Since the 1990s, two concepts emerged that are today fundamental in current reflections on food policies: food democracy and food sovereignty. The first concerns “the demand for greater access and collective benefit from the food system” (Lang, 1999). The second was developed by the international movement of peasants and food workers La Via Campesina in 1996 and refers to “the right of peoples to define their food and agriculture systems”, in a healthy, culturally and ecologically appropriate way (La Via Campesina, 2003).

Food democracy – a concept shaped by the Global North – focuses on the active role of institutions and citizen participation; food sovereignty concentrates on the role of producers (Anderson, 2023). Academic literature refers about food sovereignty as a questions of “power and democracy” (ECVC, 2018); some scholars wrote about it as “the right and the practice of democracy” (Patel, 2009), and there is a widespread awareness that food sovereignty promotes a process of democratization of the food system (Faraoni, 2023) and about its importance in supporting social equality and democratic choices (Agarwal, 2014).

Continuing the investigation on the intersections (or not) between these two concepts within the research project “Making Food Democracy” (www.fooddemocracyproject.com), this paper focuses on the different perspectives and narratives on climate change and agri-food practices found in food democracy and food sovereignty implementation. In addition to a literature review, an analysis on the case studies that we will conduct during spring 2025 in Spain as part of the research project is proposed.

Climate change is affecting not only ecosystems and economies at different scales, but also the identity, intangible and symbolic spheres linking communities to their places. Traditional agrifood practices, paramount expression of intangible cultural heritage, contribute to shaping a community’s landscapes and socio-spatial dynamics (Aktürk, Lerski, 2021). Nevertheless, extreme events like floods, droughts and fires, as well as progressive modifications (such as the increase of average temperatures and changes in humidity levels) endanger the survival of these practices and the related rituals and knowledge, causing deterritorialization when responses from policymakers and local communities are lacking (Delatin Rodriguez and Di Quarto, 2023; Kim, 2011). Against this backdrop, agrifood heritagization processes (Zocchi et al., 2021) represent a privileged study case to assess whether and how cultural heritage preservation and enhancement strategies acknowledge and tackle climate change. As UNESCO underlines, intangible heritage can play a crucial role in resilience, risk mitigation and reducing vulnerability to climate change. Nevertheless, its survival is endangered by climate change, often with multiplier effects on pre-existing conditions of economic and social vulnerability.

An overview of the existing regulatory framework (Pollice, Epifani, Miggiano, 2024) shows a paramount lack: if, on the one hand, both literature and policies about climate change recognise the importance of traditional agrifood practices, on the other hand, the focus is often on their economic value, while the cohesive, social and symbolic dimension is neglected. This is particularly problematic in rural contexts, which are often characterised by a high vulnerability to climate change, but at the same time also by an extraordinary abundance of traditions, rituals and agri-food practices that risk being lost. With this in mind, the Erasmus Plus project ‘Green Heritage - The impact of climate change on the Intangible Heritage’, promoted and financed by the European Union, is experimenting with innovative tools and methodologies to promote systemic approaches that are useful to boost greater attention, within the framework of EU and national policies, for those intangible cultural sediments (including, precisely, traditional agro-food practices) to which the public and political debate has not yet paid due attention.

This research intends to illustrate the state of the art and explore the challenges and opportunities related to protecting and transmitting traditional agri-food heritage in a context of increasing climate instability through a series of case studies drawn from the Italian context. The aim is to contribute to the debate on the need for more inclusive governance strategies integrating the intangible cultural dimension into climate change adaptation and mitigation policies.

References:

Aktürk, G., & Lerski, M. (2021). Intangible cultural heritage: a benefit to climate-displaced and host communities. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 11(3), 305-315.

Delatin Rodrigues, D., & Di Quarto, F. (2023). Sistemi agro-alimentari in transizione: gli effetti del cambiamento climatico in alcune regioni italiane. Rivista Geografica Italiana - Open Access, (4). https://doi.org/10.3280/rgioa4-2023oa16846

Kim, H. E. (2011). Changing climate, changing culture: adding the climate change dimension to the protection of intangible cultural heritage. International Journal of Cultural Property, 18(3), 259-290.

Pollice F., Epifani, F., Miggiano P., (2024), Climate Change and Intangible Cultural Heritage: Some Insights from Research and Territorial Planning, in Territori della Cultura, 57

Zocchi, D. M., Fontefrancesco, M. F., Corvo, P., & Pieroni, A. (2021). Recognising, Safeguarding, and Promoting Food Heritage: Challenges and Prospects for the Future of Sustainable Food Systems. Sustainability, 13(17), 9510. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13179510

The fragmentation of the seascape with the creation of No-Take Zones (NTZs) destabilises the fishing way of life. More so, it makes visible the struggles of fishermen’s identities when operating in adjacent waters, strained by the loss of marine biodiversity and climate change. This research looks at the relationship that artisan fishermen in the French Mediterranean Sea hold with NTZs through a gender lens, looking at two NTZ case studies: the Cap Roux and the Parc Marin de la Côte Bleue. It finds that tensions materialise at the margins of the zones, and channel clashes of masculinities which are revealed at various levels such as regulational, generational, and climate-induced. These nuance the definition of a hegemonic fishing masculinity. The highlighted tensions further show co-construction processes between fishing masculinities and attitudes towards environmental care. This identifies that a space exists for contestation of fishing masculinities in how the fisher-men relate to themselves, to fishing, to others and ultimately, to nature. The zones hence play an important role in showcasing examples of ecological fishing masculinities, that remain anchored but may be found drifting.