Search results

This paper examines how key actors in the UK food system (FS) understand the role of the local food sector in relation to FS resilience.

Discourse analysis was used to assess and compare the framings of the UK FS in 36 publications released during Covid-19 from alternative food networks (AFNs) actors and from other more mainstream FS actors, including the UK government.

The analysis shows that AFNs actors perceive the UK FS as not resilient and identify local FSs as a route towards greater resilience (“systemic” framing). In contrast, other food actors perceive the UK FS as already resilient, with the role of local food limited to specific functions within the existing system (“add-on” framing). The two groups converge on the importance of dynamic public procurement and local abattoir provision, but this convergence does not undermine the fundamental divergence in the understanding of the role of “the local” in resilient UK FSs. The local food sector’s messages appear to have gone largely unheard in mainstream policy.

The paper presents an analysis of public sector reports focused on the UK FS released during the Covid-19 pandemic years 2020–2021. The corpus inclusion criteria mean that publications during this period which focus on other food sector issues, such social injustices, climate change and health, were not included in the analysis, although they may have touched upon local food issues. The authors further recognise that Covid-19 had a longer lasting effect on FSs than the years 2020–2021, and that many other publications on FSs have been published since. The time span chosen targets the time at which FSs were most disrupted and therefore aims to capture emerging issues and solutions for the UK FS. The authors’ insights should be further validated through a more complete review of both public reports and academic papers covering a wider base of food-related issues and sectors as well as a broader timespan.

A comparison of how different FS actors understand the importance of local food, especially in relation to resilience, has not been undertaken to date. The findings raise important questions about the disconnect between AFN actors and other actors in the framing of resilience. Considering the need to ensure resilience of the UK FS, this study's findings raise important insights for UK food policy about the “local food blindspot” and for food movement actors wishing to progress their vision of transformative change.

This paper examines the state’s accountability to its citizens, in particular the First Peoples of settler colonial nations such as Australia, and how these responsibilities may be enacted via a process of compensatory justice in Native Title claims. We focus on the landmark Timber Creek ruling and the impacts of racialized preconceptions on the accountability outcomes of the case.

This study draws on critical race theory to reveal embedded racialised perspectives that perpetuate exclusion and discriminatory outcomes. Court documents including hearing transcripts, case judgements, witness statements, appellant and respondent submissions, expert reports and responses from First Nations leaders, form the basis of our analysis.

The case highlights how the compensation awarded to Native Title holders was based on racialised assumptions that prioritised neoliberal values, commercial activities and reaching a “socially acceptable” judgement over valuing Aboriginal uses of land. A critical analysis of court documents reveals the pervasiveness of presumed “objectivity” in the use of accounting tools to calculate economic value and the accountability implications of a process based on litigation, not negotiation. These findings reveal the hiding places offered by calculative practices that equate neoliberal priorities with accountability and reaffirm the importance of alternative accountings to resist inequitable distributive outcomes.

Novel insights, drawing on First Nations peoples’ connections to land and their perspectives on accountability and justice, are offered in this study. Our analysis of Native Title holders’ submissions to the courts alongside historical and anthropological sources leads to the conclusion that compensation decisions regarding Native Title land must be approached from the perspective of Aboriginal landowners if accountable outcomes are to be achieved.