is to

shift the attention away from state “obligation” to the practice of active

citizenship. This process of building democracy is used in food sovereignty as

a vehicle for political mobilisation. The accumulation of knowledge and

resources in the process also empowers peasants to raise demand for human

rights over their struggles as active economic and political actors. In other

words, while RtAF within the discourse of food security emphasises the role

of state and international or other unspecified agencies in the provision of

9 This is on the assumption that an individual who suffers human rights oppression is often

not in a position to demand their rights (Blakeley 2013: 604). 10 The Right to food and the RtAF is used interchangeably in this thesis. However, RtAF is defined by the ICESCR, while the right to food can be self-defined.


18

food, food sovereignty is a social movement by, not on behalf of, the peasants

(Dunford 2014). The discourse of food sovereignty moves away from policing

compliance of rights violations, which Patel describes as a hegemonic view of

democracy and citizenship ‘towards the people who are meant to hold them’

(Patel et al. 2007, Patel 2009: 92).

The rights-based approaches to food sovereignty thus offer a means to

repolitise rights as an active form of citizenship within its social and political

context, at local, national and international levels. This is clearly

demonstrated in the emergence of a new proposed right, framed within food

sovereignty that is both collective and decentralised (Claeys 2012: 849).

Following the end of President Suharto’s regime in 1998, a number of rural

democracy movements emerged in the countryside of Indonesia (LVC 2009).

The movements adopted the ‘Declaration of the Rights of Peasants’ as they

believe there are limitations in using the ICESCR as an instrument to protect

peasants’ rights (LVC 2009). Notably, the RtAF within food security discourse

fails to recognise the right to produce food, such as the right to land and

territory, the right to seeds, and the right to set the prices of agricultural

products (Edelman and James 2011). Differing from the RtAF, rights-based

approaches to food sovereignty imagine a new social relation whereby ‘the

human right to food is the human right to farm for the benefit of the people’

(Jarosz 2014: 174). As Patel et al. (2007) explain:

Food security is agnostic about the production regime, about the social and

economic conditions under which food ends up on the table. Its definition is

compatible, for example, with a full employment economy in which everyone

eats at McDonald’s… The right to [adequate] food is compatible with a range

of policies that militate against human rights enshrined in the UDHR (Patel

et al. 2007: 90)

To further illustrate this difference, patents on seeds, plants and animals and

GMOs are acceptable within the RtAF but are outrightly rejected in food

sovereignty and in the Declaration of the Rights of Peasants (Haugen 2009).


19

The Declaration calls for peasants as a separate vulnerable and marginalised

group, similar to the specific recognition of indigenous peoples in the

UNDRIP (LVC 2009). In summary, what started as essentially an Indonesian

process has emerged at the international level, in which the struggles of the

peasants are now being contextualised within the rights-based framework

(Claeys 2015)11. This multi-scale level in which food sovereignty is practiced

is further discussed in the following section.

Multiple and Competing Sovereignties: Power Relations

As there is no single governing authority to regain food sovereignty

(McMichael 2015), the effort to obtain control of the communities’ food

system cannot solely rely on the effort of the local communities. It involves

some degree of redistribution of power by the state in order for its people to

achieve local autonomy (McKay et al. 2014). In this regards, Edelman

(2014b) raised some salient questions, which have been largely evaded by

scholars of food sovereignty. These questions include ‘who is the sovereign in

“food sovereignty”’ and ‘what political institutions will administer “food

sovereignty”’ (Edelman 2014b: 967-968). Paradoxically, the term

‘sovereignty’ historically refers to ‘state-centered sovereignty’ and its

autonomous control over its territory, in which ‘social, cultural, economic

and security structures are defined’ (Ilgen 2003, quoted in Iles and

Montenegro de Wit 2015: 484). This is a paradox because food sovereignty

movements are generally oriented towards dismantling many of these states’

policies (Edelman 2013, McMichael 2014). Therefore, as Bernstein (2014:

1054) accurately summarised, ‘the state is “the elephant in the room”’ in the

food sovereignty literature. Nevertheless, this trend is changing as

11 The latest progress was made in October 2015, whereby the United Nations (UN) Human

Rights Council adopted (by majority) a resolution that allows the intergovernmental

working group to submit a draft UN Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People

Working in Rural Areas within the next two years (LVCa 2015). However, Claeys (2012: 854)

warns that this may reduce food sovereignty movements to an ‘inoffensive UN human rights

system that acknowledge the existence of a new group right’.


20

increasingly more researchers are critically tackling difficult questions in

food sovereignty movements (see Edelman et al. 2014, Schiavoni 2014,

Shattuck et al. 2015, Iles and Montenegro de Wit 2015). This is illustrated

below.

Building upon the work of McMichael (2009) and Patel (2009), Schiavoni

(2014: 9) proposed the concept of food sovereignty in terms of ‘multiple’ or

‘competing sovereignties’, which need not be mutually exclusive and vary by

geography, scale and institutions12 (Shattuck et al. 2015: 426). These

multiple sovereignties include: external sovereignty, which calls for the state-

centric view and control of its territories and food productions, and internal

sovereignty, which centers on the right of peoples to self-determination and

to freely choose how to manage their food system (Claeys 2012, Shattuck et

al. 2015). This notion of multiple and competing sovereignties moves away

from the single-point approach with the state (McMichael 2009: 39). There is

strong evidence to suggest that the current discourse on food sovereignty,

however, mostly fails to recognise these multiple and competing

sovereignties dimensions despite it being closely interlinked with the

struggles towards food sovereignty and control over resources (Jarosz 2014,

Robbins 2015, Wald and Hill 2016). One of the insights arising from the

recognition of multiple and competing sovereignties is the ability to ‘jump

scales to disband spatial boundaries’ (Wald and Hill 2016: 206). This refers

to the ability to engage networks, including at regional and international

level, as per what LVC has done successfully across space and scale. In other

words, the multiple and competing sovereignties dimension within food

sovereignty implies that there are different levels of decision-making, which

suggests that political change can be enacted at multiple scales to contest

‘territory, economy and power’ (Trauger 2014: 1145).

12 See Schiavoni (2014) who examines the difference between scale (size, level and relation),

geography and institutions within the context of food sovereignty.


21

This emphasis on the importance of power relations within local, national and

regional scales is what differentiates food sovereignty from food security

(Jarosz 2014). Understanding the power relationships and processes between

actors of multiple sovereignties holds the potential to socially construct

sovereignty as a ‘malleable and “negotiable” power by which particular

movements, peoples, or communities can seize, create, oppose, or reshape as

against the state, cities, corporations, and other sovereign actors’ (Iles and

Montenegro de Wit 2015: 483, Shattuck et al. 2015). This notion of relational

scale suggested by Iles and Montenegro de Wit (2015) is not static and leaves

room for different sovereign actors to coexist, whereby sovereignty can be

‘built up, recognised, and maintained over time and space’ (Iles and

Montenegro de Wit 2015: 489). This is well illustrated with the comunas or

citizen-led self-governing bodies (Communal Councils) in Venezuela,

whereby the participatory democracy process happens through the

interaction between the state and society (Schiavoni 2014). Through these

interactions, Venezuela is undergoing a process of structural changes with

the ultimate goal of moving control of its food system to their people

(Schiavoni 2014, McKay et al. 2014). In other words, understood in terms of

relational scale, food sovereignty is about building relationships, creating

open spaces for dialogues across scales, and ‘becomes as much a practice of

creating connectivity as of creating autonomy’ (Iles and Montenegro de Wit

2015: 494).

Unlike food security, which is described as the ‘state of being or having that is

situated in a given time’ (Wald and Hill 2016: 204), there are many different

scales, contexts, multiple and competing sovereignties, as described above, in

which food sovereignty process is evolving. Food sovereignty is not a ‘one

size fits all solution’ that can easily be scaled up (Schiavoni 2014: 8).

Consequently, it is important to understand the unique local history,

institutions, governance, cultural identities, politics and economic changes in

order to discern social relations and the way in which power is structured,

which is at the core of progressing efforts of food sovereignty (Shattuck et al.


22

2015, Jarosz 2014). According to Shattuck et al. (2015: 427), understanding

these contextual differences and lived experiences is the foundation in which

strategies can be built, and negotiated, including ‘whether, how, and in what

way to engage the state’. Thus, the following section looks into the discourse

of food sovereignty in conjunction with indigenous movements, in order to

better understand the unique challenges faced by indigenous people13.

Indigenous movements and food sovereignty

This section begins by discussing some of the similarities and divergences

between indigenous movements and food sovereignty movements. The

overlap between indigenous and food sovereignty movements can be seen in

the utilisation of the rights-based approach. The basis of indigenous

movement has historically been centred on the rights to self-determination,

which is a ‘right to freely determine their political status and freely pursue

their economic, social and cultural development’ 14 (Article 3) and in doing

so, have the ‘right to autonomy or self-government’ (Article 4) and

sovereignty over their territories (UNDRIP 2007). The limitations of a human

rights framework, as discussed earlier, likewise pertain to indigenous

movements. For instance, the rights-based approach runs the risk of reducing

indigenous resurgence that is deeply embedded in the everyday practice of

reclaiming, restoring and regenerating their relationship with homelands,

plants, and animals15 to a mere state-centric legal and political recognition

(Corntassel and Byrce 2012: 153). This diverts the discourse away from

redressing cultural loss, which is at the core of the indigenous people’s

identity and dignity (Henders 2005, Corntassel 2008).

13 This background literature is relevant in the context of the ethnic minorities in the CHT, as

will be demonstrated in Chapter Three. 14 The right to self-determination is the right of the people not individual (Australian Human

Rights Commission n.d.). 15 also known as ‘decolonisation’ (Corntassel and Byrce 2012: 153).


23

Albeit both movements agree on the limitations of the current human rights

framework, there are also clear divergences between indigenous and food

sovereignty movements. For example, this is shown in the interpretation of

autonomy. The right to autonomy within indigenous movements ranges from

self-administration to self-government (Grey and Patel 2015), which is

contradictory to the interpretation of sovereignty within the food

sovereignty discourse, as discussed above. This drive for autonomy has

shaped and constrained today’s indigenous politics (Shaw 2008: 182).

Drawing on the insight of eco-feminist theory, Buddhism, and indigenous

North American philosophies, Henders (2005: 25) points out how this

individualistic conception of self-government in itself undermines the ability

of indigenous people to self-govern as their culture is based on a deep

interconnectedness with other communities and the natural environment,

which requires ‘relations of nondomination’. The discussions above indicate

that despite the fact that indigenous rights groups and scholars have long

explored the meaning of autonomy and self-determination, it occupies a

contentious space for continuing discussions.

In an attempt to better understand whether a food sovereignty approach may

enhance or impede the indigenous discourse, this thesis has endeavoured to

review all relevant studies. These studies have clearly demonstrated the

importance of food sovereignty in the realisation of self-determination (see

Morisson 2011, Grey and Patel 2015, Kamal et al. 2014, Desmarais and

Wittman 2014). As Grey and Patel (2015: 436-437) put it, ‘Food can be seen

as the most direct manifestation of the relationships between Indigenous

People and homelands, and it consequently occupies a central place in

traditional thought’. Indigenous people are therefore deeply embedded in the

cultural ecology of food generating activities (Grey and Patel 2015). Notably,

a critical factor that differentiates food sovereignty between indigenous and

non-indigenous people is the need of indigenous people to restore and


24

develop their cultural practices16, values and thoughts as a prerequisite to

indigenous food sovereignty and wellbeing (Morisson 2011, Rudolph and

McLachlan 2013, Kamal et al. 2015). Consequently, in order to restore their

cultural practices, indigenous movements have historically prioritised the

protection of their territory not only to gain control of their traditional food

system but also to maintain the sharing of knowledge with one another and

for future generations (Morrison 2011, Kamal et al. 2014). Rocha and

Liberato (2015: 599) further demonstrate the social importance of food for

indigenous people as a means to gain a sense of “belonging”. Rocha and

Liberato (2015) provided an example of two displaced indigenous groups in

Brazil who were able to use food as a means for cultural integration and

ethnic reconstruction in the process of land settlement. Thus it is evident that

food sovereignty has an important role in enhancing the indigenous

discourse. The studies have also highlighted the need for decolonisation to

start at a personal and collective level, where people are empowered to take

responsibility in maintaining indigenous knowledge, values and cultures in

relation to their traditional food system (Corntassel 2008, Rudolph and

McLachlan 2013).

In order to better understand the complex factors that are driving food

insecurities, several scholars within the indigenous food sovereignty

discourse have developed a variety of analytical framework (Morisson 2011,

Putnam et al. 2014, Kamal et al. 2015). Admittedly, there is no one-size-fits-

all framework in which indigenous food sovereignty can be achieved due to

the distinct challenges and struggles faced by each community. As Kamal et

al. 2015 accurately describe:

Any community hoping to establish Indigenous food sovereignty must find

an approach that is right in their particular situation, though this case study

can be used to help guide initial planning and decision-making. Communities

must find their own spirit ‘to cause a mental awakening’ (Alfred, 2009a, 282,

16 These include their traditional food system, language, ceremonies, and relationship (Grey

and Patel 2015).


25

quoted in Kamal et al. 2015: 571)

This thesis utilises existing frameworks, case studies and literature reviews

as a starting point to better understand the factors that are hindering the

ethnic minorities in the CHT towards a sustainable food system. To illustrate,

Putnam et al. (2014) combined food security indicators such as availability

and accessibility, with food sovereignty’s elements such as agroecological

practices at the local level, preservation of indigenous knowledge and local

access to productive resources (see Appendix C) in their analysis of the

Mayan communities in the Yucatan State, Mexico. Similarly, Kamal et al.

(2015) found that for the indigenous people of northern Manitoba, Canada,

the ability to practice their decolonising activities17 in their reclaimed land,

through a community-based food program, leads to a restoration of their

cultural practices as well as their relationships with nonhuman environment.

This will be discussed and analysed further in Chapter Four.

17 These include hunting, fishing, trapping, berry picking, community gardens and wild food

programs (Kamal et al. 2015: 565).


26

Chapter 3. Ethnic Minorities and Food Insecurity in the CHT This chapter provides an overview of the multidimensional challenges faced

by the ethnic minorities in the CHT, and in doing so demonstrates the extent

of their food insecurities. A good understanding of the socio-economical,

political, ecological and cultural histories of the ethnic minorities in the CHT

is an important step and a critical foundation that enables the analysis of

food sovereignty and its relevance in the CHT. Thus, this chapter provides the

cornerstone for the building blocks and analysis discussed in Chapter Four.

Food insecurity and land displacement

The CHT today has been recognised as the most vulnerable and

disadvantaged region in Bangladesh in all human development indicators

such as health, education, income, water, sanitation, livelihood,

intercommunity confidence and institutional governance (GED 2015: 680). It

has the highest extreme poverty rate in the country (GED 2015: 680) and it is

a region with the lowest food diversity where rice is the dominant food

consumed (Shiree 2014: 43).

As it is beyond the scope of this thesis to enagage with all the causes of food

insecurity in the CHT, this chapter focuses on one major driver: the

discriminatory market-based policies that have been adopted since the

colonialisation period. These policies were focused on commercial extraction

of resources, which consequently led to deforestation, land displacement,

food insecurity and a changing food system and ecology in the CHT. Earlier

on in 1867, the British had introduced policies that aimed to replace shifting

cultivation with sedentary agriculture as they viewed jum cultivation as

‘primitive’ and a destructive land use system (Rasul and Thapa 2006: 445).

However, it only started gaining acceptance in early 1880s when one-fourth

of the forestlands were classified as reserved forests, and the right of the

people to access the forests was denied and jum cultivation was strictly


27

prohibited (Rasul 2007). Additionally, the first national forestry policy

introduced in 1894 allowed the conversion of forests for cash crops

cultivation such as cotton, oilseeds and cereals as well as for commercial teak

and timber plantations, in order to maximise tax revenue (Mitchell 2011, Ali

et al. 2006). This colonial policy that favoured commercial extraction

continued during the Pakistan period (1947 – 1970)18. Paper, rayon, timber,

pulp, plywood, and match manufacturing industries were opened (Rahman

1998). After Bangladesh’s independence in 1971, the government declared

an additional 50,000ha as reserved forests, further reducing land availability

for jum cultivations. The government also adopted a policy that granted

leaseholds on large tracts of CHT lands for private rubber plantations as well

as public sector rubber plantations, managed by the Chittagong Hill Tracts

Development Board19 (Adnan 2004: 127). Likewise, tobacco cultivation is

now increasing at an alarming rate in the CHT, posing health problems, water

contamination and environmental issues as more and more farmers convert

their croplands into tobaccos (Huq 2015). Ultimately, this gradual

commercialisation of the economy has only led to poorer socio-economic

status of the people. Their environment is deteriorating rapidly as these

discriminatory policies have allowed the resources in the CHT to be extracted

by the state and private sectors without due care for its people (Rasul and

Thapa 2006).

One of the major consequences of these discriminatory market-based policies

is the loss of entitlement and rights of the ethnic minorities to their land

(Adnan 2004: 36). The introduction of the Land Acts in 1865 allowed the

British to claim ownership of all lands in the CHT and neglected the

customary land rights and rules that have historically governed the allocation

of land for jum cultivations (Adnan 2004: 37). In fact, a significant portion of

18 During the partition of British India that signaled India’s independence in 1947,

Bangladesh became a part of Pakistan (East Pakistan). The CHT was given as a windfall to

Pakistan due to its geographical proximity (Islam 2015). This is despite the CHT’s petition to

join India during partition time (Islam 2015). 19 The Board is primarily funded by foreign donor agencies (Adnan 2004: 127).


28

what is presently known as Unclassed State Forests 20 was settled or leased

out to private individuals and corporate entities (Adnan 2004: 39). Land

displacements accelerated in 1962 when the constitution of Pakistan

eliminated ‘excluded area’ under the CHT Regulation 1900; As a result, it

encouraged voluntary migration of Bengalis to the region (Mohsin 1995,

Kamal 1995). Moreover the Kaptai Dam constructed in 1957–1962 had

resulted in the displacement of around 100,000 people and submerged over

40% of the area’s agricultural land (Islam 1978, Zaman 1984, quoted in Islam

2015). Post Bangladesh’s independence in 1971, the migration of Bengalis

accelerated significantly as the government provided khasland (reserved

land) incentives on cultivable lands (Islam 2015). As a result, the proportion

of Bengalis in the CHT increased from 2% in 1948 to an estimated 51% of the

population in 2003 (Islam 2015, Jamil and Panday 2008). Notably, the CHT

population tripled from 508,199 in 1974 to 1,663,274 in 2011

(Establishment Division 1971, BBS 2007, 2012, quoted from ICIMOD 2015:

7). Overall, this political move has ensued in the loss of traditional land

rights21 and the further marginalisation of ethnic minorities economically,

socially, ecologically and politically.

Changing food system and ecology

As a result of these discriminatory market-based policies and land

displacements, recent studies have found that jum cultivation is no longer

economically sustainable as it is unable to meet food security needs of the

people (Rasul and Thapa 2006, Rasul and Thapa 2007, Nath et al. 2011). One

of the critical factors that contributed to the decline in jum productivity is the

reduction in the land fallow period that left little time for soil regeneration.

20 Under The CHT Regulation 1900, the ethnic minorities have a (usufruct) right over

common land, which allows the use of the land without legal documents and the land can be

used for jum, village forests, homestead or grazing (Adnan 2004: 39). 21 Rule 39 of the CHT Regulation 1990 required a consultation with the Chiefs (equivalent to

tribal raja) or Mouza headmen (the representative of several villages) prior to making any

decisions regarding land distribution and ownership (Islam 2015).


29

To illustrate, a study by Borggaard et al. (2003) on six upazilas (sub-districts)

in Bandarban district found that jum cultivation has on average an estimated

output value of USD 380 ha-1yr-1 against an USD 360 input value. This decline

in productivity along with the reduction of land allotment from 25 acres to 5-

10 acres had forced the majority of farmers to supplement their income with

non-traditional occupations, including working as day labourers, to meet

their household expenditures (Nath et al. 2011, ICIMOD 2015: 11). Despite

these efforts, most ethnic minorities remained food insecure from two to six

months in a year (CHTDF 2009: 113). Additionally, the ethnic minorities in

the CHT have limited access to food from the market due to either

remoteness or inability to afford the price, poor diversity of diet as they are

unable to afford meat or fish (utilisation) and their jum crops are subject to

climate variability (stability) such as irregular rainfall, flooding and attacks

by wild animals (FAO 2015: 62-63). Consequently, the World Food

Programme has categorised the CHT as a ‘highly food insecure area’ (FAO

2015: 62).

In addition to the decline in productivity, there is strong evidence to suggest

that jum cultivation has had a negative environmental impact in the last few

decades due to the intensity of jum practiced in the CHT (Rasul and Thapa

2006). Studies found that jum soils have a low percentage of organic carbon

and material and other valuable plant nutrients (Biswas et al. 2010, Osman et

al. 2013, Miah et al. 2010). Karim and Mansor (2011) predicted that the

burning process removed much of the nutrients in the top 10 cm of the soil.

This soil deterioration has led to an increasing number of landslides in the

region, particularly during the monsoon period. Moreover, as soil lost ended

up as sediments in the river, the number of flooding occurrences has been

increasing in recent times. What is interesting, however, is that not all

researchers agree that jum cultivation is primarily responsible for

deforestation, soil erosion, biodiversity loss, and productivity decline in the

CHT (Nath et al. 2011, Seidenberg et al. 2003). For instance, Seidenberg et al.

(2003) pointed that forest conversion to agriculture land is actually more


30

damaging as it wipes out the secondary forests. Moreover, the cultivation of

high-value crops such as turmeric, ginger and aroids without proper soil and

water conservation measures has also increased soil erosion and damage

(Nath et al. 2005: 444).

Notwithstanding these debates, most of the CHT literature to date strongly

proposes a move away from shifting cultivation towards more sedentary

agriculture and market-oriented commercial agricultural products as a

means to increase food security (see Nath et al. 2005, Bala et al. 2012,

ICIMOD 2015). A recent report on the strategic framework for sustainable

development in the CHT issued by the International Centre for Integrated

Mountain Development (ICIMOD)22 in conjunction with the Ministry of

Chittagong Hill Tracts Affairs has recommended the following strategies:

(a) strengthen agriculture through integrated watershed management that

supports increased productivity while maintaining ecosystem services; (b)

transform jum practice, where appropriate, to agroforestry, horticulture,

animal husbandry, and other more productive systems through the

provision of support packages to facilitate market access by investing in

farm roads, and increasing productivity by modernising agriculture; (c)

strengthen post-harvest management, value chain development, processing,

packaging, certification, and branding (ICIMOD 2015: iv, emphasis added).

This sentiment towards market-based land use system is similarly reflected

in Bangladesh’s 7th Five Year Plan where the government intends to establish

Agricultural Research and Development Centres and introduce advance

varieties of seeds that will be commercially profitable (GED 2015: 690). The

government will also arrange micro-finance for farmers to move towards

horticulture and to develop marketing facilities to ‘strengthen post-harvest

management, value chain development, processing, packaging, and market

22 ICIMOD is a regional intergovernmental learning centre that focuses on improving

livelihoods of mountain peoples in eight countries of the Hindu Kush Himalayan region

(ICIMOD n.d.).


31

access, and to engage private sector market linkages’ (GED 2015: 690). Agri-

business is considered an untapped potential to address food security issues

in the CHT if a conducive environment can be created for private investment

including benefit-sharing from genetic resources (ICIMOD 2015: 10).

Nonetheless, it is important to note that many researchers have also

simultaneously identified to the paramount institutional and policy

constraints within these market-based approaches to achieving food security

in the CHT (Rasul and Thapa 2005, Bala et al. 2012, Nath et al. 2005). For

example, Rasul and Thapa (2005) and Bala et al. (2012) list these

constraining factors as: lack of institutional supports (such as training,

extension services and credit facilities), lack of infrastructure

development/distance to market and services, and land scarcity. In other

words, market-based approaches to food security risk imposing further

marginalisation and inequality for the Adivasis in the CHT. Institutional and

infrastructure support alone is not likely to address the structural causes of

hunger and impoverishment in the CHT. By comparison, a sustainable food

system requires an approach that is culturally and socially acceptable for the

Adivasis.

The next section reviews the historical background of the CHT conflict and

indigenous movements in the CHT. It is important to understand how

sovereignty is built and contested in the CHT in order to identify potential

indigenous food sovereignty strategies based on these social relations.

Although the state’s disregard of the ethnic minorities’ identity, culture and

rights has in fact triggered the CHT conflict, the distinctiveness and separate

identities of the ethnic groups in the CHT has only become politically

significant because of the incessant socio-economic exploitation and food

insecurity discussed above (Islam 2015).


32

CHT Conflict and insurgency

Political movements in the CHT began shortly after Bangladesh’s

independence in 1971. The origin of the Parbattya Chattagram Jana Sanghati

Samiti (PCJSS) political party was prompted when the new Bangladesh

government dismissed the ethnic minorities’ distinctive identity, culture and

rights (Adnan 2004: 26). The then Prime Minister Sheikh Mujibur Rahman

advised the ethnic minorities to assimilate within the Bengalis identity

(Adnan 2004: 26). The ethnic minorities were alienated from the mainstream

society and a sense of ‘otherness’ was intentionally created (Chakraborty

2004). The 1972 constitution of Bangladesh did not recognise their distinct

identity and instead use ‘backward sections of citizens’ as a term that

includes the ethnic minorities (GOB 1972). The government was not

sensitive to the underlying causes that had driven PCJSS into armed

resistance, and instead, reacted to the insurgency by deploying full-scale

militarisation (Adnan 2004: 29). Human rights violations were prevalent,

with mass killings of more than 10,000 people, burning of villages, torture,

and rape (UNPO 2015). It was only in the mid 1990s, when the CHT conflict

started to attract international attention and pressure, Prime Minister Sheikh

Hasina finally came to an agreement with the PCJSS political party by signing

the Peace Accord in 1997 (See UCDP 1997 for the content of the Peace

Accord). Albeit it is now almost 19 years after signing of the Peace Accord,

there is strong evidence to suggest that it has not made any meaningful

progress (PCJSS 2014, Panday and Jamil 2015, Islam 2015). This is

particularly in terms of withdrawal of the military camps, reinstitution of

lands, and delegation of power to the CHT’s Regional and District Councils

(see Appendix D for CHT Institutions structure) (UNPO 2015). These CHT

institutions are yet to have clear political and administrative roles, including

the Land Commissioner, which left the people ‘disillusioned about the

prospects of reinstituting their lost lands’ (Adnan 2004: 35, Panday and Jamil

2015). Despite two-thirds of the core issues in the Peace Accord have not


33

been implemented, the government has chosen to be oblivious, which posts a

question as to the government’s political will for full implementation of the

Peace Accord. This is clearly demonstrated in the 7th Five Year Plan:

Regarding Ethnic population, the Government has been successfully

implementing the 1997 Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT) accord… Progress is

generally satisfactory, although continued efforts are needed (GED 2015:

13).

This dual approach 23 (i.e. the projection of sincere attitude by the

government that leaves the people in despair on the one hand and resented

on the other) will only increase the mistrust between the Adivasis and the

government (PCJSS 2016).

Indigenous movements in the CHT

Prior to the establishment of the indigenous movements, the Paharis (who

were mainly jum cultivators) have been historically united under the

umbrella of Jumma nationalism, as their political and social identity

(Chowdhury 2008:68). According to Van Schendel (1992), this was the first

attempt to develop an indigenous model based on their culture and identity

and to protect their homeland 24 against non-Jummas. Although these

resistance movements, which were based on ethnic pride and self-

determination, have worked relatively well in the past, Van Schendel (1992:

125) is ambivalent about the future, stating that future success will depend

on how closely the people continue to perceive themselves as jum cultivators.

Chowdhury (2008: 75) also warns that an identity based on jum cultivation

risks the invention of an ‘“authentic” traditional culture and practice it as

23 Peschard found a similar dual approach by the Indian government in relation to Farmers’

Rights, or what Randeria termed as ‘cunning state’ whereby the state is able to ‘capitalise on

their perceived weakness in order to render themselves unaccountable both to their citizens

and to international institutions’ (Randeria 2003:3, quoted in Peschard 2014: 1087). 24 Land is traditionally considered ‘a free gift of nature and not possession of the mortals’ by

jum cultivators (Van Schendel 1992: 122).


34

natural’ as a means to create ethnonationalism. Thus when the international

discourse on indigenous and sustainable movements came about in the

1980s and 1990s, PCJSS subsequently reframed their arguments around

indigeneity under the auspices of the United Nations as a means to assert

rights of resources and self-determination (Chowdhury 2008: 71).

An important dimension of the indigenous movements in the CHT is the

demand for recognition of indigenous people in Bangladesh’s legal

framework (Gerharz 2014, Adnan 2008). The movements demand a removal

of the term “backward sections of the citizens” (Gerharz 2014: 557) and they

are lobbying for the government to ratify International Labour Organization

(ILO) Convention 169, which forms part of the UNDRIP in 2007, to safeguard

the rights to self-determination of indigenous people. Bangladesh has

abstained from the UNDRIP stating that all of their citizens had been living in

the land for millennia, and thus everyone is indigenous to the land (Ahmed

2010: 50). The ILO Convention 169 (1989) provides clarity on the definition

of indigenous to be: those that have historical continuity, territorial

connection and distinct social, economy, cultural and political institutions

(Henriksen 2008: 7). Nonetheless, the government has yet to recognise the

ethnic minorities as indigenous to the country. This denial is clearly reflected

in Bangladesh’s policy documents and in the Peace Accord. The Peace Accord

signed in 1997 recognised the CHT as ‘tribal inhabited’ and the term Upajati

(tribal) was used, a notion that connotes backwardness and primitivism (Van

Schendel 1992).

This chapter has signified the multidimensional challenges facing the ethnic

minorities in the CHT. Based on this understanding of the CHT context, the

following chapter examines what insights a food sovereignty framework can

provide in this case and whether it presents a valuable alternative paradigm

for the Adivasis to regain control of their food system, which is closely

interlinked to their culture and identity.


35

Chapter 4. Insights from a food sovereignty framework This chapter discusses the potential application of a food sovereignty

framework towards better understanding the struggles faced by the ethnic

minorities in the CHT in relation to their experiences of food insecurity.

Building on recent conceptual and theoretical developments on indigenous

food sovereignty discussed in Chapter Two, this chapter first examines the

potential of a food sovereignty framework in shifting the discourse away

from market-based food security approaches towards restoration of the

traditional food system (Part I). I demonstrate that the practice of jum

cultivation goes beyond food security; the practice is at the core of the

Paharis’ cultural identity and indigenous knowledge. Thus, the value of jum

cultivation cannot be divorced from the people’s struggles to survive (Cuevas

et al. 2015). By taking steps to restore and improve their traditional food

system to a level that is sustainable, it allows the Pahari communities to

maintain control of their food system, which is at the core of food

sovereignty. Moreover, integral to food sovereignty is the inseparability

between the right to food and the right to produce food, such as right to land

and territory and right to seeds. The chapter then explores how a food

sovereignty approach may enhance the indigenous discourse in the CHT

(Part II). Applying Iles and Montenegro de Wit’s (2015) notion of relational

scale discussed in Chapter Two, I discuss how an indigenous food sovereignty

framework has the potential to shift the indigenous discourse away from

ethnic indigeneity and autonomy towards sovereignty as a process of social

transformation and building of relationships (McMichael 2015). This

‘strategy’, I argue, has a better chance for a longer-term structural change.

The history and future direction of the food system in the CHT clearly

demonstrate the prioritisation of food security over food sovereignty. This is

because actions undertaken by the government-in-charge have generally

stressed aspects of production, supply and demand, and accessibility based

on purchasing power. As a result, this allows the dominant power-holders to

overshadow the voice of the vulnerable groups (Jarosz 2014, Pottier 1999). It


36

also undermines the role of food producers and their local food knowledge,

where they are often seen as ‘backwards, residual obstacle to the universal

leap from underdevelopment in industrial modernity’ (Ehlert and Voßemer

2015: 13). However, as Rudolph and McLachlan (2013: 1094) pointed out in

their case study on the food crisis in northern Manitoba, Canada, it is not food

availability that is the primary issue, the primary issue is the ‘colonising

forces that continue to undermine the local food culture and food related

knowledge’. In this aspect, food sovereignty acts as a political campaign that

demands more than guaranteed access to food, but also control of the food

system from production to consumption (Holt-Giménez 2009, Patel 2009).

While food security provides an understanding of the extent to which the

ethnic communities are food insecure, food sovereignty provides a

framework to achieve food security goals (Putnam et al. 2014, Windfuhr and

Jonsen 2005). Food sovereignty upholds the model of environmentally

sustainable agriculture and is small-farmers oriented, which differs from the

industrialised agriculture promoted by food security policies (Beuchelt and

Virchow 2012).

Part I. Restoring traditional food system and exploring rights-based

approaches to food sovereignty

Shifting cultivation beyond food security

Shifting cultivation has generally been misunderstood in the past, with FAO

declaring it the ‘most serious land-use problem in the tropical world’ (FAO

1957). Yet, previous policies, in the name of forest conservation and

development, have not been able to eradicate shifting cultivation (FAO 2015).

In the CHT, Paharis continue to practice shifting cultivation despite its

declining productivity in recent decades (Nath et al. 2011, Rasul and Thapa

2003, Rahman et al. 2011). Jum cultivation still provides a safety net for the

households, particularly those that live remotely from the market. In

contrast, market-oriented production is considered more risky due to price


37

volatility, longer rate of return and discriminatory regulations (FAO 2015).

Similarly, Nath et al. (2005) found that the Paharis do not want to leave jum

cultivation, as it provides them with rice, which is central to their culture and

identity. For the Paharis, jum cultivation is a way of life; it has a cultural

significance because of the ceremonies and rituals and it forms part of the

communities’ social capital and bonding (Adnan 2004, FAO 2015, ICIMOD

2015). The Paharis’ traditional belief systems respect the spirits that are

considered to dwell in jum fields, which in turn transforms their relationship

with land and nature beyond more than the extraction of resources for

economic benefits (FAO 2015, Borggaard et al. 2003). The Pahari

communities have historically shared labours to overcome labour shortages,

locally known as lakcha among Marmas or bala suza-suzi among Chakmas

(FAO 2015: 57). They invite their neighbours for a party before slashing and

a similar tradition repeated during harvesting (Borggaard et al. 2003: 120).

Thus, aside from the economic benefits derived from jum cultivation, this

traditional food system forms part of the Pahari indigenous’ cultural identity

that considers land as both resourceful and sacred (Alfred 2009, quoted in

Kamal et al. 2014). These social and cultural aspects of food are considered

one of the key principles to indigenous food sovereignty (Morrison 2011).

Another important element of an indigenous food sovereignty framework, as

discussed in Chapter Two, is the importance of maintaining indigenous

knowledge, values and cultures in relation to their traditional food system

(Grey and Patel 2015, Kamal et al. 2015). Indigenous food sovereignty

appreciates the importance of knowledge sharing as the cornerstone of a

sustainable food system. As Grey and Patel fittingly summarised:

Engaging with the land—or rather, with the enspirited and sensate gestalt of

plants, animals, weather, and geography that is “the land”—yields a

formidable pool of knowledge. This initial pool is augmented by inspiration,

enriched via communication with outsiders, refined through continual trial-

and- error, and passed down by cultural transmission (Grey and Patel 2015:

437).


38

There are numerous debates on the differences between indigenous and

scientific knowledge but these are outside the scope of this thesis (see

Agarwal 1995, Luthfa 2006). For the purpose of this thesis, indigenous

knowledge is described as traditional knowledge that is held, maintained and

distributed collectively and individually (FAO 2009: 3). There is, however, a

dearth of research on indigenous knowledge in Bangladesh and it is notably

under-utilised (Zaman 2000). For generations, the Pahari communities have

practiced jum cultivation in a way that helps conserve water and prevent soil

erosion (see Appendix E for more examples of these indigenous knowledge).

The indigenous fire management system also involves coordination among

adjoining communities to control fire, which reflects the existence of a ‘social

organisation of production on a multi-village scale’ and is an example where

indigenous knowledge is locally appropriate and is fully integrated into the

social institutions (Adnan 2004: 98, Millat-e-Mustafa 2000, ICIMOD 2015).

The establishment of an umbrella organisation, Bangladesh Resource Center

for Indigenous Knowledge (BARCIK) in 1997, to promote indigenous

knowledge is a hopeful start; however, little research to date has been done

on jum cultivation. Moreover, the use of Farmers Field Schools (FFS)25 found

in the CHT has proved to be a good way of disseminating indigenous

knowledge to other farmers. Putnam et al. (2014) further recommend

building a space for youth leadership in the dissemination of local

knowledge, in order to slow down the erosion of indigenous food knowledge.

This is particularly important as more and more young educated people are

leaving shifting cultivations for off-farm alternatives, a trend highly visible in

the CHT.

In summary, an indigenous food sovereignty framework accentuates the

importance of maintaining indigenous knowledge that forms part of the

25 It is a group-based learning that brings together concept of agroecology and community

development, generally used to reduce the use of pesticides and improve sustainability of

crop yields. In the CHT, it has been used to introduce new and innovative farming practices

(FAO 2014, CHTDF 2015). This is similar to the campesino-a-campesino methodology

practiced in Guatemala and spread through Mesoamerica in the 1970s (Martinez-Torres and

Rosset 2014: 992).


39

Paharis’ traditional food system. As discussed in Chapter Two, food

sovereignty focuses on active citizenships, which puts the onus on the Pahari

communities to take the responsibility in restoring, maintaining and

preserving indigenous knowledge of their traditional food system for a

sustainable self-determination (Charlton 2016, Quddus 2000). Admittedly,

such efforts will need to be supported and integrated within the

government’s policies and research agendas and development mainstream

activities, which will be discussed further in Part II of this chapter.

Agroecology for a sustainable food system

As mentioned earlier, the primary reason behind the unsustainability of

shifting cultivation as a land use system in the CHT is soil degradation in jum

fields due to the short fallow period. Consequently, this has led to

deterioration in economic productivity. In this case, agroecology, which is a

critical part of food sovereignty, can provide insights in improving the quality

of soils in jum fields. Agroecology incorporates not only ecological and

productive principles, but also cultural, social and political goals (Machin

Sosa et al. 2013, quoted in Martinez-Torres and Rosset 2014). At the core of

agroecology is the use of minimum external inputs for maximum outputs,

integrating natural and regenerative processes such as nutrient cycling,

nitrogen fixation, soil regeneration and making better use of indigenous

knowledge and local food system experiences (Holt-Giménez and Patel

2009). However, due to the current (unsustainable) phase of shifting

cultivation in the CHT, further technological development will be required

(LVC 2013). These improved cultural management practices will be key to

improving growth and development of plants in agricultural productions

(ICIMOD 2015).


40

Based on a recent ICIMOD (2015) research26, however, it was found that

majority of the Paharis have not yet adopted any improved cultural

management practices, except for weeding. Less than 10% of respondents

had any knowledge about pruning, mulching, water management, or soil

moisture or nutrient conservation practices for hill slope agricultures

(ICIMOD 2015: 21). According to Raintree and Warner (1986: 46), shifting

cultivators will only be interested in ‘biological fallow enrichment’27 practices

once they struggle to maintain soil fertility, which is the current phase for

most jum fields in the CHT, or what Raintree and Warner (1986) classified as

stage three (see Appendix G for the main stages of intensification in shifting

cultivation). They suggested the use of alley cropping28 along with the use of

green manures, mulch materials and zero-tillage/mulch-tillage method as a

means to improve soil fertility (see Raintree and Warner 1986). In other

words, despite the poor quality of soils in the CHT, a well-managed land can

still be economically productive. Moreover, through the practice of

agroecology, dependence on outside inputs such as subsidised agrochemicals

is reduced (Putnam et al. 2014). However, it is important to note that

introduction of any technological development in the CHT must take into

account the Paharis’ existing knowledge, social capital and motivation, with

full participation of the Paharis (Nath et al. 2005).

In addition to agroecology, farmers in Nath et al. (2005) study stated a

preference for collective management of jum cultivation, which is how it has

been historically managed. For instance, a jum field of 8 to 10ha can be

distributed for a community in one seasonal year, managed collectively and

products distributed equally (Nath et al. 2011: 138). The land can be divided

into several plots to rotate the fallow period. Farmers interviewed believe

that this will increase yield, reduce labour inputs including child labours, and

26 The research had 195 participants belonging to six indigenous communities (ICIMOD

2015: 3). 27 as opposed to ‘economically enriched fallows’, where the land is used to produce good cash

income during the fallow period (Raintree and Warner 1986: 46). 28 Field crops are planted between ‘hedgerows of nutrient-cycling trees or shrubs’ (Raintree

and Warner 1986: 47).


41

increase human capacity and social cohesion. The latter is particularly

important for those residing in remote areas (Nath et al. 2011: 139). The

importance of this collective work is similarly reflected in the indigenous

view of agroecology within the LVC discourse, who collectively defined

agroecology as:

A highly diversified traditional farming systems on small plots of land, with

practices, like planting dates, informed by traditional calendars based on the

cosmos, passed down from the ancestors over millennia… the community is

the basic unit, and that rather than farmer-to-farmer methods that abstract a

single family from their community … agroecology needs to be discussed in

the community assembly (Martinez-Torres and Rosset 2014: 988).

The power in community is clearly demonstrated in Cuba, where FFSs were

converted from farmer-to-farmer agroecology to farmer organisation-to-

farmer organisation process (Martinez-Torres and Rosset 2014).

Nonetheless, Martinez-Torres and Rosset (2014) warn that this might not

work in all contexts. On the whole, collective management of jum combined

with agroecology principles described above provides one of the means to a

sustainable food system that is socially and culturally appropriate in the CHT.

It allows indigenous identity and knowledge to remain localised, while

simultaneously reconstructing social cohesion that is being eroded in the

CHT due to decades of market-based food security policies and land tenure

individualisation policies introduced since the British colonial period.

Rights-based approaches to food sovereignty

At the core of the struggles faced by the ethnic minorities in the CHT is the

struggle for land and territory. Land-user rights are the foundation of food

sovereignty movements because as discussed above, the Paharis’ livelihoods

depend on a regenerative and resilient agroecosystems (McMichael 2015).

The issue of land rights and land sovereignty is nevertheless a very


42

contentious one. As demonstrated in a case study of shrimp agriculture in

Khulna, Bangladesh, although food sovereignty has fulfilled the RtAF for

many people, Paprocki and Cons (2014: 1126, emphasis added) concluded

that food sovereignty on its own is not sufficient for ‘a sustainable and

equitable agrarian reform in rural Bangladesh’. Landlessness was essentially

a critical factor that accentuates class inequality. In the case of the landless

people in Khulna, the experience of food sovereignty is overshadowed by

inequitable sharecropping agreements and instability to secure their

livelihoods (Paprocki and Cons 2014). For the Paharis in the CHT, their

relationship to land further defines their identity, culture, and dignity; it is

indeed the cornerstone in building a sense of belonging within the

communities (Rocha and Liberato 2015). As explained below:

The biggest challenge faced by indigenous peoples and communities in

relation to sustainable development is to ensure territorial security, legal

recognition of ownership and control over customary land and resources,

and the sustainable utilisation of lands and other renewable resources for

cultural, economic, and physical health and well-being of indigenous peoples

(DESA-UN 2009: 42).

The importance of land rights for the Paharis is reflected in the fact that they

remained reluctant to adopt other land use systems such as agroforestry,

horticulture, and other tree-crop based intensive agricultural systems

without land ownership or title (Rasul and Thapa 2003, Nath et al. 2005,

Nath et al. 2011, Rahman et al. 2011). Moving from shifting cultivation

requires a substantial amount of financial and labour resources, which they

are not willing or able to afford to invest without first securing land rights.

According to Rasul and Thapa (2003), this is the primary reason why shifting

cultivators in Bangladesh and neighbouring countries, such as Laos, Vietnam

and northeastern India have not switched from shifting cultivation. The issue

of land rights will be further discussed in Part II of this chapter.

A discernible difference between the RtAF and the right to food sovereignty

is the latter’s inclusion of peasants’ rights to seeds and biological diversity


43

and the protection against GMOs, which is outside the human rights system.

This is worth pointing out because seeds are at the core of food production

and biodiversity of plants. This is particularly important for Bangladesh as a

nation that relies heavily on agriculture (Akhter 2015a). The most important

treaty that protects these rights is the International Treaty on Plant Genetic

Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA), which compliments the UN

Convention on Biological Diversity – both of which have been ratified by

Bangladesh in 2002 and 1994 respectively (ITPGRFA 2016, Convention on

Biological Diversity n.d). However, despite the government’s ratification of

the ITPGRFA and the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, ‘modernisation’

of agriculture and distribution of modern agricultural equipment, chemical

fertilisers and improved seeds through highly subsidised prices by the

Bangladesh Agricultural Development Cooperation have indeed became the

norm (Akhter 2015a). According to Akhter (2015a: 237), Bangladesh once

had over 7,000 varieties of rice, which has now been reduced to 57 High

Yielding Varieties (HYV) monoculture. The implementation of HYV was top-

down without due regard to the local ecosystem, resulting in more incidences

of pests and diseases (FAO 2015). However, some farmers, via the Nayakrishi

movements29, have started to propagate for agroecological farming and

conservation of local seeds and genetic resources. For instance, the

Nayakrishi Seed Network (NSN) is especially focused on women farmers to

regain control over seeds. Jum cultivation itself is a production system that is

based on inter-cropping of about 50-60 crops, including rice, vegetables,

medicinal herbs, and spices (FAO 2015). Thus, it is important for farmers to

be able to preserve their seeds in order to maintain their indigenous

knowledge and continue their practices. Additionally, the social and cultural

aspects of seeds’ preservation are significant, with farmers naming their

paddy seeds after their children (Akhter 2015b). Overall, the rights to local

seeds and biological diversity are a crucial part of a sustainable food system.

29 Nayakrishi is a ‘peasant-led biodiversity-based ecological agricultural movement’ that

focuses on organic farming, conservation of biodiversity, indigenous knowledge, soil

management and mixed cropping for a more sustainable agriculture system (see Mazhar

2011).


44

These important aspects have historically been excluded within the food

security discourse, which consequently led to the loss of control by farmers

as custodians of seeds for the benefit of national and international seed

companies.

Part II. Enhancing indigenous discourse

This section focuses on answering the question posed in Chapter One on

whether a food sovereignty approach may enhance or impede the indigenous

discourse in the CHT. I propose that firstly, indigenous movements can

leverage food sovereignty networks and relationships across scales. Secondly,

building on the lessons learned from food sovereignty movements, I argue

that the demand by indigenous movements in the CHT for constitutional

recognition without a strong political will of the state, may actually lead to a

weakening of the Adivasis’ identity and movements. Lastly, I demonstrate

how an indigenous food sovereignty framework has the potential to reshape

the indigenous discourse from a state-centric autonomy to autonomy of the

food system, which opens the space to imagine social relations differently, in

human and nonhuman environment.

Rethinking relationships across scales

Building on McMichael (2009) and Patel (2009)’s idea of multiple

sovereignties discussed in Chapter Two, firstly I propose that food

sovereignty movements widen the outreach to other non-state social actors

and organisations beyond those involved in indigenous movements. It is not

the number of non-state actors that matters, what matters is the ‘multiple

acts that cumulatively take place at multiple level’ that creates ‘much greater

legitimacy in a nonlinear way’ (Iles and Montenegro de Wit 2015: 494). This

notion of relational scale means that each sovereign finds its strength and


45

power from the support of their networks30 (Iles and Montenegro de Wit

2015, Gerharz 2014). These networks stretch out over local, national and

international space and together, the broader network creates a new

sovereignty. For example, at the national level, there are community-based

organisations such as (1) Nayakrishi Andolon, which based their movements

on food sovereignty, (2) Nijera Kori, whose strategy focuses on mobilising

the poor so they are aware of their rights, emphasising the values of

solidarities and collective actions (Kabeer 2003), and (3) Bangladesh Krishok

Federation, Friends of Bangladesh and Bangladesh Agricultural Farm Labour

Federation movements who support the struggles of the peasants

(Bangladesh Krishok Federation n.d., LVC 2015b). Although these

organisations do not directly engage with indigenous movements in their

activities, their objectives and visions are aimed at empowering the

communities so the communities are able to, among others, have control of

their food system. This is particularly important for the Adivasis in the CHT.

Moreover, there are international and regional supports from LVC, LVC South

Asia and other food sovereignty movements in the region. For this reason, by

combining the strengths of food sovereignty movements with indigenous

activists’ movements in Bangladesh, it is likely that more attention, publicity

and recognition can be gained. Likewise, this will increase the momentum

and recognition of food sovereignty movements in Bangladesh. As McMichael

(2015: 442) demonstrates,

The task before the food sovereignty movement is to use pressure from

above (in the UN) and below (grassroots mobilisation) on states to recognise

and secure the rights and capacities of their rural populations to produce

food, and to regulate trade in the interests of human rights.

In other words, by leveraging food sovereignty’s networks at multiple scales

and strengthening these community-based organisations and their

30 Iles and Montenegro de Wit (2015: 490) defined a network as ‘a set of peoples,

institutions, technologies, geographical locations, or ecological functions being

interconnected through nodes and ties of varying strength’.


46

interdependence and solidarity with one another across ‘translocal space’

(Gerharz 2014: 552), it may propel the way towards achieving a sustainable

self-determination and indigenous food sovereignty.

In further understanding whether a food sovereignty approach may enhance

or impede the indigenous discourse in the CHT, I secondly demonstrate that

food sovereignty movements help to uncover how inequality may be

inadvertently perpetuated within indigenous movements. I present an

example below based on one of the main demands of PCJSS31, the main

political party in the CHT. The demand, as discussed in Chapter Three, is for

an indigenous recognition in the Constitution. On one hand, recognition has

the potential to strengthen the Adivasi’s sense of identity that can be very

empowering; it is a strong tool to resist marginalisation (Gerharz 2014). On

the other hand, lessons learned from food sovereignty movements indicate

that despite the adoption of food sovereignty in constitutions, little structural

and process changes have been seen (see Giunta 2014, McKay et al. 2014, and

Peschard 2014). Inequality for the people arises when states appear to have

supported the movements through adopting them in constitutions without

any meaningful approach to implementing farmers’ rights (see Silva 2014

and Peschard 2014). According to Claeys (2012), legalisation of rights runs

the risk of loss of autonomy and demobilisation of the movements. Iles and

Montenegro de Wit (2015) supported the argument that constitutional

recognition does not need to be the ultimate goal, as they believe that

recognition can also come from other mechanisms and processes.

The most socially robust forms of recognition are relational: recognition of a

movement does not simply occur at a particular level but emerges through

how multiple acts cumulatively take place at multiple levels (Iles and

Montenegro de Wit 2015: 494).

31 The main opposition of PCJSS is the United People’s Democratic Front, a political party that

emerged because of the view that the Peace Accord ‘fell short of meeting the needs and

grievances of the Hill peoples’ (Adnan 2004: 34). Their main demand is for full autonomy

(UPDF n.d.).


47

In other words, drawing on lessons learned from food sovereignty

movements elsewhere, the recognition of Advasis in Bangladesh’s

constitution without a strong political will of the state to implement

structural changes may in fact lead to a weakening of the people’s identity

and their status in a society (Gerharz 2014). Thus, indigenous recognition in

Bangladesh’s constitution should be seen as part of the process in gaining

rights to self-determination rather than an end result.

Thirdly, I discuss below how an indigenous food sovereignty framework can

potentially highlight the struggles of the Adivasis not merely for the extent of

their food insecurities as discussed in Chapter Three, but also for ‘a space to

imagine social relations differently’ (Grey and Patel 2015: 441). As discussed

in Part I of this chapter, jum cultivations practiced by the Paharis provide not

only food security, but this traditional food system also forms part of the

indigenous’ cultural identity and defines their relationships with territory

and nonhuman environment. It is also a food system that is strongly rooted in

their traditional kinship systems. As Grey and Patel 2015 pointed out:

Cultural ecology means that Indigenous food sovereignty is…. (when) a ‘right

to define agricultural policy’ is indistinguishable from a right to be

Indigenous, in any substantive sense of the term… This makes ‘being alive

well’ about food sovereignty, and food sovereignty about land, identity, and

dissent (Grey and Patel 2015: 438).

Notwithstanding that both movements to some extent have overlapping

objectives, a food sovereignty framework notably extends the understanding

of autonomy from its traditional state-centric definition as asserted by

indigenous movements32 to ‘interconnected autonomy nurtured by the

relationship with land’ where the Adivasis’ cultural integrity is preserved

(Kamal et al. 2015: 565). Ultimately, an indigenous food sovereignty 32 In the CHT, autonomy is asserted via the Peace Accord through establishment of the

Regional Council (see Appendix D), which will bring the highest level of autonomy close to

self-government or independence (Kroc Institute 2015). However, to date, all members of

the Regional Council have been appointed, rather than elected, by the government, with only

12 out of 33 of the functions transferred (Kroc Institute 2015). The Regional Council has very

little power on the governing institutions in the CHT (Kroc Institute 2015).


48

framework characterised autonomy in terms of control by the people of their

traditional food system, food knowledge, credit market, and cultural values.

Ulloa (2011: 104) demonstrated how this principle is applied by the

indigenous people of the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, where they are able

to enjoy rights over their territories through environmental management33

but without control over these resources as the state has a national

sovereignty over them – or what she calls a ‘relative autonomy’. In this

aspect, autonomy is also seen as a continuous process of negotiations,

relationships and participations with the state, and other local, national and

international actors (Ulloa 2011: 104).

Rethinking belonging and territory

Indigenous movements in the CHT were instigated because the Adivasis were

under threat of losing their culture and ancestral lands (Dowlah 2013).

Accordingly, this pressured the ethnic minorities in the CHT to unite based

on their ethnicity and indigeneity. However, a movement that is primarily

based around ethnicity, indigeneity and cultural-based identity politics may

run the risks of excluding others who do not belong to the ethnicity.

According to Gerharz (2014: 562), the concept of belonging should extent

beyond indigeneity to include ‘sympathisers who do not identify with

ethnically conceived characteristics’, such as Bengali researchers and

members of local and national NGOs, but also Bengali settlers who are now

residing in the CHT. The exclusion of Bengali settlers was reflected in the

Peace Accord, whereby the indigenous movements demanded that the Land

Commission ‘cancels the ownership of those lands and hills which have so far

been illegally settled and occupied’ (UCDP 1997: Section D(4)). PCJSS’s

demand for a full implementation of the Peace Accord implicitly referred to

the restoration of lands that have been forcibly obtained, including lands that

33 Where management is in accordance to their vision of the future, traditional laws and

governance, standard and procedures, and cultural practices, which implies self-

determination (Ulloa 2011: 102).


49

have now been occupied by the Bengalis as part of the then-government’s

initiatives. Although it is not the intention of this thesis to present solutions

on the current land disputes in the CHT, it does highlights the potential

inequality imposed on the extreme poor Bengalis residing in the CHT34,

which may in turn deter a peaceful resolution to the CHT conflict. Dowlah

(2013) also points out that secession is not likely to be a successful strategy

as CHT is now home to more than 50% Bengalis and is a region rich of

resources.

To this end, Bryan (2012) introduced an alternative approach at defining

territory that does not perpetuate further inequality. Despite the need for

further research in terms of its potential application, Bryan made some

salient points with regards to the view that property rights only partly

addresses the issue of equality and self-determination. His view of territory

lies in the dynamic shifts in power relations. He mentioned an important, yet

often a forgotten point:

The state is able to use the law to calculate distributions of land and

resources, devolving limited control over land and resources while

preserving a certain socio-spatial order with its constitutive inequalities

intact (Bryan 2012: 219).

For example, some Adivasis are still subject to illegal tax extortion on their

agriculture productions from members of the political parties and

government representatives, despite the fact that they have a legal right to

their land. What is interesting in Bryan’s (2012) analysis is that he proposed

an alternative view of territory that takes into account the relations between

humans and nonhumans, similar to the indigenous food sovereignty

approach discussed above. For instance, he provided an example in the

Andes where the term pachamama and sumak kawsay represents territory in

34 There is also a lack of government’s support for the functioning of the Land Commission in

the CHT. Based on the Peace Accord, the Land Commission has full power to allocate land

ownerships; however, no progress has been made so far. Moreover, there had never been

any voluntary relocation program initiated by the government for Bengalis to return to their

original region (Kroc Institute 2015).


50

a ‘collective sense of wellbeing’ (Bryan 2012: 219). This understanding

particularly resembles the Adivasis’ way of life, their customary practices and

relationships to their land. The Adivasis in the CHT have been defining their

right to food as the ability ‘to meet subsistence needs through self-

provisioning’, which has historically been achieved through jum cultivation

(Adnan 2004: 36). Thus, there was no need for land ownership rights as land

allocation was provided based on their customary practices (Adnan 2004).

Without undermining the importance of the rights to land for the Adivasis, as

discussed in Part I of this chapter, a peaceful resolution on the current land

dispute will need to take into account what territory means for the Adivasis,

while at the same time does not perpetuate inequality by displacing their

neighbouring Bengalis.


51

Chapter 5. Conclusion The concept of food sovereignty is gaining momentum in different parts of

the world, as a movement and a political campaign by the people to obtain

control of their food systems. It is happening ‘at a rate that is outstripping

current academic debates’ (Shattuck et al. 2015). Differing from food

security, food sovereignty as a concept is always evolving and it is as much

about the process than it is about the end results. It takes into account power

relations at different levels and scales of sovereignty, making the application

of a food sovereignty framework to be highly context-specific. This thesis has

focused on investigating the relevance of food sovereignty towards better

understanding the challenges faced by the ethnic minorities in the Chittagong

Hill Tracts of Bangladesh. To curtail the limitation that no fieldwork has been

conducted, the thesis has attempted to thoroughly engaged with all relevant

secondary data for analysis and discussions. It has critically examined the

conceptual and theoretical application of a food sovereignty approach in

conjunction with indigenous movements’ debates. Notably, the analysis in

this thesis has contributed to the indigenous food sovereignty literature and

the CHT. The discussion in this chapter summarises the implication of the

findings and provides suggestions for further research.

As discussed earlier, the idea of an indigenous food sovereignty framework in

the CHT remains in its infancy. To date, there are few CHT studies that have

integrated food security issues with indigenous movements and none that

have attempted to advance the discourse on food sovereignty. Food

sovereignty movements in Bangladesh, such as Nayakrishi, have not yet

gained the traction required to influence Bangladesh’s policy makers

(Mazhar et al. 2014). Although Nayakrishi food sovereignty movements are

working to influence tobacco farmers in Bandarban District of the CHT to

improve soil fertility, their efforts in the region are relatively scattered

(Akhter 2015b). Similarly, Nijera Kori, a community-led land reform

movement does not yet have a visible presence in the CHT (Paprocki and

Cons 2014: 1127). The limited presence and lack of momentum of food


52

sovereignty movements in the CHT is more than likely linked to the fact that

the Peace Accord is considered the ultimate power-sharing agreement

between the state and the Adivasis. However, as discussed above, two-thirds

of the core issues have yet to be implemented 19 years after it was signed.

The research question that has guided this thesis is: what insights does food

sovereignty provide towards better understanding the challenges faced by

the ethnic minorities in the Chittagong Hill Tracts? The application of the

food sovereignty concept has allowed interpretation of the struggles faced by

the Adivasis to go beyond understanding solely the extent to which they are

food insecure. Unlike political ecology discourse, which generally focuses on

the ‘negative consequences of efforts by governments’ (Rambo 2007: 791),

food sovereignty provides a framework to achieve food security goals

(Putnam et al. 2014, Windfuhr and Johnsen 2005). This thesis has answered

the research question in twofold. Firstly, by understanding the structural

causes of food insecurity in the CHT, and secondly, by providing insights as to

how an indigenous food sovereignty framework can be used as a strategy to

address these structural causes of food insecurity in the CHT. It concludes

that one of the main structural causes of hunger is the top-down

discriminatory market based policies imposed since the colonial period that

overtime has led to land displacements and loss of control by the Adivasis of

their traditional food system. The indigenous movements came about as a

result of this power imbalance and ongoing oppression. In identifying this

cause, an indigenous food sovereignty framework provides insights into the

importance of restoring and improving traditional food system as well as

indigenous knowledge of the Adivasis, including the rights to seeds and

biological diversity, which holds the key to empowerment. As Holt-Giménez

(2006: 182) describes it: ‘the struggle for sustainability is a struggle for

autonomy, for protection of and control over production factors essential to

survival’. The agroecology approaches highlighted in this thesis will

nevertheless impose a majority of the costs to the farmers while the benefits

such as sequestration of carbon and maintenance of biodiversity will be for


53

the larger society (Rambo 2007: 787). Therefore, efforts by non-state actors

to turn the power of the state towards food sovereignty projects cannot be

underestimated (Shattuck et al. 2015: 425). This thesis has usefully explored

strategies that provide the scope to rethink of relationships across scales, and

of the concepts of belonging and territory beyond the current indigenous

discourse in the CHT.

Implications for theory and practice

The thesis sought to examine the application of an indigenous food

sovereignty framework by focusing on the struggles of the ethnic minorities

in the CHT. In doing so, this research has contributed to the body of scholarly

knowledge on food sovereignty and the CHT by applying an indigenous food

sovereignty framework, as a potential strategy, to bridge the issues of food

insecurities and indigenous recognition in the CHT. This framework has

proved useful in highlighting the struggles faced by the ethnic minorities in

the CHT in a different light than the mainstream approach to food security.

Significantly, this research has made the following conceptual contributions:

firstly, non-state actors have a paramount role in building networks across

different scales within indigenous food sovereignty movements. This is

important particularly in the effort to influence state policies to move away

from traditional food security approaches that are focused on modernising

agriculture. In this thesis, I have moved beyond a simple understanding of

food security, to recognise that shifting cultivation encompasses a way of life

for the Paharis in the CHT and forms an indispensable part of their culture

and social capital. Indigenous knowledge and the Paharis’ relationships to

land, soil, water, air, plants and animals are embedded within their

traditional food systems. These have generally been under-utilised and

under-valued, when they are in fact key to indigenous empowerment. As

Morrison (2011: 104, 111) describes: an indigenous food sovereignty

approach is ‘a bottom-up approach to influencing policy, driven by

traditional practice and adaptive management’. Although agroecology,


54

through improved cultural management practices and improved fallow

management, is one example discussed in this research to address the

current food insecurity issue in the CHT, it is essential to note that this is not

a magic bullet solution. It is inevitably a longer-term solution that relies on

investment of resources and many different institutional aspects, including

land rights. This research has in fact shown that the key to achieving

indigenous food sovereignty lies in the community-based solutions that are

reflective of their traditions, cultures, social aspects and capacity.

Secondly, the fundamental contribution of this thesis to the growing

discourse on indigenous food sovereignty is the recognition of the values that

an indigenous food sovereignty framework brings to indigenous movements.

The CHT case study has provided an opportunity to examine how the concept

of indigenous food sovereignty may be applied on the ground and how it can

enhance the discourse of indigenous movements. The central premise of

indigenous movements’ demands in the CHT has often been in relation to the

state’s legal and political recognition. Demands made via the rights-based

approach for legal recognition in international law or for an indigenous

recognition in constitution place the state at the central of indigenous

movements. Lessons learned from food sovereignty movements indicate that

without any changes to the power dynamics between the state and the

people, recognition is more than likely to result in the lost of the Adivasis’

identity and status (Gerharz 2014). This is evident in the fragmented

implementation and top-down approach of the Peace Accord that have only

left the people disillusioned and distrusting of the state. On the other hand,

an indigenous food sovereignty framework places the importance of cultural

and social ties through the discourse of food sovereignty. Shaw (2008: 186)

rightly points out that ‘the aim is to create a movement that brings

Indigeneity into being, rather than seeking recognition or permission from

elsewhere to be Indigenous’. Utilising the principles of an indigenous food

sovereignty framework, self-determination is not seen merely as being self-

sufficient; it is also the ability to have control of the food system, food


55

knowledge, credit market and cultural values, and the ability to have a

‘collective sense of wellbeing’ (Bryan 2012: 219). This is a different

interpretation of autonomy than has been advocated by indigenous

movements in the CHT, which focuses more on self-governing autonomy in

accordance to the Peace Accord. Moreover, full implementation of the Peace

Accord will impose inequalities for the neighbouring Bengalis residing in the

CHT, particularly over land rights, which may indeed deters a peaceful

resolution. Thus, an indigenous food sovereignty framework in the CHT has

the potential to reopen the space of discourse that strategically offers a ‘way

out’ for the state, while reasserting their rights to self-determination and

indigenous food sovereignty.

Suggestions for further research

Research into food sovereignty continues to grow as different actors globally

negotiate how this alternative framework to food security may create a more

just and sustainable food system. In this thesis, an indigenous food

sovereignty framework has been found to provide insights towards better

understanding the challenges faced by the Adivasis in the CHT, and in

providing a potential avenue to addressing these challenges. Nonetheless,

future participatory research 35 will need to be conducted to better

understand, among others, existing barriers in mobilising indigenous food

sovereignty movements in the CHT, an in-depth understanding of the

multiple and competing scales of sovereignty within the CHT, what the right

to food sovereignty and territory means for the Adivasis, and the drivers

behind the lack of acceptance of food sovereignty among policy makers in

Bangladesh. Land rights is at the core of indigenous food sovereignty, thus

further research needs to be conducted to investigate the most appropriate

form of property ownership (Edelman et al. 2014: 924). However, as Rambo

35 Participatory approach, when poorly done may ‘conceal more than they reveal, especially about power relations and conflicts within a community’ (Rambo 2007: 794).


56

(2007: 790) correctly points out, it is essential not to ‘equate security of

tenure with full privatisation of land ownership’.

In summary, the thesis has widened the food sovereignty discourse by

highlighting different avenues towards better understanding the challenges

faced by the ethnic minorities in the CHT. Importantly, it brings a fresh

perspective in reshaping the politics of indigenous movements within the

domain of food sovereignty. Food sovereignty movements in the CHT are still

in early stages; nevertheless, a food sovereignty approach offers a more

optimistic future for the Adivasis in the CHT than the mainstream food

security agenda. Although the application of an indigenous food sovereignty

framework is highly context-specific, the methodology used for analysis and

the political approach undertaken in this thesis can be applied widely to

other regions, including in regions where shifting cultivation remains the

primary traditional food system of the people.

Word Count: 16,054 (including footnotes)


57

References Adnan, S. (2004) Migration, Land Alienation and Ethnic Conflict: Causes of

Poverty in the Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh, Dhaka: Research &

Advisory Services.

Adnan, S. (2008) ‘Contestations regarding Identity, Nationalism and

Citizenship During the Struggles of the Indigenous Peoples of the Chittagong

Hill Tracts of Bangladesh’, International Journal 34(1): 27-45.

Agarwal, A. (1995) ‘Dismantling the Divide Between Indigenous and

Scientific Knowledge’, Development and Change 26(3): 413-439.

Agarwal, B. (2014) ‘Food sovereignty, food security and democratic choice:

critical contradictions, difficult reconciliations’, The Journal of Peasant Studies

41(6): 1247-1268.

Ahmed, K. (2010) ‘Defining ‘Indigenous’ in Bangladesh: International Law in

Domestic Context’, International Journal on Minority and Group Rights 17: 47-

73.

Akhter, F. (2015a) ‘Seed Freedom and Seed Sovereignty: Bangladesh Today’

in Shiva, V (ed) Seed Sovereignty, Food Security: Women in the Vanguard,

Victoria: Spinifex Press Pty Ltd, 235-253.

Akhter, F (2015b) Nayakrishi Andolon: Farmers movement for biodiversity

conservation and food sovereignty, available at:

http://ubinig.org/index.php/home/showAerticle/81/Farida-

Akhter/Nayakrishi-Andolon:-Farmers-movement-for-biodiversity-

conservation-and-food-sovereignty/english (accessed 17th May 2016).

Ali, M., Kabir, M.A., and Hoque, A.T.M.R. (2006) ‘People’s Attitude and Use of

Forestland: Co-Evolution of Forest Administration in Bangladesh’, Small-scale

Forest Economics 5(2): 271-286.

Alonso-Fradejas, A., Borras Jr, S.M, Holmes, T, Holt-Giménez, E., and Robbins,

M.J. (2015) ‘Food sovereignty: convergence and contradictions, conditions

and challenges’, Third World Quarterly 36(3): 431-448.

Anderson, M.D. and Bellows, A.C. (2012) ‘Introduction to symposium on food

sovereignty: expanding the analysis and application’, Agric Hum Values 29:

177-184.

http://ubinig.org/index.php/home/showAerticle/81/Farida-Akhter/Nayakrishi-Andolon:-Farmers-movement-for-biodiversity-conservation-and-food-sovereignty/english




58

Australian Human Rights Commission (n.d.) Rights to self determination,

available at: https://www.humanrights.gov.au/right-self-determination

(accessed 20th April 2016).

Bala, B.K., Majumder, S., Hossain, S.M.A., Haque, M.A., and Hossain, M.A.

(2013) ‘Exploring development strategies of agricultural systems of Hill

Tracts of Chittagong in Bangladesh’, Environmental Development and

Sustainability 15: 949-966.

Bangladesh Krishok Federation (BKF) (2011) Declaration of the South Asian

Caravan 2011 on Climate Change, Gender and Food sovereignty, available at:

http://www.krishok.org/climate-caravan-news.html (accessed 11th June

2016).

Bangladesh Krishok Federation (BKF) (n.d.) About BKF and BKS, available at:

http://www.krishok.org/about.html (accessed 11th June 2016).

Bangladesh Resource Centre for Indigenous Knowledge (BARCIK) (2015)

Welcome to BARCIK, available at: http://www.barcikbd.org/ (accessed 26th

May 2016).

Bernstein, H. (2014) ‘Food sovereignty via the ‘peasant way’: a sceptical

view’, The Journal of Peasant Studies 41(6): 1031-1063.

Bertrand, J. (2011) ‘”Indigenous peoples’ rights” as a strategy of ethnic

accommodation: contrasting experiences of Cordillerans and Papuans in the

Philippines and Indonesia’, Ethical and Racial Studies 34(5): 850-869.

Beuchelt, T.D. and Virchow, D. (2012) ‘Food sovereignty or the human right

to adequate food: which concept serves better as international development

policy for global hunger and poverty reduction’, Agric Hum Values 29: 259-

273.

Biswas, S., Swanson, M.E., Shoaib, J.U. Md., and Haque, S.M.S.S. (2010) ‘Soil

chemical properties under modern and traditional farming systems at

Khagrachari, Chittagong Hill Tracts, Bangladesh’, Journal of Forestry Research

21(4): 451-456.

Blakeley, R. (2013) ‘Human rights, state wrongs, and social change: the

theory and practice of emancipation’, Review of International Studies 39(3):

599-619.

https://www.humanrights.gov.au/right-self-determination

http://www.krishok.org/climate-caravan-news.html

http://www.krishok.org/about.html

http://www.barcikbd.org/


59

Borggard, O.K., Gafur, A., and Petersen, L. (2003), ‘Sustainability Appraisal of

Shifting Cultivation in the Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh’, Royal

Swedish Academy of Sciences 32(2): 118-123.

Bryan, J. (2012) ‘Rethinking Territory: Social Justice and Neoliberalism in

Latin America’s Territorial Turn’, Geography Compass 6(4): 215-226.

Bryman, A (2012) Social Research Methods, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Carney, M. (2011) ‘”Food security” and “food sovereignty”: What frameworks

are best suited for social equity in food system’, Journal of Agriculture, Food

Systems, and Community Development 2(2): 71-88.

Chakraborty, E. (2004) Understanding Women’s Mobilization in the

Chittagong Hill Tracts Struggle: The Case of Mahila Samiti, paper presented in

15th Biennial Conference of the Asian Studies Association of Australia,

Canberra, June 29 to June 2.

Charlton, K.E. (2016) ‘Food security, food systems and food sovereignty in

the 21st century: A new paradigm required to meet Sustainable Development

Goals’, Nutrition and Dietetics 73: 3-12.

Chittagong Hill Tracts Development Facility (CHTDF) (2009) Socio-Economic

Baseline Survey of Chittagong Hill Tracts, Bangladesh: CHTDF.

Chittagong Hill Tracts Development Facility (CHTDF) (2015) Factsheet:

Promotion of Development and Confidence Building in the Chittagong Hill

Tracts, Bangladesh: CHTDF.

Chowdhury, K. (2008) ‘Politics of Identities and Resource in Chittagong Hill

Tracts, Bangladesh: Ethnonationalism and/or Indigenous Identity’, Asian

Journal of Social Science 36: 57-78.

Claeys, P. (2012) ‘The Creation of New Rights by the Food Sovereignty

Movement: The Challenge of Institutionalising Subversion’, Sociology 46(5):

844-860.

Claeys, P. (2014) ‘Food Sovereignty and the Recognition of New Rights for

Peasants at the UN: A Critical Overview of La Via Campesina’s Rights Claims

over the Last 20 Years’, Globalizations 12(4): 452-465.


60

Clapp, J. (2014) ‘Food security and food sovereignty: Getting past the binary’,

Dialogues in Human Geography, 4(2): 206-211.

Committee on World Food Security (CFS) (2015) A Multi-Stakeholder,

Evidence-Based Approach to Policy Making, available at:

http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/cfs/Docs1516/About/CFS_Multist

akeholder_Approach.pdf (accessed 18th April 2016).

Convention on Biological Diversity (n.d.) List of Parties, available at:

https://www.cbd.int/information/parties.shtml (accessed 17th May 2016).

Conversi, D. (2016) ‘Sovereignty in a Changing World: From Westphalia to

Food Sovereignty’, Globalizations 1-15.

Corntassel, J. (2008) ‘Toward Sustainable Self-Determination: Rethinking the

Contemporary Indigenous-Rights Discourse’, Alternatives 33: 105-132.

Corntassel, J. and Bryce, C. (2012) ‘Practicing Sustainable Self-Determination:

Indigenous Approaches to Cultural Restoration and Revitalization’, Brown

Journal of World Affairs xviii(ii): 151-162.

Cuevas, S.M.M., Fernandez, J.E.C., and Olvida, I.d.G. (2015) ‘Where Peasants

Are Kings: Food Sovereignty in the Tagbanua Traditional Subsistence

System’, Austrian Journal of South-East Asian Studies 8(1): 27-44.

Daily Star (2011) No indigenous people in Bangladesh, The Daily Star 28th

May 2011, available at http://www.thedailystar.net/news-detail-187527

(accessed 9th May 2016).

de Schutter, O. (2014), The right to food – An overview by Olivier De Schutter,

online video, accessed 17th April 2016,

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GWDkenSJMc>.

de Schutter, O. (2015), Food democracy South and North: from food

sovereignty to transition initiatives, available at:

https://www.opendemocracy.net/olivier-de-schutter/food-democracy-

south-and-north-from-food-sovereignty-to-transition-initiatives

(accessed 22 April 2016).

Desmarais, A.A. (2007) La Via Campesina: globalization and the power of

peasants. Halifax and London: Fernwood Publishing and Pluto Press.

http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/cfs/Docs1516/About/CFS_Multistakeholder_Approach.pdf

http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/cfs/Docs1516/About/CFS_Multistakeholder_Approach.pdf

https://www.cbd.int/information/parties.shtml

http://www.thedailystar.net/news-detail-187527

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GWDkenSJMc

https://www.opendemocracy.net/olivier-de-schutter/food-democracy-south-and-north-from-food-sovereignty-to-transition-initiatives

https://www.opendemocracy.net/olivier-de-schutter/food-democracy-south-and-north-from-food-sovereignty-to-transition-initiatives


61

Desmarais, A.A. and Wittman, H. (2014) ‘Farmers, foodies and First Nations:

getting to food sovereignty in Canada’, The Journal of Peasant Studies 41(6):

1153-1173.

Dowlah, C. (2013) ‘Jumma insurgency in Chittagong Hills Tracts: how serious

is the threat to Bangladesh’s national integration and what can be done?’,

Small Wars & Insurgencies 24(5): 773-794.

Dunford, R. (2015) ‘Human rights and collective emancipation: The politics of

food sovereignty’, Review of International Studies 41(2): 239-261.

Edelman, M. and James, C. (2011) ‘Peasants’ rights and the UN system:

Quixotic struggle? Or emancipatory idea whose time has come?’, The Journal

of Peasant Studies 38(1): 81-108.

Edelman, M. (2013) What is a peasant? What are peasantries? A briefing paper

on issues of definition. Prepared for the first session of the Intergovernmental

Working Group on a United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Peasants

and Other People Working in Rural Areas, Geneva, 15-19 July 2013.

Edelman, M. (2014a) ‘The next stage of the food sovereignty debate’,

Dialogues in Human Geography 4(2): 182-184.

Edelman, M. (2014b) ‘Food sovereignty: forgotten genealogies and future

regulatory challenges’, The Journal of Peasant Studies 41(6): 959-978.

Edelman, M., Weis, T., Baviskar, A., Borras Jr, S.M., Holt-Giménez, E.,

Kandiyoti, D. and Wolford, W. (2014) ‘Introduction: critical perspectives on

food sovereignty’, The Journal of Peasant Studies 41(6): 911-931.

Ehlert, J. and Voßemer, C. (2015) ‘Food Sovereignty and Conceptualization of

Agency: A Methodological Discussion’, ASEAS – Austrian Journal of South-East

Asian Studies 8(1): 7-26.

Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (1957)

Shifting Cultivation Unasylva 11:1.


World Food Summit, available at:

http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/w2612e/w2612e06a.htm (accessed 15th

April 2015).

http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/w2612e/w2612e06a.htm


62

Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (2002) The

State of Food Insecurity in the World 2001, Rome: FAO.

Food and and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (2009)

FAO and The Traditional Knowledge: The Linkages with Sustainability, Food

Security and Climate Change Impacts, Rome: FAO.


Achieving Food and Nutrition Security in the Chittagong Hill Tracts, available

at: http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4069e.pdf (accessed 17th May 2016).


Shifting Cultivation, Livelihood and Food Security: New and Old Challenges for

Indigenous Peoples in Asia, Bangkok: FAO, International Work Group for

Indigenous Affairs and Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact.

Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (2016) The

State of Food Insecurity in the World 2015, available at:

http://www.fao.org/hunger/key-messages/en/ (accessed 2nd June 2016).

Gafur, A., Jensen, J.R., Borggaard, O.K., and Petersen, L. (2003) ‘Runoff and

losses of soil and nutrients from small watersheds under shifting cultivation

(jhum) in the Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh’, Journal of Hydrology 274:

30-46.

Gafur, A., Borggaard, O.K., Jensen, J.R. and Petersen, L. (2013) ‘Changes in soil

nutrient content under shifting cultivation in the Chittagong Hill Tracts of

Bangladesh’, Geografisk Tidsskrift-Danish Journal of Geography 100(1): 37-46.

General Economics Division Planning Commission Government of the

People’s Republic of Bangladesh (GED) (2015) Seventh Five Year Plan

FY2016-FY2020, Bangladesh: GED.

Gerharz, E. (2014) ‘Indigenous activism in Bangladesh: translocal spaces and

shifting constellations of belonging’, Asian Ethnicity 15(4): 552-570.

Giunta, I. (2014) ‘Food sovereignty in Ecuador: peasant struggles and the

challenge of institutionalization’, The Journal of Peasant Studies 41(6): 1201-

1224.

http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4069e.pdf

http://www.fao.org/hunger/key-messages/en/


63

Grey, S. and Patel, R. (2015) ‘Food sovereignty as decolonization: some

contributions from Indigenous movements to food system and development

politics’, Agric Hum Values 32: 431-444.

Government of Bangladesh (GOB) (1972) The Constitution of the People’s

Republic of Bangladesh, available at:

http://bdlaws.minlaw.gov.bd/pdf_part.php?id=367 (accessed 9th May 2016).

Henders, S.J. (2005) ‘Ecological Self-Government: Beyond Individualistic

Paths to Indigenous and Minority Rights’, Journal of Human Rights 4(1): 23-

26.

Henriksen, J.B. (2008) Key Principles in Implementing ILO Convention No. 169,

ILO

Holt-Giménez, E. (2006) Campesino a Campesino: Voices from Latin America’s

Farmer to farmer movement for Sustainable Agriculture, Oakland: Food First

Books.

Holt-Giménez, E. (2009) From food crisis to food sovereignty: The challenge of

social movements, available at:

http://monthlyreview.org/2009/07/01/from-food-crisis-to-food-

sovereignty-the-challenge-of-social-movements (accessed 16th April 2016).

Holt-Giménez, E. and Patel, R (2009) Food Rebellions! Crisis and the Hunger

for Justice, Canada: Pambazuka Press.

Holt-Giménez, E., & Shattuck, A. (2011) ‘Food crises, food regimes and food

movements: Rumblings of reform or tides of transformation?’ Journal of

Peasant Studies, 38(1), 109–144.

Huq, AKM. Z. (2015) ‘Tobacco cultivation dominates cropland in CHT’,

Newsnextbd, 27 February 2015, available at:

http://newsnextbd.com/?p=59584 (accessed 12th June 2016).

Iles, A. and Montenegro de Wit, M. (2015) ‘Sovereignty at What Scale? An

Inquiry into Multiple Dimensions of Food Sovereignty’, Globalizations 12(4):

481-491.

International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD) n.d.

About ICIMOD, available at: http://www.icimod.org/?q=abt (accessed 8th May

2016).

http://bdlaws.minlaw.gov.bd/pdf_part.php?id=367

http://monthlyreview.org/2009/07/01/from-food-crisis-to-food-sovereignty-the-challenge-of-social-movements

http://monthlyreview.org/2009/07/01/from-food-crisis-to-food-sovereignty-the-challenge-of-social-movements

http://www.icimod.org/?q=abt


64

International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD) n.d(b).

Sloping Agricultural Land Technology (SALT), available at:

http://www.icimod.org/?q=1650 (accessed 19th May 2016).

International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD) (2015)

A Strategic Framework for Sustainable Development in the Chittagong Hill

Tracts of Bangladesh, Dhaka: ICIMOD.

International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture

(ITPGRFA) (2016) Bangladesh Ratification, available at:

http://www.planttreaty.org/content/bgd (accessed 17th May 2016).

Islam, S.S. (2015) ‘The Economics of Conflict in the Chittagong Hill Tract

Region of Bangladesh’ in Webb, M. and Wijeweera, A. (eds) Political Economy

of Conflict in South Asia, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 12-31.

Ivanic, M. and Martin, W. (2008) ‘Implications of higher global food prices for

poverty in low-income countries’, Agricultural Economics 39: 405-416.

Jamil, I. and Panday, P.K. (2008) ‘The Elusive Peace Accord in the Chittagong

Hill Tracts of Bangladesh and the Plight of the Indigenous People’,

Commonwealth & Comparative Politics 46(4): 464-489.

Jarosz, L. (2014) ‘Comparing food security and food sovereignty discourses’,

Dialogues in Human Geography 4(2): 168-181.

Kabeer, N. (2003) Making rights work for the poor: Nijera Kori and the

construction of “collective capabilities” in rural Bangladesh, Sussex: IDS

Working Paper

Kamal, S. (1995) Nationalist Movement in North East India and Bangladesh,

Kingston: Queen’s University.

Kamal, A.G., Thompson, S., Linklater, R., and Ithitno Mechisowin Committee

(2014) ‘Sustainable Livelihood Approach to Achieve Food Sovereignty in O-

Pipon-Na-Piwin Cree Nation’ in Deer, F., Falkenberg, T., McMillan, B. and

Sims, L. (eds) Sustainable Well-Being: Concepts, Issues, and Educational

Practices, Canada: ESWB Press, 139-156.

Kamal, A.G., Linklater, R., Thompson, S., Dipple, J. and Ithinto Mechisowin

Committee (2015) ‘A Recipe for Change: Reclamation of Indigenous Food

Sovereignty in O-Pipon-Na- Piwin Cree Nation for Decolonization, Resource

Sharing, and Cultural Restoration’, Globalizations 12(4): 559-575.

http://www.icimod.org/?q=1650

http://www.planttreaty.org/content/bgd


65

Kapaeeng Foundation (2013) Present state of amendment of CHT Land

Disputes Resolution Commission Act 2001, Kapaeeng Foundation. 1st July

2013, available at: http://kapaeeng.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/KF-

Report-on-amendment-of-LC-Act.pdf (accessed 28th May 2016).

Kapaeeng Foundation (2016) World Bank funded-project kicks off in CHT

without meaningful consultation with the CHT institutions and indigenous

peoples, Kapaeeng Foundation. 8th February 2016, available at:

http://kapaeeng.org/world-bank-funded-project-kicks-off-in-cht-without-

meaningful-consultation-with-the-cht-institutions-and-indigenous-peoples/


Karim, S.M.R. and Mansor, M. (2011) ‘Impact of Jhum Cultivation on the Agro-

ecology of Mountains and Socio-economy of Tribal peoples’, Asian Journal of

Agricultural Research 5(2): 109-114.

Kibria, A.S.Md., Inoue, M. and Nath, T.K. (2015) ‘Analysing the land uses of

forest-dwelling indigenous people in the Chittagong Hill Tracts, Bangladesh’,

Agroforest Syst 89: 663-676).

Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies (2015) Indigenous Minority

Rights: Chittagong Hill Tracts Peace Accord (CHT), available at:

https://peaceaccords.nd.edu/provision/indigenous-minority-rights-

chittagong-hill-tracts-peace-accord-cht (accessed 30th May 2016).

La Via Campesina (LVC) (2009) Declaration of Rights of Peasants – Women

and Men, available at: https://viacampesina.net/downloads/PDF/EN-3.pdf


La Via Campesina (LVC) (2011) The international peasant’s voice, available at:

http://viacampesina.org/en/index.php/organisation-mainmenu-44


La Via Campesina (LVC) (2013) From Maputo to Jakarta: 5 Years of

Agroecology in La Via Campesina, Jakarta: La Via Campesina, available at:

http://viacampesina.org/en/index.php/publications-mainmenu-30/1447-

from-maputo-to-jakarta-5-years-of-agroecology-in-la-via-campesina


La Via Campesina (LVC) (2015a) Victory of the peasant’s movement in the

struggle for the recognition of the rights within the UN Press release, available

at: http://viacampesina.org/en/index.php/main-issues-mainmenu-

http://kapaeeng.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/KF-Report-on-amendment-of-LC-Act.pdf

http://kapaeeng.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/KF-Report-on-amendment-of-LC-Act.pdf

http://kapaeeng.org/world-bank-funded-project-kicks-off-in-cht-without-meaningful-consultation-with-the-cht-institutions-and-indigenous-peoples/

http://kapaeeng.org/world-bank-funded-project-kicks-off-in-cht-without-meaningful-consultation-with-the-cht-institutions-and-indigenous-peoples/

https://peaceaccords.nd.edu/provision/indigenous-minority-rights-chittagong-hill-tracts-peace-accord-cht

https://peaceaccords.nd.edu/provision/indigenous-minority-rights-chittagong-hill-tracts-peace-accord-cht

https://viacampesina.net/downloads/PDF/EN-3.pdf

http://viacampesina.org/en/index.php/organisation-mainmenu-44

http://viacampesina.org/en/index.php/publications-mainmenu-30/1447-from-maputo-to-jakarta-5-years-of-agroecology-in-la-via-campesina

http://viacampesina.org/en/index.php/publications-mainmenu-30/1447-from-maputo-to-jakarta-5-years-of-agroecology-in-la-via-campesina

http://viacampesina.org/en/index.php/main-issues-mainmenu-27/human-rights-mainmenu-40/peasants-right-resources/1873-victory-of-the-peasants-movement-in-the-struggle-for-the-recognition-of-their-rights-within-the-un


66

27/human-rights-mainmenu-40/peasants-right-resources/1873-victory-of-

the-peasants-movement-in-the-struggle-for-the-recognition-of-their-rights-

within-the-un (accessed 17th April 2016).

La Via Campesina (LVC) (2015b) Farmers and agriculture workers in

Bangladesh continue struggle for rights to land and food sovereignty, available

at: http://www.viacampesina.org/en/index.php/actions-and-events-

mainmenu-26/17-april--day-of-peasants-struggle-mainmenu-33/1799-

farmers-and-agriculture-workers-in-bangladesh-continue-struggle-for-

rights-to-land-and-food-sovereignty (accessed 11th June 2016).

La Via Campesina (LVC) (2016a) Globalizing the Struggle is not just a slogan-it

is a political strategy, available at:

http://viacampesina.org/en/index.php/actions-and-events-mainmenu-

26/1980-globalizing-the-struggle-is-not-just-a-slogan-it-is-a-political-

strategy (accessed 17th April 2016).

La Via Campesina (LVC) (2016b) International Day of Peasant Struggles 2016:

Celebration, resistance and mourning, available at:

http://viacampesina.org/en/index.php/actions-and-events-mainmenu-

26/17-april--day-of-peasants-struggle-mainmenu-33/2033-international-

day-of-peasant-struggles-2016-celebration-resistance-and-mourning


La Via Campesina (LVC) (2016c) Press Release: Peasants in Asia give inputs to

‘UN Declaration on the Rights of Peasants & Other People Working in Rural

Areas, available at: http://viacampesina.org/en/index.php/news-from-the-

regions-mainmenu-29/2042-press-release-peasants-in-asia-give-inputs-to-

un-declaration-on-the-rights-of-peasants-other-people-working-in-rural-

areas (accessed 17th May 2016).

Luthfa, S. (2006) ‘Debunking the myths of indigenous knowledge: a case

study of the Mandi of Madhupur, Bangladesh’, PhD thesis, Lehigh University.

Majumder, J (2009) 20,000 acres of CHT land brought under rubber

cultivation, The Daily Star. 17 September 2009, available at

http://www.thedailystar.net/news-detail-106092 (accessed 6th May 2016).

Martinez-Torres, M.E. and Rosset, P.M. (2014) ‘Dialogo de saberes in La Via

Campesina: food sovereignty and agroecology’, The Journal of Peasant Studies

41(6): 979-997.




http://www.viacampesina.org/en/index.php/actions-and-events-mainmenu-26/17-april--day-of-peasants-struggle-mainmenu-33/1799-farmers-and-agriculture-workers-in-bangladesh-continue-struggle-for-rights-to-land-and-food-sovereignty




http://viacampesina.org/en/index.php/actions-and-events-mainmenu-26/1980-globalizing-the-struggle-is-not-just-a-slogan-it-is-a-political-strategy



http://viacampesina.org/en/index.php/actions-and-events-mainmenu-26/17-april--day-of-peasants-struggle-mainmenu-33/2033-international-day-of-peasant-struggles-2016-celebration-resistance-and-mourning



http://viacampesina.org/en/index.php/news-from-the-regions-mainmenu-29/2042-press-release-peasants-in-asia-give-inputs-to-un-declaration-on-the-rights-of-peasants-other-people-working-in-rural-areas




http://www.thedailystar.net/news-detail-106092


67

Mazhar, F (2011) Nayakrishi Andalon, available at:

http://ubinig.org/index.php/home/showAerticle/32/Farhad-

Mazhar/Nayakrishi-Andolon/english (accessed 17th May 2016).

Mazhar, F, Akhter, F, Jony, J.A. and Haque, R. (2014) Nayakrishi Andalon:

Recreating community based organic farming, available at:

http://www.agriculturesnetwork.org/magazines/global/go-global-or-stay-

local/nayakrishi-andalon-recreating-community-based (accessed 17th May

2016).

McKay, B., Nehring, R. and Walsh-Dilley, M. (2014), ‘The ‘state’ of food

sovereignty in Latin America: political projects and alternative pathways in

Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia’, The Journal of Peasant Studies 41(6): 1175-

1200.

McMichael, P. (2009) ‘Global citizenship and multiple sovereignties:

Reconstituting modernity’ in Y. Atasoy (ed) Hegemonic transitions, the state

and crisis in neoliberal capitalism, New York: Routledge, 23-42.

McMichael, P. (2014) ‘Historicizing food sovereignty’, The Journal of Peasant

Studies 41(6): 933-957.

McMichael, P. (2015) ‘The Land Question in the Food Sovereignty Project’,

Globalizations 12(4): 434-451.

Merry, S.E. (1997) ‘Changing rights, changing culture’ in Cowan JK, Dembour

MB and Wilson RA (eds) Culture and Rights: Anthropological Perspectives.

New York: Cambridge University Press.

Mertz, O. (2002) ‘The relationship between length of fallow and crop yields in

shifting cultivation: A rethinking’, Agroforestry Systems 55: 149-159.

Miah, S., Dey, S. and Haque, S.M.S. (2010) ‘Shifting cultivation effects on soil

fungi and bacterial population in Chittagong Hill Tracts, Bangladesh’, Journal

of Forestry Research 21(3): 311-318.

Millat-e-Mustafa, M. (2000) ‘Towards and Understanding of Indigenous

Knowledge’ in Sillitoe, P. (ed) Indigenous Knowledge Development in

Bangladesh: Present and Future, Dhaka: Intermediate Technology

Publications Limited, 27-30.

http://ubinig.org/index.php/home/showAerticle/32/Farhad-Mazhar/Nayakrishi-Andolon/english

http://ubinig.org/index.php/home/showAerticle/32/Farhad-Mazhar/Nayakrishi-Andolon/english

http://www.agriculturesnetwork.org/magazines/global/go-global-or-stay-local/nayakrishi-andalon-recreating-community-based

http://www.agriculturesnetwork.org/magazines/global/go-global-or-stay-local/nayakrishi-andalon-recreating-community-based


68

Mitchell, S. (2011) ‘Falling Far from the Tree: How Forestry Practices in

Bangladesh Leave Women Behind’, The Georgetown International

Environmental Law Review 24: 93-122.

Mohsin, A. (1995) The Politics of Nationalism: The Case of the Chittagong Hill

Tracts, Bangladesh, Dhaka: The University Press Limited.

Mondol, S. (2015) Recognition of indigenous people, The Daily Star. 8th March

2015, available at: http://www.thedailystar.net/recognition-of-indigenous-

people-38812 (accessed 9th May 2016).

Morisson, D. (2011) ‘Indigenous Food Sovereignty: A model for social

learning’ in Wittman, H., Desmarais, A., and Wiebe, N. (eds) Food sovereignty

in Canada: Creating Just and Sustainable Food System, Canada: Halifax, 97-

113.

Nath, T.K., Inoue, M. and Myant, H. (2005) ‘Small-scale agroforestry for

upland community development: a case study from Chittagong Hill Tracts,

Bangladesh.

Nath, T.K., Inoue, M. and Chakma, S. (2011) ‘Shifting Cultivation (jhum) in the

Chittagong Hill Tracts, Bangladesh: Examining its Sustainability, Rural

Livelihood and Policy Implications’, International Journal of Agricultural

Sustainability 3(2): 130-142.

National Human Rights Commission, Bangladesh (2014) Implementation of

the Chittagong Hill Tracts Peace Accord: Challenges and Human Rights Issues,

Dhaka: National Human Rights Commission.

NGO/CSO Forum for Food Sovereignty 2007, Nyeleni Forum for Food

Sovereignty, accessed 15th April 2016,

< http://nyeleni.org/spip.php?article334>.

Nicholson, P. (2012). Terre et liberte ́! A la conqueˆte de la souverainete ́

alimentaire. Paul Nicholson, La Via Campesina. avec les contributions de Xavier

Montagut et Javiera Rulli. Sous la direction de Julie Duchatel. PubliCetim No.

836 (English version). Geneva: Centre Europe Tiers-Monde (CETIM).

Nijera Kori (2015) What we do: Cultural Initiative, available at:

http://nijerakori.org/cultural-initiative/ (accessed 26th May 2016).

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)

(n.d.) Special Rapporteur on the right to food, available at:

http://www.thedailystar.net/recognition-of-indigenous-people-38812

http://www.thedailystar.net/recognition-of-indigenous-people-38812

http://nyeleni.org/spip.php?article334

http://nijerakori.org/cultural-initiative/


69

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Food/Pages/FoodIndex.aspx (accessed

17th April 2016).

Osman, K.S., Jashimuddin, M., Haque, S.M.S., and Miah, S. (2013) ‘Effect of

shifting cultivation on soil physical and chemical properties in Bandarban hill

district, Bangladesh’, Journal of Forestry Research 24(4): 791-795.

Panday, P.K and Jamil, I. (2015) ‘Conflict in the Chittagong Hill Tracts of

Bangladesh: An unimplemented accord and continued violence’ in Chima, J.S.

(ed) Ethnic Subnationalist Insurgencies in South Asia: Identities, Interests and

Challenges to State Authority, New York: Routledge.

Parbatya Chattagram Jana Samhati Samiti (PCJSS) (2014), available at:

http://www.pcjss-cht.org/wp-content/uploads/PCJSS-Press-statement-on-

17th-anniv-of-CHT-Accord-Eng-final-1.pdf (accessed 22 April 2016).

Parbatya Chattagram Jana Samhati Samiti (PCJSS) (2016), available at:

http://www.pcjss-cht.org/pcjss-publishes-an-open-letter-to-the-prime-

minister-on-her-confusing-and-misguiding-parliamentary-speech-on-

implementation-of-cht-accord-2/ (accessed 10th May 2016).

Patel, R., Balakrishnan, R. and Narayan, U. (2007) ‘Exploration on Human

Rights’, Feminist Economics 13(1): 87-116.

Patel, R. (2009) ‘Food sovereignty’, The Journal of Peasant Studies 36(3): 663-

706.

People's Coalition on Food Sovereignty (PCFS) (2004) The People's

Convention on Food Sovereignty, Dhaka, available at:

http://www.archive.foodsov.org/resources/conventiondhaka.doc (accessed

15th April 2016).

Peschard, K. (2014) ‘Farmer’s rights and food sovereignty: critical insights

from India’, The Journal of Peasant Studies 41(6): 1085-1108.

Pimbert, M. (2009) Towards Food Sovereignty. London: international

Institution for Environment and Development.

Pottier, J. (1999) Antropology of food: The social dynamics of food security.

Cambridge, U.K.: Policy Press.

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Food/Pages/FoodIndex.aspx

http://www.pcjss-cht.org/wp-content/uploads/PCJSS-Press-statement-on-17th-anniv-of-CHT-Accord-Eng-final-1.pdf

http://www.pcjss-cht.org/wp-content/uploads/PCJSS-Press-statement-on-17th-anniv-of-CHT-Accord-Eng-final-1.pdf

http://www.pcjss-cht.org/pcjss-publishes-an-open-letter-to-the-prime-minister-on-her-confusing-and-misguiding-parliamentary-speech-on-implementation-of-cht-accord-2/



http://www.archive.foodsov.org/resources/conventiondhaka.doc


70

Putnam, H., Godek, W., Kissmann, S., Pierre, J.L., Dzul, S.H.A., Calix de Dios, H.,

Gliessman, S.R. (2014), ‘Coupling Agroecology and PAR to Identify

Appropriate Food Security and Sovereignty Strategies in Indigenous

Communities’, Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 38(2): 165-198.

Quddus, M.A. (2000) ‘Use of Indigenous Knowledge in the Sustainable

Development of Bangladeshi Farm Forestry’ in Sillitoe, P. (ed) Indigenous

Knowledge Development in Bangladesh: Present and Future, Dhaka:

Intermediate Technology Publications Limited, 57-64.

Rahman, M. (1998) ‘Genesis of problems in Chittagong Hill Tracts’. Paper

presented at the International Conference on Peace and Chittagong Hill

Tracts, Dhaka, 20-21 June 1998.

Rahman, M.A., Khisa, A., Uddin, S.B. and Wilcock, C.C. (2000) ‘Indigenous

Knowledge of Plant Use in a Hill Tracts Tribal Community and Its Role in

Sustainable Development’ in Sillitoe, P. (ed) Indigenous Knowledge

Development in Bangladesh: Present and Future, Dhaka: Intermediate

Technology Publications Limited, 75-78.

Rahman, S.A., Rahman, Md.F., and Sunderland, T. (2012) ‘Causes and

consequences of shifting cultivation and its alternative in the hill tracts of

eastern Bangladesh’, Agroforest System 84: 141-155.

Raintree, J.B. and Warner, K. (1986) ‘Agroforestry pathways for the

intensification of shifting cultivation’, Agroforestry Systems 4: 39-54.

Rambo, A.T. (2007) ‘ Observations on the Role of Improved Fallow

Management in Swidden Agricultural Systems’ in Cairns, M (ed) Voices from

the Forest, Washington: Resources for the Future, 780-801.

Rashiduzzaman, M. (1998) ‘Bangladesh’s Chittagong Hill Tracts Peace

Accord: Institutional Features and Strategic Concerns’, University of California

Press 38(7): 653-670.

Rasul, G. and Thapa, G.B. (2003) ‘Shifting cultivation in the mountains of

South and Southeast Asia: Regional patterns and factors influencing the

change’, Land Degradation & Development 14: 495-508.

Rasul, G. and Thapa, G.B. (2005) ‘Patterns and determinants of agricultural

systems in the Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh’, Agricultural Systems 84:

255-277.


71

Rasul, G. and Thapa, G.B. (2006) ‘Financial and economic suitability of

agroforestry as an alternative to shifting cultivation: The case of the

Chittagong Hill Tracts, Bangladesh’, Agricultural Systems 91: 29-50.

Rasul, G and Thapa, G.B. (2007) ‘The Impact of Policy and Institutional

Environment on Costs and Benefits of Sustainable Agricultural Land Uses:

The Case of the Chittagong Hill Tracts, Bangladesh’, Environmental

Management 40: 272-283.

Rasul, G. (2007) ‘Political ecology of the degradation of forest commons in

the Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh’, Environmental Conservation 34(2):

153-163.

Robbins, M.J. (2015) ‘Exploring the ‘localisation’ dimension of food

sovereignty’, Third World Quarterly 36(3): 449-468.

Rocha, C. and Liberato, R.S. (2015) ‘Food Sovereignty for Cultural Food

Security’, Food, Culture & Society 16(4): 589-602.

Rudolph, K.R and McLachlan, S.M. (2013) ‘Seeking Indigenous food

sovereignty: origins of and responses to the food crisis in northern Manitoba,

Canada’, Local Environment 18(9): 1079-1098.

Schiavoni, C. M. (2014) ‘Competing sovereignties, contested processes: The

politics of food sovereignty construction’ Working Paper number 583. The

Hague, Netherlands: ISS, International Institute of Social Studies.

Seidenberg, C., Mertz, O. and Kias, M.B. (2003) ‘Fallow, labour and livelihood

in shifting cultivation: Implications for deforestation in northern Lao PDR’,

Danish Journal of Geography 103(2): 71-80.

Sen, A. (1977) ‘Starvation and exchange entitlements: a general approach and

its application to the great Bengal famine’, Cambridge Journal of Economics

1(1): 33-59.

Shattuck, A., Schiavoni, C.M., and VanGelder, Z. (2015) ‘Translating the

Politics of Food Sovereignty: Digging into Contradictions, Uncovering New

Dimensions’, Globalizations 12(4): 421-433.

Shaw, K. (2008) Political Theory: Sovereignty and the limits of the political,

New York: Routledge.


72

Shiree/Economic Empowerment of the Poorest (EEP) (2014) State of

Extreme Poverty Baseline Report, Dhaka: Shiree/EEP

Silva, E. (2014) ‘Social movements, policy, and conflict in post-neoliberal

Latin America: Bolivia in the time of Evo Morales’, Research in Political

Sociology 21: 51-76.

Syed, A.R., Rahman, F. and Sunderland, T. (2012) ‘Causes and consequences

of shifting cultivation and its alternative in the hill tracts of eastern

Bangladesh’, Agroforest Syst 84: 141-155.

Transnational Institute (2013), Food Sovereignty A critical dialogue, Yale,

online forum video, accessed 15th April 2016,

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fU2vY4MO0wE&list=PL6JRfkdlcGYW

w1MEO03KzhRi9jXvernty>.

UCDP (1997) Chittagong Hill Tracts Peace Accord, available at:

https://peaceaccords.nd.edu/sites/default/files/accords/Chittagong_Hill_Tr

acts_Peace_Accord.pdf (accessed 9th May 2016).

Ulloa, A. (2011) ‘The Politics of Autonomy of Indigenous Peoples of the Sierra

Nevada de Santa Marta, Colombia: A Process of Relational Indigenous

Autonomy’, Latin American and Caribbean Ethnic Studies 6(1): 79-107.

United Nation Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP)

(2007), available at:

http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/DRIPS_en.pdf (accessed

20th April 2016).

United Nation Treaty Collection (UNTC) (2016) Status on the International

Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, available at:

https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-

3&chapter=4&lang=en (accessed 17th April 2016).

United Nation World Food Programme (WFP) (2004) Chittagong Hill Tracts

Union Level Relative Food Insecurity Map, available at:

http://www.refworld.org/docid/4821c8ffd.html (accessed 6th June 2016).

United Peoples Democratic Front (UPDF) n.d. About UPDF, available at:

http://updfcht.com/?page_id=30 (accessed 28th May 2016).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fU2vY4MO0wE&list=PL6JRfkdlcGYWw1MEO03KzhRi9jXvernty

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fU2vY4MO0wE&list=PL6JRfkdlcGYWw1MEO03KzhRi9jXvernty

https://peaceaccords.nd.edu/sites/default/files/accords/Chittagong_Hill_Tracts_Peace_Accord.pdf

https://peaceaccords.nd.edu/sites/default/files/accords/Chittagong_Hill_Tracts_Peace_Accord.pdf

http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/DRIPS_en.pdf

https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-3&chapter=4&lang=en

https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-3&chapter=4&lang=en

http://www.refworld.org/docid/4821c8ffd.html

http://updfcht.com/?page_id=30


73

Unnayan Onneshan (2013) Conceptual Approach, available at:

http://www.unnayan.org/index.php/about-us/unnayan-

onneshan/conceptual-approach (accessed 26th May 2016).

Unpresented Nations and Peoples Organization (UNPO) (2015) Petition to

Implement the CHT Peace Accords – Support the Jumma peoples in

Bangladesh!, available at: http://unpo.org/article/18591 (accessed 9th May

2016).

Van Schendel, W. (1992) ‘The Invention of the ‘Jummas’: State Formation and

Ethnicity in Southeastern Bangladesh’, Modern Asian Studies 26(1): 95-128.

Wald, N. and Hill, D.P. (2016) ‘’Rescaling’ alternative food systems: from food

security to food sovereignty’, Agric Hum Values 33: 203-213.

Windfuhr, M. and Jonsen, J. (2005) Food sovereignty: Towards democracy in

localized food systems, available at: https://practicalaction.org/new-

technologies/docs/advocacy/foodsovereignty_fian.pdf (accessed 19th May

2016).

Zaman, H. (2000) ‘Indigenous knowledge and Sustainability: On the Brink of

Disaster or Revolution’ in Sillitoe, P. (ed) Indigenous Knowledge Development

in Bangladesh: Present and Future, Dhaka: Intermediate Technology

Publications Limited, 41-50.

http://www.unnayan.org/index.php/about-us/unnayan-onneshan/conceptual-approach

http://www.unnayan.org/index.php/about-us/unnayan-onneshan/conceptual-approach

http://unpo.org/article/18591

https://practicalaction.org/new-technologies/docs/advocacy/foodsovereignty_fian.pdf

https://practicalaction.org/new-technologies/docs/advocacy/foodsovereignty_fian.pdf


74

Appendix A The Map of the Chittagong Hill Tracts, divided into three districts:

Rangamati, Bandarban and Khagrachari

Source: UN WFP 2004


75

Appendix B Comparison between RtAF and food sovereignty

Source: Beuchelt and Virchow 2012: 269


76

Appendix C Analytical framework: indicators of food security and sovereignty

Source: Putnam et al. 2014: 179.


77

Appendix D Post Peace Accord CHT Institutions

Source: Tripura (2008: 71)


78

Appendix E Water Management

The traditional management system, sora (steam) protection uses thick-

walled bamboo species (Bambusa vulgaris) to maintain water flow and

manage watersheds in the CHT (FAO 2015).

Rainwater harvesting through roof and ground catchment has also been seen

in order to supplement water supplies for domestic and agricultural purpose

(Zaman 2000). One of the age-old techniques for conserving rainwater is to

build a small embankment across a canal or stream with an earth dyke (often

5m wide and 2.5 to 3.5m deep) to create a reservoir that is about 80-90ha

(Sharma 1998, quoted in Zaman 2000). In the dry season the water is used

for irrigating the lower and nearby agricultural fields. This indigenous

technique enhances efficiency of water use and helps maintain availability of

water throughout the year (Zaman 2000).

Tree Management

The shifting cultivators have followed a particular vegetation and tree

management systems, the coppice management system that cuts the tree at a

certain height to assist in coppicing from the tree stump (FAO 2015).

Soil Management

The practice of mixed cropping helps to conserve soil fertility and

biodiversity; the shifting cultivators also use ash mixed in the soil to help

create hummus to increase the nutrient and water holding capacity of the soil

to improve soil structure and quality (Zaman 2000). Multi cropping

production system when combined with no tillage method, can help control

weeds that forms a significant portion of time and labour in jum cultivation


79

(see Appendix F). Logs and banana leaves, stems and roots are also used to

prevent soil erosion from rainwater.

Pest Management

Many farmers have used organic pest management, such as neem leaf,

tobacco biskatali - i.e. water from tobacco pipes and ash to protect seeds and

plants from insect attack, which lessen the need to use chemical pesticides

(Zaman 2000, FAO 2015).

Homestead

Trees are used to cover the houses from winds, storms, and erosions. People

also cultivate trees and shrubs around the borders of the farmland, also as a

way to trap group water and alleviate the effects of the drought (Zaman

2000).


80

Appendix F

Source: Rahman et al. 2012: 145

Jan and Feb: Land clearance

March: Field burning

April: Maize and early rice plantation

May: Main rice plantation

June - August: Weeding

Sept: Early rice harvest

Oct-Nov: Main rice harvest

Dec: Other harvest

Jum Cultivation Calendar in the CHT


81

Appendix G The main stages of intensification in shifting cultivation

Raintree and Warner (1986: 46) provided an example of ‘economically enriched fallows’

practiced by Luangan Dayaks of Borneo, where the fallow period was used for rattan planting,

which does not disrupt the shifting cultivation cycle of production. In contrast, ‘biologically

fallow enrichment’ is designed to enhance soil fertility and control of weeds. It is normally

practiced by farmers who have at least reached Stage 2 intensification.

Source: Raintree and Warner 1986

ewonosaputra_insights from indigenous food sovereignty_dissertation

Documents