Much like peasants and family farmers, pastoralists’ core activity is food production. For millennia, they have been producing milk, meat, fibre and hide, as well as providing ecosystem services in the world’s most challenging environments. Pastoralists are mobile or semi-mobile livestock keepers with highly evolved relationships between their breeds and the environment in which they live.

The environmental and cultural diversity of pastoral communities across the world is vast. Yet, there are common struggles that unite pastoral communities – with each other, but also with family farmers, fisher folk, rural workers and others seeking fair food systems. Above all, as producers wishing to maintain their way of life, food sovereignty is a necessity they strive to achieve.

Access and control over land

Survival of pastoral communities and their animals depends on their ability to access land and water. Pastoralists manage extensive tracts of land, including migratory routes, for grazing. This strategy takes advantage of ecological and climatic variability and defies popular belief that certain areas, often arid and mountainous, are uninhabitable and unproductive.

Over centuries, pastoral communities have maintained land as shared property, known as the commons. Use of the commons is usually regulated by customary tenure and enforced through customary law. But today, in many places there is tension between the objectives of customary and statutory (national) law. Moreover, customary law is often undermined or dismantled by national governments facilitating or turning a blind eye to land grabbing. For instance, most national governments pursue privatisation of common land to encourage investment in commodity production (industrial agriculture, mining), nature conservation or hunting reserves. Consultation with pastoral communities in this process is often inadequate or altogether non-existent.

The result is that pastoralists are losing access to and control over their lands. And the implications include livestock death, hunger and conflict between pastoralists and other land users. Besides this, the role pastoralists play as keepers of the land (see box) is becoming less viable and land degradation more prevalent. Other societal issues such as rural exodus emerge as well.

Privatisation of the commons is certainly not happening in a vacuum, and there are other factors contributing to these issues (e.g. climate change, conflict, corruption), but (re)securing pastoral communities’ land rights is cross-cutting and particularly illustrative when it comes to empowerment, the struggle to improve governance, and ultimately achieve food sovereignty.

Local and global voices

One way in which pastoralists make themselves heard at the regional and international levels is by forming alliances that participate in policy making fora. The World Alliance of Mobile Indigenous Peoples (WAMIP), the Arab Pastoralist Community Network (see the special section on the pastoralism in the Middle East) and the pastoralists’ constituency in the Food Sovereignty movement are but three examples. Margherita Gomarasca reflects on the way a group of pastoralists, representing more than 100 organisations from across the world, is shaping IFAD’s agenda through a statement that outlines their specific needs and priorities. These range from recognition of pastoral knowledge and culture to mobile services that suit mobile lifestyles.

Besides representation at the national, regional and international levels, pastoral communities often face another governance challenge at the local level. As Elizabeth Mpofu points out, traditional governance structures of pastoral societies often exclude women. But this is slowly changing. Pain Eulalia Mako explains how pastoral women in Tanzania, when supported with training on empowerment, are proving their capacity to lead their communities’ struggles for land. Moreover, the traditional male leaders are recognising women’s rights and supporting this kind of change in their communities.

New alliances

The example of improved women’s rights within pastoral communities shows that traditional governance structures and institutions are not static. In fact, adapting traditional governance is an ongoing strategy of pastoral communities working with other land users. A story from Somaliland illustrates this, showing how hybrid institutions that formally recognise traditional leaders are functioning relatively well when it comes to negotiating conflicting land uses.

Another aspect of adapting traditional governance relates to forming new alliances with, sometimes unlikely, partners. The Pastoral Parliament in Gujarat  is a good example of how diverse pastoral groups put aside cultural and religious differences to work together for a common cause. And in an article from Italy, we see that immigrants with a pastoral background are playing an important role keeping pastoralism alive at a time when most local youth migrate to cities. This in itself raises a whole host of policy questions around support for the integration of a new wave of pastoralists in Mediterranean Europe.

Finding a way

A common theme throughout this issue of Farming Matters is the spirit of collective action and cooperation. Pastoralists join forces to be better seen and heard, but also for economic empowerment and environmental sustainability.

Finally, from the stories presented here it is remarkable how, despite political marginalisation, pastoralists do find ways to challenge the policies that undermine their lifestyles. And there is a lot to learn from pastoralists’ experiences on the frontline of the struggle for land and their demands for a rights-based approach to achieving food sovereignty. This confirms that pastoralists are a crucial part of the agroecological movement.

Environmental benefits of pastoral systems
 
The agroecological principle of enhancing crop-animal interactions is usually discussed at the farm level. But when zooming out to the territorial level the interaction between livestock and vegetation (be it cultivated or naturally occurring) is a principle that pastoral communities embody. Extensive livestock grazing is an excellent example of managing biodiversity and soil fertility. For example, through the transport of seeds and insects by livestock, the migration of pastoralists and their flocks supports habitat connectivity and biodiversity.

Madeleine Florin (m.florin@ileia.org) and Diana Quiroz (d.quiroz@ileia.org) both work for ILEIA.

The post Editorial: Pastoralists and agroecology appeared first on Ileia.

The second Nyéléni Europe Forum for food sovereignty took place in Cluj-Napoca, Romania, from 25-30 October 2016. The forum gathered over 700 participants from around 40 countries, among them peasants, consumers and urban citizen movements, NGOs, workers and trade unionists. The forum’s purpose was to set the agenda for the Food Sovereignty movement in Europe over the next few years. Key campaigns and actions were initiated and plans for moving this forward are underway.

Four thematic axes

The forum was organised around several parallel participatory sessions where burning issues resulting from earlier discussions would feed into later sessions. The first round of discussions kicked off with the four thematic axes that were identified during the consultation process held in the months prior to the meeting: 1) Models of production and consumption; 2) Food distribution; 3) Right to natural resources and the commons; and 4) Work and social conditions in food and agricultural systems.

From these discussions, the next participatory session was divided again in four groups that discussed which policies were to be targeted with actions at different levels, and what principles of participation and inclusiveness need to be respected.

Campaigns and action plans

The forum’s last three sessions took place over three days and were devoted to discussing action plans and campaigns in Europe. These sessions built on the discussions of the previous two days and addressed six campaign and action plans:

• Land, water and fisheries in the hands of people
• Migrants, agriculture, food culture rights
• Peasants’ agroecology
• Alternative trade systems vs. global corporate power
• Territorial markets and food distribution systems
• Common food and farming policies.

Road ahead

After five intense but inspiring days of discussions and a large number of initiatives planned at the national, regional, and European level, our work has just begun. To follow-up on and spread information about the European food sovereignty movement, ILEIA together with the organising committee of the Nyéléni forum will jointly produce an issue of Farming Matters on Food Sovereignty in Europe. This issue will be launched in March 2017. Moreover, having its seat in the Netherlands, ILEIA will actively support the actions planned by the Dutch food sovereignty movement as well. Stay tuned.

Krems, Austria, five years ago
On August 2011 over 400 individuals from 34 European countries met in Krems, Austria to plan the development of a European movement for food sovereignty. Their objective was to build on the foundations of the Mali forum of 2007, where delegates from over 80 countries defined food sovereignty as the right of people to decide on their own agricultural system based on their own culture and values.

The first Nyéléni Europe Forum allowed peasant farmers and producers and civil society organisations from across Europe to share experiences, coordinate actions and discuss perspectives on food sovereignty. The forum culminated in the Nyéléni Europe Declaration, and the Synthesis Report and Action Plan. The Declaration outlined a common vision for, and commitments to realising food sovereignty in Europe.

The post Nyéléni Europe: a growing movement for food sovereignty appeared first on Ileia.

How has agroecology changed since you became involved in the movement?

Perhaps the biggest change has been in the way agroecology has been perceived over time. Agroecology was born in the 1980s in Latin America amongst small scale producers marginalised by the Green Revolution and who had no access to agricultural inputs. These farmers, often supported by NGOs, looked for ways around the marginalisation they were experiencing. A decade later, they started organising themselves and sought for ways to transfer successful initiatives creating farmer to farmer networks. Back in the day, scientists argued that agroecology could not feed the world and that it was only for the ‘poor’. It was only in the 1990s that some universities became interested in agroecology. At the same time, NGOs began playing a stronger role as extensionists, and were instrumental in ensuring more research support for peasant agriculture amongst academics.

Agroecology has come a long way; it is not as stigmatised as it was 30 years ago. Many of us agroecological scientists know that this has been a strenuous struggle, but thanks to the continuous and joint effort of peasants, civil society, and academia, agroecology has gained worldwide momentum. Institutions such as the FAO and many universities, which previously questioned it, have now incorporated agroecology into their agendas. Clearly we must be careful as there are efforts to co-opt agroecology and strip it of its sociopolitical dimensions. This is why it is important to recognise the history and identity of agroecology, and particularly the impact of agroeoclogy, and specially to evaluate its technical, social, economic and political achievements.

How can these achievements be evaluated?

To answer this question, I would like to outline the differences between agroecology and organic agriculture, which are often confused. Whereas organic agriculture is only a production model, agroecology as a science, offers the principles and methodological elements needed to evaluate, design, and manage diversified agroecosystems. For example, you can produce organic grapes following a handbook, but only agroecological knowledge enables us to redesign and diversify such vineyards, in order to maintain their soil fertility, pest regulation and productivity without external inputs. For instance, by applying agroecological knowledge you can tell why a field planted with GMOs is unsustainable: there is no diversity, no nutrient cycling and, it isn’t socially fair. With agroecological knowledge you can even analyse the detrimental ecological and political impact of GMOs.

“You cannot measure impact of agroecology without looking at the social, political and cultural dimensions, alongside the technical aspects”

You cannot measure the impact of agroecology without looking at the social, political, and cultural dimensions, alongside the technical aspects. Anyone can have a productive agroecological farm, but following agroecological principles alone, without considering social equity and cultural appropriateness, is not enough. Agroecology is like a four-legged table where practice is only one of its legs. The same applies to organic agriculture. It may be healthy and friendly to the environment because of the absence of chemical inputs; it may be economically viable because it is profitable for farmers; and yet it may not be socially just or culturally acceptable because not everyone can afford to pay for certified organic foods or because peasant knowledge hasn’t been taken into account. Thus the organic system may have three legs but it still falls down and is therefore not sustainable.

To measure the impact of agroecology you first need to determine the objective of your evaluation together with farmers and choose indicators according to this objective. For example, if you want to prove that agroecological farming has achieved more equity for peasants, then you need to think of the different attributes of agroecology’s social dimension. Thinking of attributes helps in choosing the right indicators. In the case of equity, you can look at indicators such as the level of empowerment, organisation, self-determination, participation (especially of youth and women), selfconsumption of their products, access to markets, etc. Once indicators have been chosen with actors, you can determine how to measure those indicators. There are several ways of doing this. Choosing a methodology depends on who you work with and the level of evaluation: families, communities, entire territories or anything in between. Our team, for example, has used a traffic light system assigning colours to the degree of vulnerability when evaluating resilience to climate change together with indigenous communities in Colombia and Mexico (Farming Matters wrote a short review of the didactic toolkit).

Why is it important to measure the impact of agroecology?

It is important to measure the impact of agroecology in order to demonstrate to the sceptics that agroecology is a form of agriculture capable of producing enough good and accessible food without harming the environment or contributing to greenhouse gas emissions. It is also important that society as a whole be informed about the impacts of agroecology and of the need to advocate for public policies that support small scale producers’ and consumers’ rights. For us scientists, it is important to know if the initiatives we promote are really reaching the levels of sustainability we strive for and if the principles on which the science of agroecology is based are being applied in practice. Impact studies are crucial for the amplification of agroecology.

What is the biggest challenge for developing impact indicators?

We must increase our understanding of the importance of using participatory methods to develop indicators. Often, the things that are interesting to us scientists have absolutely no relevance for farmers. For example, as an entomologist I am interested to know whether a farm has insect pests and associated natural enemies, but it might be the case that this farm has never had problems with insect pests and the farmers’ priorities are elsewhere. Moreover, it is also important that indicators be accurate, sensitive, and easy to interpret. Sometimes indicators are reduced to numeric values that farmers don’t understand and this has been one Achilles’ heel of measuring the impact of agroecology.

Is measuring impact with indicators enough?

“Sometimes we have a good discourse, but it is worth little if we don’t translate it into practice”

Unfortunately, much of the work we do in academia remains locked up in students’ theses and scientific articles that no one else reads. Often the distance between the potential and actual political impact of researchers’ work is huge. This is because the system rewards publications whether relevant or not. In addition to doing research, we scientists should also be activists and ensure that our work is a catalyst for change. And to generate change researchers must be close to people and farmers’ organisations, because policy changes are seldom a result of the work of scientists or policy makers; they happen because social movements and civil society push for change.

As scientists we cannot work alone, we need co-researchers and these co-researchers must be peasants and farmers. Neglecting this is a recipe for failure. Moreover research must foster and provoke political action. Mainstream science doesn’t like this, but science isn’t neutral either, especially as it is often in the service of certain political and economic interests. The only weapon we have is to show that agroecology works, we cannot leave everything to utopian dreams and discourse. Sometimes we have a good discourse, but it is worth little if we don’t translate it into practice. Agroecology is a public good but in order to have an impact the research has to be relevant and emerge from a participatory process where the true needs and aspirations of peasants are well represented.

Interview: Diana Quiroz (d.quiroz@ileia.org)

The post Interview: “Impact studies are crucial for the amplification of agroecology” appeared first on Ileia.

“My name is Madelyn Álvarez Díaz and I am a peasant. I also coordinate the agroecological peasant-to-peasant movement in the Cienfuegos province, in Central Cuba. On our family farm, we use agroecological methods to cultivate and also to improve our soils. Before we got the land, it had been a dairy farm and the soil was very rocky. We have managed to improve our soil by mulching, with living fences, and by using effective microorganisms. Nowadays, our soil is rich and of good quality. Good quality soil means that the food we produce is healthy and nutritious. When you visit conventional farms, you see entire fields dedicated to a single crop. We agroecological farmers don’t think this way. We think of diversification and the need to produce year-round. Therefore, we grow a little bit of everything.

To me, any farmer who tries to improve her soils and her quality of life, and thinks of ways to care for her plants and the environment, is an agroecological farmer. My work as a promoter of agroecology starts when I meet a farmer who would like to farm using agroecological principles. We work together, and always start by identifying which agroecological practices they already use.

In the past, Cuban farmers practiced agroecology simply to improve their soils and to help one another. In recent years, as the movement has grown, these farmers have become conscious of the work they do and have started to collectively determine their own political processes. Self-reflection and self-determination are impacts of agroecology. Personally, I have also experienced this impact. Peasants are the most modest and natural people you will ever meet. I feel proud of being one and doing my bit by caring for the environment and helping solve humanity’s current problems. I am in love with the work that I do, not everyone can say that about their work.”

Interview by Georges Félix, PhD candidate at Wageningen University and Diana Quiroz, editor at ILEIA.

The post Heartfelt impact of agroecology appeared first on Ileia.

The Food Sovereignty Prize champions real solutions to hunger, as opposed to the much-criticised World Food Prize. The US Food Sovereignty Alliance who awarded the prize states that, “this year’s winners are strident in their resistance to the corporate control of our food system” and that they instead “support small-scale farmers and communities, build unified networks, and prioritize the leadership of food providers, including women, farmworkers, peasants, indigenous peoples and other marginalized communities within the system”.

AFSA is coordinated by Million Belay, who is also the director of AgriCultures Network member MELCA Ethiopia.

The post AFSA announced as winner of the 2016 Food Sovereignty Prize award appeared first on Ileia.

Underutilised, orphan, forgotten, minor, neglected, indigenous, traditional plant species. These are but a few of the names for the plant species that are ignored in mainstream policy and research. Out of 7000 plant species that have been used for human food consumption since the beginning of agriculture, just three crops (rice, maize and wheat) provide 60 % of the world͛s plant-based calories and proteins today (FAO). Going against the grain, farmers and others around the world are embarking on initiatives that revalue the nutritional, ecological and cultural values of plants which, from here on will be referred to as ͚traditional͛. This issue of Farming Matters presents a kaleidoscope of such experiences.

Why are so few plant species valued?

In colonial times, traditional plants and foods were often associated with notions of ͚primitive͛, and left to marginalised sectors of society. A second wave of undervaluation came from the 1960s onwards with the Green Revolution. A food and farming system based on intensifying the cultivation of only a few crops – rice, wheat and maize, bred for routine application of fertilizers, pesticides and irrigation – was promoted. Diversity in traditional crops, farming techniques and diets was replaced with monoculture and monotony.

Today the marginalisation of the majority of plant species in science, policy, education, development, production and consumption is evident. For instance, most research, food aid and public procurement programmes focus exclusively on the dominant crops, creating situations where farmers are convinced or coerced into cultivating them. In turn, and often via global food chains, where power is concentrated in the hands of just a few retailers who invest heavily in marketing campaigns, these are the crops that end up on the plates of consumers. And so we are witnessing the loss of the knowledge and cultural heritage associated with cultivating, processing and preparing many plant species.

Traditional plants and agroecology

So what makes people revalue traditional crops? For one, because of the great richness and diversity that can be found among the plant species that do not dominate the global food system, but do provide at least a quarter of the world’s plant-based food. And due to their many positive contributions, these plants are a central element in the agroecological transition.

Diversification is a major motivation for a return to traditional crops. The negative consequences of intensive use of (often expensive) external inputs such as pesticides and fertilizers provide an incentive for growing a variety of different species to manage pests, diseases and soil fertility. Traditional crops are a key component of such diversification strategies. In the absence of external inputs, traditional varieties often outperform improved varieties and with climate change, traditional drought-resistant crops, sometimes improved through careful farmer selection, offer resilience and stability. Moreover, this strategy supports farmers͛ autonomy as they can circumvent the industrial seed and chemical industries.

Importantly, a range of traditional crops such as millet are more nutritious than the major crops such as maize. Finally, the cultivation, preparation and consumption of traditional plants is a way of reinforcing cultural identity and is an important survival strategy amongst migrant communities (see Planting roots with non-timber forest products) and those building peace in the aftermath of war (see Youth find hope in crops of their elders).

For all these reasons farmers worldwide actively manage and maintain their diverse traditional plants and crops, and both rural and urban citizens are discovering and appreciating their uses.

Likewise, scientists are seeking alternatives to the green revolution technology package and are revaluing traditional species, while policy makers such as governments and the FAO are recognising the value of such species for food and nutrition security.

But revaluing traditional crops is not easy, as it requires vision, creativity and stamina to go against the mainstream. Moreover, traditional crops also have their disadvantages. For instance, millets take a longer time to cook than rice and post-harvest processing of lupin is water and labour intensive. The processes of production and preparation of some ͚forgotten͛ crops also have been forgotten, while ͚modern tastes͛ often favour so called ͚modern foods͛, usually containing wheat, rice or maize. And not everybody is able to make the transition. Some Indian farmers, who have been monocropping groundnuts since the 70s, are facing big problems because of climate change. Some have quit groundnut cultivation and returned to millet-based diverse systems, whereas others quit farming altogether, and others decided to quit life as they could not stand the idea of lifelong indebtedness to the bank.

Underutilised by whom?
 
The trend to revalue traditional crops merits a word of caution. Does the hyperdominance of a few crops mean that the rest are truly undervalued? For example, the pulse crop lupin is undergoing a worldwide revival, but for small scale farmers in the highlands of Ecuador, this crop has always been an essential part of their diets. The label ͚underutilised͛ should be regarded in its geographical, social, historical, and economic context. Recognising this and questioning the narrative of ͚underutilised plant species͛ is a way of challenging the politics of oblivion, as argued by Mariam Mayet.
 
Moreover, the promotion of traditional plant species might actually accelerate or create problems. A few decades ago quinoa was considered the ͚lost crop of the Incas͛. Recent campaigns that promoted its integration into global value chains have been successful in popularising the crop. But dramatic changes in quinoa producing regions raise questions about the impact of bringing traditional crops into global food systems. As Didier Bazile points out on Fair and sustainable, these changes can negatively impact crop diversity, soil conservation, community cohesion and local food and nutrition security. Similarly, the commercial promotion of traditional non-timber forest products can be dangerous when governance mechanisms, such as land tenure, are not in place to curb exploitation of the species.

Farmers’ knowledge

As the value of traditional plants gains greater recognition, so must the knowledge, culture and expertise on growing and preparing these. This knowledge can take many forms. For example, in the Gamo Highlands of Ethiopia, farmers use song, dance and food to hand over knowledge about their crops. Hence, promoting traditional plants must go hand in hand with respecting the custodians of this knowledge – the food producers themselves. Kylie Lingard points this out with the case of an expanding indigenous ͚bush foods͛ industry in Australia which does not yet fairly acknowledge the indigenous peoples.

Moreover, exchange between farmers and with others is a way to generate old and new knowledge about these foods. This is seen in India (see Making millets matter in Madhya Pradesh) where farmers participate in exchanges across the country to share their experiences with reviving minor millets. An initiative to revitalise lupin in Ecuador owes part of its success to the equal partnership between technicians and farmers (see Lupin regains ground in Central Ecuador). The protection of farmers͛ knowledge and their farming models remains a key point of attention, as learnt from the quinoa experience.

A holistic approach is needed

As neglect of traditional crops has occurred at several levels, within seed systems, on farmers͛ fields, along market chains, on people͛s plates and in research, education and policy, a holistic approach is needed to turn the tide. Initiatives that build alliances between actors at these different levels are particularly successful as they enable coordinated efforts to make fundamental changes to the whole food system. For instance, recognising the link between traditional crops and foods calls for collaborations between farmers and people who process, prepare, package, distribute and eat food. In Canada, new links between farmers and chefs have increased awareness and popularity of heritage grains. Likewise food festivals in India and Ethiopia that celebrate food cultures, garner citizen support for traditional foods in both urban and rural areas. Furthermore, as illustrated with an example from Germany (see Linking food choice with biodiversity), there are increasing numbers of citizen-led initiatives that strengthen their relationships with farmers around traditional crops.

Support for emerging initiatives to revalue traditional plants must also come from policy. For instance through national research programmes that value farmers͛ knowledge on these crops and through public procurement programmes that source traditional foods from family farmers. Changes to the Public Distribution System in India, to include minor millets next to rice, wheat and maize, are a good example of how traditional crops can be supported. Mariam Mayet argues for policy change that supports farmer-managed seed systems and likewise Didier Bazile explains that changes to international seed regulations is needed to promote farmers’ access to diverse and high quality seeds.

Resilience and resistance

This issue of Farming Matters shows that traditional plant species are part and parcel of family farming rooted in agroecology, and that there are many ways to revalue them. It is clear that this always goes together with the revival of traditional dishes, food cultures, and with greater diversity. It is imperative that markets be created specifically for traditional plants and foods that are produced in an agroecological way by family farmers. This can lead to more diverse, nutritious food and healthier people that feel more connected to their food. Traditional crops build resilience and resistance – for farmers, and for anyone who eats.

Madeleine Florin (m.florin@ileia.org), Diana Quiroz (d.quiroz@ileia.org) and Janneke Bruil (j.bruil@ileia.org) work at ILEIA (www.ileia.org).

The post Editorial: Traditional plants build resilience and resistance appeared first on Ileia.

“Agroecology (…) is an approach that will help to address the challenge of ending hunger and malnutrition in all its forms”said José Graziano da Silva in 2014. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), which he leads, had just organised the International Symposium on Agroecology for Food Security and Nutrition. Indeed, agroecology is gaining momentum for its potential to increase food and nutrition security, address climate change, enhance biodiversity and build food sovereignty. FAO decided to continue discussing agroecology via regional meetings in Africa, Asia and the Pacific, and Latin America and the Caribbean throughout 2015. This article reflects on the outcomes around four key themes of these discussions.

Agroecology as a path towards food and nutrition security

Agroecology can be a key strategy to improve food and nutrition security, argued Roberto Ugas (National Agrarian University La Molina, Peru) at the regional meeting for Latin America and the Caribbean: “Andean farmers who keep at least 70 % of their productive area under agroecological management have better food availability, access, use and stability.”

In all meetings, the need to enable biodiverse, agroecological farming was voiced. One fundamental step is securing producers’ access (especially women, youth, family farmers, and indigenous peoples) to land, water, and seeds. A lack of knowledge and awareness about the contribution of agroecology to diverse diets was highlighted as a major barrier. To tackle this, participants suggested integrating agroecology into education for youth and adults, as well as farmer field schools and other farmer-to-farmer methodologies, with special attention for traditional knowledge.

It was made clear that a holistic, transdisciplinary approach based on new relationships between farmers, academia and other knowledge holders will be crucial. In all regions, producers presented agroecology as a way of life and a path towards food sovereignty for rural and urban citizens. In this respect, participants emphasised the importance of recognising the right of peoples, communities, and countries to define their own agricultural, labour, fishing, and food and land policies.

Agroecology and natural resources in a changing climate

Various agroecological practices promote carbon storage through increasing organic matter in the soils, and reintroducing trees to the landscape. The great climate adaptation potential of traditional management practices with local varieties of traditional food crops, and particularly drought resistant species, was also emphasised. Therefore, it was stated that more resources need to be devoted to research on the link between agroecology and climate change, an on farmers’ selection of varieties and species.

Massa Koné (CMAT, Malian Convergence against Land Grabbing) said: “agroecology is the only answer to climate change and farmers hold answers that must be valued. This means we must respect the rights of people to their land in order to ensure peace”. Indeed, agroecology not only helps to cool the planet and to adapt to the impact of climate change, participants emphasised, but also brings social benefits, expressed in stronger social security networks that are essential to resilience. In keeping with their Nyéléni Declaration on Agroecology (2015), civil society representatives rejected attempts to reduce the concept of agroecology to a set of technologies designed to alleviate the harmful impacts of industrial agriculture.

Learning processes in agroecology

There was general consensus that farmers and other food producers should be at the forefront of knowledge co-creation in agroecology. Farmer-led, bottom-up, local innovation systems and practices are especially important, as expressed by Ibrahima Diedhiou of the University of Thiès in Senegal when he said: “Farmer innovations have greatly improved the livelihoods of farming communities. Unfortunately, the innovation capacity of local communities remains insufficiently valued”.

As a result, the way knowledge is built and shared needs to be fundamentally different from conventional technology transfer in order to support agroecology. In the words of Clara Nicholls (SOCLA, Latin American Scientific Society for Agroecology): “Agroecology is not only a scientific approach, it is a way of life that values science, but is also aware that knowledge comes from the ancient traditions of people.”

In all regions, participants discussed how to strengthen and increase the recognition of peasant and indigenous knowledge, farmer-led research and farmer-to-farmer learning. Participants reflected on the role of scientists in interactions with farmers, and discussed how to transform these into processes that are truly driven by farmers.

Public policies to promote agroecology

Discussions in all regional meetings made it clear that fundamental change in policy is needed for agroecology to reach its full potential. The cross-sectoral nature of effective policies was highlighted, as agroecology not only touches on production and consumption, but also on issues such as health, education, and the environment. The first policy priority in agroecology would be to put control of seeds, biodiversity, land and territories, waters and knowledge in the hands of producers. Without access to these resources the transition to agroecology is impossible. Farmer Sophia Ogutu from Kenya emphasised: “The focus of policies needs to be on giving farmers, especially women, control over their natural resources.”

The role of new markets for agroecological products was considered a pertinent issue. Proposals were made for the reorientation of markets towards small scale producers, and for public procurement policies for agroecological products.Experience has shown that the most effective policies have a local character and promote the further development of proven successes such as community seed banks, farmer field schools, agroecology schools, demonstration farms and farmer-to-farmer exchanges. Therefore calls were made to collect and better disseminate data from existing experiences with agroecology to enable evidence-based decision making. Throughout all seminars, civil society recommended that policies on agroecology must be developed within a food sovereignty framework. Finally, the importance of participatory policy development processes was highlighted, that respect the needs of both farmers and governments.

Reflection

In many ways, the regional meetings boosted the official recognition of agroecology as a relevant and time tested approach, and strong recommendations were made in all regions (see box below). While this is welcome progress, the meetings could have addressed the inherent contradictions between agroecology and the current neoliberal approach to modernising agriculture in a more systematic way. More specifically, they could have explored how to achieve a shift away from a productivist mindset, with its focus on aggregate supply and increases in yields, towards a more multi-functional agricultural model that pursues improved nutrition, resilience, food sovereignty and the sustainable use of resources.

Several important issues were not on the table during the meetings. For example, how to overcome the strong influence of agribusinesses on policy making processes. In the future, this issue should be dealt with in more detail and with more time. It is also notable that confusion exists around FAO’s support for agroecology on the one hand and their engagement with the Global Alliance for Climate Smart Agriculture on the other.

Inadequate discussions about the above issues seemed to imply that ‘business as usual’ can continue, instead of making it clear that a fundamental shift towards agroecology is needed. As social movements stated in the Nyéléni Declaration of the International Forum on Agroecology (2015), “the real solutions to the crises of the climate, malnutrition, etc., will not come from conforming to the industrial model. We must transform it and build our own local food systems that create new rural-urban links, based on truly agroecological food production by peasants, artisanal fishers, pastoralists, indigenous peoples, urban farmers, etc.”

In the second half of 2016, FAO will organise two more regional meetings on agroecology, one in China and one in Hungary. FAO can potentially play an important role in connecting various actors around agroecology and in catalysing a shift towards an enabling policy environment for agroecology worldwide.

While we appreciate the start of the conversation on how to strengthen agroecology in the regions, and the majority of the recommendations are worthy of implementation, bolder steps are now needed. We must emphasise the need to transform dominant approaches to food and agriculture, and put farmer-led agroecology firmly at the centre of policy, practice and research. Then, agroecology can play a major role in creating fair and sustainable future food systems, food sovereignty and healthy societies.

Janneke Bruil (j.bruil@ileia.org) is Coordinator Learning and Advocacy at ILEIA
Diana Quiroz (d.quiroz@ileia.org) is Research, Editing and Advocacy Officer at ILEIA.

A detailed report by FAO and ILEIA that synthesises the outcomes of the regional meetings will be published in the course of 2016 and made available at www.ileia.org.

The post FAO’s regional meetings on agroecology: a reflection appeared first on Ileia.

What is meant by non-commercial ‘orphan crops’?

Traditional crops such as cowpea, sorghum, millet, pigeon pea, cassava and sweet potato are referred to as non-commercial ‘orphan crops’, as part of a particular narrative that values crops that are produced commercially and traded on international markets, while everything else, like traditional or indigenous crops, are considered ‘orphan’. But on the ground, these crops form the basis of our food and farming systems. The value of these crops is not recognised. They’ve been neglected in regional, national and international policy, and in research and development spaces.

"GM crops simply cannot address multiple nutritional challenges"

But we do not agree with the use of the term ‘orphan crops’. In the same way that we changed the discourse around ‘informal seed systems’ to ‘farmer-managed seed systems’ we have to question whether crops are really orphan or underutilised. Terms like ‘orphan crops’ are derogatory and I regret that we used it in our recent report, but it’s out there now and it’s a learning curve for us. The more we work with farmers on the ground the more we are humbled and we go back to the drawing board to rethink our strategy and way forward.

What is your concern with genetic modification of these crops?

First, we are very critical of genetically modified (GM) crops in Africa and have been opposing GM in Africa for almost 20 years. We are fundamentally opposed to reductionist solutions imposed upon Africa by powerful external forces that are based on replacing existing farmer-managed food and farming systems with a model that is ecologically unsustainable and inherently socially unjust.Claims that GM addresses vitamin and nutrient deficiencies through biofortification is turning the attention and resources of politicians and researchers towards new technologies such as gene editing and genesilencing. There has been a spate of articles and discussion around this, yet very little attention goes to the biosafety risks nor the past failures associated with GM crops. It is surprising that biofortification receives so much attention when GM crops simply cannot address multiple nutritional challenges arising from, amongst others, environmental degradation and lack of access to public health and sanitation. Our main objection is that this diverts resources and the policy making trajectory away from real solutions which can be found in the diversity of food and farming

"There is clearly an opportunity to embrace an alternative transformation agenda based on agroecology"

In some parts of Southern Africa, and in the USA, Canada and Latin America, farmers can’t even imagine agriculture without GM. At the same time, smallholder farmers in Africa produce 80 % of our food largely based on their own seed systems. So in our recent report (see box), we look at what the GM industry is doing with farmers’ traditional seeds and crops, and where public research funding is going. Now at least groups have, in one document, an outline of who are the companies donating technology, which traits in crops are being researched, which crops are being targeted, and how much money is going into these projects. The report reveals that there are whole host of agendas at play. For instance much of the research is on new GM traits and is in the stage of either greenhouse containment or confined field trials. The prospects of commercialisation are unclear as approval of new traits takes a long time and depends on the evolution of biosafety regulations and new or existing moratoriums. It is not clear when, or whether or not, any of these GM crops will reach the commercialisation stage.

But in general, we are very concerned about the GM industry and multinational companies further prying open Africa’s food and farming system through its expansion into non-commercial crops, while there is clearly an opportunity for governments and a host of actors to embrace an alternative transformation agenda based on agroecology.

New ACB report: For your own good. The chicanery behind non-commercial ‘orphan crops’ and rice for Africa

The African Centre for Biodiversity released For your own good in April 2016, outlining the GMO industry’s expansion across Africa. The report focuses on non-commercial crops – cassava, sorghum, sweet potato, pigeon pea and millet, as well as rice – revealing that a great deal of research and development is currently underway into the genetic modification of these crops. Most of the ongoing trials are focused on drought and salt tolerance, nitrogen use efficiency, resistance to tropical pests and diseases and nutritional enhancement (biofortification). The key countries that have been targeted include Burkina Faso, Egypt, Ghana, Nigeria, Kenya, Uganda and Malawi. The current wave of GM research is not enabling smallholders in Africa to choose their means of production and survival and is shifting control over the future of farming in Africa from farmers to those who will benefit from profits to be made from GM. Moreover GM crops threaten genetic diversity that exists amongst traditional plant varieties. The report concludes that “the GM industry appears to be expanding its grasp over traditional subsistence crops. […] By focusing research on traits that are meant to ‘benefit’ farmers and malnourished populations, the industry is bent on winning the hearts and minds of Africans regarding genetically modified crops.” This report complements work already produced on GM banana (Schnurr, 2014) and GM cowpea (ACB, 2015).

Can you elaborate some of these real solutions?

It is important to support the right of farmers to choose their means of production and survival. And this means starting with where farmers are and emboldening and strengthening their systems. Moreover, the protection of farmermanaged seed systems is needed. In these systems you find diversity and resilience. We need to shift away from the idea that seeds within farmer-managed seed systems are sub standard or of poor quality. Within these seeds, you may have drought resistant or nutritional properties and characteristics with cultural importance.

What steps can be taken towards these solutions?

We are pushing for big policy change towards recognition and protection of these systems and supporting local campaigns. For us information is key and ACB tries to put current information and knowledge in the public domain, complemented by other activities and events. Earlier this year we organised a course where we brought together activists from across Africa and spoke at length about GM of non-commercial, indigenous crops.

I think the revaluation of traditional crops will increasingly become part of the resistance campaigns against GM. There is a conference coming up in Nigeria where church groups will discuss the rise of GM cowpea. Nigeria is the world’s largest producer of cowpea and field trials with Bt cowpea are in quite an advanced stage so we expect a lot of resistance there. Our previous report on cowpea was translated into French and is being used by our friends in Burkina Faso, where there is a growing resistance to GM from the grassroots, for example through an event to coincide with the international march against Monsanto in May 2016. When our colleagues in Africa integrate information from our reports into their local campaigns that way, it’s a big victory for us.

Diana Quiroz and Madeleine Florin work at ILEIA (www.ileia.org)

The post Interview: Mariam Mayet on protecting farmers’ crops from GM appeared first on Ileia.

What is the role of knowledge in agroecology?

To answer this question, I would like to recall Alexander Wezel’s definition of agroecology. Our French colleague defined it, first, as a science. This is obvious, since agroecology generates scientific knowledge in the strictest sense. However, agroecology, like many other hybrid disciplines (for example, political ecology, environmental history, and ecological economics) is an epistemological and methodological leap that generates new ways of doing science. That is, agroecology is already a new scientific paradigm. It is a politically and socially committed science.

Second, agroecology is also a practice. That is, it involves practical and technological innovation. But this is not technological innovation that arises in research centres, and then is passed on to farmers. No. Here, technological innovation results from both traditional peasant local knowledge and the knowledge of agroecologists, who are usually educated in the academic tradition.
Finally, agroecology is also a social movement. This is seen, for example, in the Latin American agroecology congresses, which are basically encounters between academia, producers, farmers’ organisations, and social movements.

What is the role of the (agroecological) farmer in spaces for social innovation?

I would like to place my answer to this question in the context of the incipient global environmental, social, and economic crisis, and how some Latin American experiences are examples of possible solutions to this crisis.

First, there is the example of Cuba. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Cuba, who exchanged sugar for oil, was suddenly confronted with a lack of both energy and a market for its most important agricultural product. The country went through very difficult times. Being forced into self-reliance, people organised themselves in neighbourhoods, city quarters, and cities, and found a way out of the food crisis through agroecology. The conversion to agroecology was so successful that the government had no alternative but to support it. Similarly, the most important farmer movements of Brazil (among them, the Landless Farmers’ Movement) are successfully addressing a serious social crisis (land grabbing) also by adopting agroecology as their main paradigm.

Another example that illustrates the role of farmers comes from Mexico and Central America, where farmers use the ‘campesino a campesino’ (farmer to farmer) methodology. This methodology involves farmers sharing their knowledge to help each other use agroecological principles in local conditions. Also in Mexico, coffee-producing indigenous communities carry millenary knowledge and, I dare say, are the pioneers of organic coffee production worldwide. Because of the interest that this generated among agroecological scientists, Mexican agroecology is recognised to be firmly rooted in the traditions of indigenous Mesoamerican cultures. Their experience has been one of the catalysts of the agroecological movement in the country.

What do agroecological scientists do to contribute to co-creation of knowledge?

Overall, one fundamental principle of agroecology is the recognition of the value of traditional agriculture. Through valuing and learning from ancestral wisdom, innovation emerges. In agroecology we act through what we call a ‘dialogue of knowledges’. This has to do with the decolonisation of the mind. Agroecological scientists do not think they know it all (as is the case in orthodox science). They are not like conventional agronomists, who approach peasants with an attitude of supremacy and arrogance. Agroecologists do not teach farmers or producers how things are done. They engage in an intercultural dialogue that accepts that science is not the only way of looking at, transforming, and emancipating the world.

In Latin America, for example, agroecological scientists are being influenced by what is called the ‘epistemology of the South’. This is a process of decolonisation from the cultural bias we have inherited from European thought. This is seen in the process of the decolonisation of the mind, where the region’s most critical thinkers question paradigms such as ‘progress’, ‘development’, and ‘competition’. These paradigms are precisely those that support the agroindustrial food production system.

Can you give us an example of an agroecological system created from this ‘dialogue of knowledges’?

Take the example of coffee, which is arguably the world’s most important agricultural product. Under conventional thinking, market demand drives the modernisation of coffee production systems, that is, growing it as a monoculture and at a large scale, using machinery, pesticides, and agrochemicals. Coffee produced agroecologically, on the other hand, is grown by small farmers. In Mexico particularly, indigenous communities grow non-conventional coffee under shade in highly diversified agroforestry systems. There, a cash crop was integrated in the traditional management of truly anthropogenic forests. In other words, coffee, a relatively new product, was introduced into systems that already existed since pre-Hispanic times. It is important to stress that agroecology does not try to avoid modernity; rather, it posits an alternative modernity. Not a modernity that destroys tradition, but a modernity that departs from tradition; modernity that respects traditional wisdoms and cultures and that seeks the encounter of knowledge and experiences. Nor can we afford the romantic thought of ‘all we have to do is rescue tradition’. Tradition also has its own failures and limitations. This example of agroecological coffee production is a beautiful case of how the combination of modernity and tradition can generate very advanced systems of food production.

What is needed for this ‘dialogue of knowledges’ to gain more recognition at universities and research institutes?

First, we must understand that when a dilemma involves two fundamental ways of producing food, a conflict will, of course, arise. In science, agroecology challenges a whole system of research and dissemination of knowledge, thereby generating a battle that takes place at universities and technology and research centres. However, in my experience of the last twenty-five years, in Latin America there are increasingly more programmes where agroecology is either taught or researched. The force that drives this process is proof that this is not only an epistemological revolution, but also a cognitive and cultural one.

An example of this is that of the Andean region, particularly Bolivia, where an agroecology PhD programme was set up a few years ago by former graduates of the University of Cordoba’s (Spain) PhD programme on agroecology and sustainable development. The majority of these new Bolivian graduates are either farmers of Aymara origin or the children of these farmers. This programme was not only the first one of its kind in Latin America, but it is one reputed for its high academic level. In the meantime, agroecology programmes have also started in Honduras, Colombia, and Mexico. I think that agroecology should become as widespread in the world has it has become in Latin America. Moreover, I should also highlight another especially important counterforce (one which I belong to) that runs in parallel to the agroecological science-practicemovement: ethnoecology. By focusing on traditional knowledge, ethnoecology is expanding the paradigm of mainstream scientific knowledge to one that includes traditional knowledge. This is a force that increases at an impressive rate, especially among young researchers who promote the integration of different types of knowledge for the future of humanity.

What do you think is needed for this paradigm shift to occur at a global scale?

In the coming years we will be entering a period where we will need to define this new paradigm. This will imply that we need to discuss the role of science and research in terms of culture, ethics, and even politics. What we need is a science that responds to a world in crisis, a science that effectively addresses a very significant ecological and social emergency. We are currently experiencing the breakdown of the great dogmas, of the great myths of modernity, and although we are moving towards replacing them in our discussions, much remains to be done in practice.
We must be honest and recognise that although traditional knowledge has gained importance, conventional science still treats the producers of this knowledge as mere objects of study. Through the ‘dialogue of knowledges’, the researcher becomes involved in the defence of knowledge and starts to accept the need for a new scientific paradigm.

This brings me back to the first question in this interview. The role that knowledge plays in agroecology as a science-movement-practice provides an example of what a paradigm shift could look like. Moreover, the different agroecological experiences in Latin America provide examples of how to respond to this crisis. From this perspective, it can be said that agroecology is, in itself, an epistemological revolution.

Diana Quiroz is an editor of Farming Matters at ILEIA, the Centre for Learning on Sustainable Agriculture.

To read more about agroecology in Latin America visit: https://www.socla.co/publicaciones/ and LEISA Revista de agroecologia, www.leisa-al.org

The post “Agroecology is an epistemological revolution” appeared first on Ileia.