“Agroecology is a process. You cannot expect a process to be perfect immediately. But once you make a step, you are moving.” With these words, Ugandan farmer Jowelia Mukiibi captured both the essence of the agroecological transition and the attention of her audience: over 70 people representing 30 organisations doing groundbreaking work on agroecology around the world.

In May 2016, the AgroEcology Fund (AEF) and the Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa (AFSA) brought grassroots organisers, advocates and donors together in a Learning Exchange to share experiences and ideas about how to amplify agroecology.

The AgroEcology Fund is a consortium of progressive foundations that are committed to supporting agroecological solutions across the globe. The exchange in Uganda was initiated to deepen understanding of current and future efforts to amplifying agroecology, and to learn how the AEF could better support this work.

Through creative small group activities such as poster making and theatre exercises, field visits, public events and various other dynamic learning methodologies, a rich, collective pool of knowledge was built about strategies to amplify agroecology. We share here some of the most compelling insights from the four day meeting.

Strengthen farmers’ organisations

Strengthening farmers’ organisations is fundamental in amplifying agroecology, because together farmers’ organisations can create a grassroots movement that is capable of influencing mindsets and policy. Strong and genuine farmers’ federations can give networked farmers a space to express themselves and advocate for their own rights. Insights about how best to strengthen farmers’ organisations point to farmer-to-farmer learning, as that allows farmers to con dently build knowledge from experience.

Put women at the forefront

Women are an important source of agroecological knowledge. Valuing and promoting this knowledge must, therefore, be a central element of any amplification strategy. Putting women at the forefront can be done, for example, by ensuring that they play leadership roles in farmers’ organisations, involving them in campaigns and supporting their own struggles, enabling them to learn from other farmers and providing them with opportunities for technical, political and economic education. The Korean Women Peasant Association (KWPA) shared how some of their members significantly built their skills and self-confidence after an exchange visit with women famers in Thailand. Their experience also demonstrates that agroecology can help to overcome sexual discrimination, especially when practical training is combined with political training.

Create direct relations with consumers

Urban citizens are one of the central agents of change in the agroecological transition. Connecting farmers and consumers enables farmers to sell diverse products directly, and to receive vital feedback on their products. The Agroecological Collective of Ecuador organised a nationwide campaign to promote ‘community baskets’ that bring healthy, agroecologically produced foods to low income urban families. Such connections are particularly effective when they are embedded in local culture, organised as a joint initiative with shared values between consumers and producers, and accompanied by awareness raising efforts.

Strengthen agroecology schools

Agroecology schools around the world are an effective way to engage people, especially youth, in agroecology. Agroecology schools rely greatly on the principle of peer-to-peer learning among farmers – valuing local knowledge – and often also include two-way learning processes between policy makers and farmer groups. The Peasant Workers Association of Nicaragua (ATC), the Zimbabwe Smallholder Organic Farmer Forum (ZIMSOFF) and other shared lessons from their own schools. They concluded that the schools must be autonomous rom government and universities, and function best when run by a farmers’ organisation. Many successful schools started at the regional or national level, after which they were replicated at the local level by trained farmers.

Share knowledge

Sharing knowledge about agroecology from farmer to farmer is an important way to spread practices. This is especially effective when knowledge sharing is based on local, ancestral wisdom, respects the values, principles and culture of the farming communities and responds to concrete needs. Many participants agreed that knowledge sharing is best done through living examples as opposed to relying on theoretical assumptions.

Support work on the ground and document it

Supporting farming communities on the ground can help them to diagnose and prioritise their problems; identify and test agroecological principles and to engage in learning networks. This fosters the emergence and spread of localised examples. In order to achieve wide, systemic change, it is critical to document and disseminate successful practical experiences, learn from this work, and nd ways to leverage the lessons. Documentation and dissemination provides evidence that agroecology works, generates insights for policy change and strengthens the agroecology movement.

Advocate

For long-lasting change, it is necessary to insert agroecology into policy frameworks as part of a bottom-up process. Engaging in dialogue with local and national government authorities about how to support agroecology as a tool to fight hunger, poverty and environmental degradation can be very effective, as well as educating people about existing laws (both favourable and unfavourable to amplification of agroecology) and ways to demand that the government protect their rights. Effective advocacy can help to generate public support for agroecology. Policy advocacy for agroecology generally works well when it is embedded in broad collaborations among farmers, researchers, and civil society organisations, and specifically includes women and indigenous peoples. Advocacy must also be based on the documentation of successful agroecological practices and supported by rigorous research. La Vía Campesina emphasised the need to support farmers to advocate for their rights, rather than simply representing them. They enhance farmers’ capacity to advocate by facilitating their active participation in meetings (national and international) and policy dialogues, supported by training beforehand.

Communicate and reach out

Communication and outreach is fundamental for amplifying agroecology, as it is necessary to make the case that agroecology is the food system of the future. Campaigners have found that humour and cultural references can be effective tools in communication. Solid data and research to debunk claims made by agribusiness is helpful to raise awareness about agroecology. Social media, multimedia, documentary films and curriculum development were mentioned as strong outreach tools.

Resist and transform

Many campaigns are based on resisting the industrial agriculture model, corporate power over productive resources, and policies that marginalise small farmers. Agroecology offers living, inspiring alternatives that envision a new agricultural system through the transformation of education, science, culture and policy. As industrial agriculture undermines peasant family farming rather than supports it, many participants agreed that industrial agriculture and agroecology cannot co-exist. It is therefore crucial to promote a transformative type of agroecology.

Create a new narrative

Framing and messaging emerged as central elements in amplifying agroecology because agroecology is based on a completely different set of values about food, nature and people than the industrial system. A special session was dedicated to building a new narrative around agroecology. The conclusions were that it must be based on the notion that agroecology is a viable vocation, rather than a sign of backwardness. The narrative should make clear that agroecology can bring employment, income and well-being, approach agroecology as a knowledge system in its own right and present it as a continuous process of transition.

Develop effective ways to work together

Various participants stated that to amplify agroecology, a variety of actors have to be on board, who can bring different experiences and knowledge to the table. This can be achieved by working in inclusive coalitions. In such coalitions, it is necessary to clarify the role of each partner, to develop a set of core principles to help partners work well together, and to create tools for problem solving. These were some of the important insights for GRAIN, ETC Group and La Via Campesina as they worked together to protect farmer seed systems. Different participants pointed at the need to avoid economic dependence between partners in a coalition.

Fund flexibly

To achieve the amplification of agroecology, funding a diversity of organisations is essential. As agroecology is embedded in very different and complex contexts, participants emphasised the need for flexibility on the side of both grantees and donors to allow for adaptation of plans and strategies. They stated that funding schemes should include long-term core funding that is directed to reaching the grassroots. With regards to results, donors should not overly focus on quantitative outcomes, but rather on qualitative changes achieved through flexible, trust-based relationship with grantees. Ideally, funding for agroecology is based on shared values between donors and grantees, is regenerative, supports social transformation and policy shifts, and happens at a landscape or bioregional level.

What is the amplification of agroecology?

The notion of ‘amplification’ of agroecology was the central theme of the Learning Exchange in Uganda. This was chosen as opposed to ‘scaling up’, with its connotation of linear, preplanned replication, which is contrary to the way agroecology best develops.

Amplification of agroecological experiences is “the main challenge today”, in the words of former UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Olivier De Schutter, because of its many contributions to addressing challenges such as hunger, poverty, loss of biodiversity and climate change. The participants in the Learning Exchange see amplification of agroecology as the transformation of food systems, rather than just the spreading of a set of food production techniques. Importantly, it promotes alternative forms of economic exchange and places agrobiodiversity, the struggle for land, control over seed and local farming and marketing knowledge (especially that of women) at the centre of this change processes. Amplification of agroecology was seen as a long-term process that is led by social movements, but encompasses all actors in the food system, including consumers. As agroecology is understood as an ongoing process of transition, there is no pre-determined end goal in its amplification, save for the broad objective of transforming food systems around the world.

The insights shared here are drawn from years, and sometimes even decades, of experience. Having a space to share these lessons among campaigners and practitioners as well as with donors made this, in the words of one participant, “a landmark meeting.” More exchange and documentation is surely needed to understand better the respective contributions of practice, science and movement in amplifying agroecology. However, the collective insights and the dynamics of sharing that were forged at the Agroecology Learning Exchange will undoubtedly contribute to the agroecological transition for a long time to come.

Janneke Bruil (j.bruil@ileia.org) and Jessica Milgroom (j.milgroom@ileia.org) work with ILEIA, the Centre for Learning on Sustainable Agriculture. They designed and facilitated the Agroecology Learning Exchange in Uganda, May 2016, together with Daniel Maingi and with Daniel Moss (AEF).

Read also:
Full report of the Agroecology Learning Exchange

The post How to amplify agroecology 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.

Formal access and benefit sharing processes are anchored in what may termed the international ‘ABS regime’, which consists of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and its Nagoya Protocol and the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA). Both the CBD and the Treaty recognise the role of indigenous groups and family farmers in the conservation and sustainable use of (agro)biodiversity, and both support ABS arrangements, albeit differently. The contributions in this special issue demonstrate that despite the existence of this ABS regime, indigenous groups and family farmers have so far received very limited material and immaterial support from it, due to political, legal and bureaucratic complexities and hurdles, lack of national implementation capacities, and costly operational procedures. At the same time, much can be learned from traditional and newly emerging forms of farmer-centred principles and practices for access and benefit sharing.

Collaboration

The experiences presented here provide valuable insights about what elements of a formal ABS system may work for family farmers. Central to effective ABS arrangements are the practices of collaboration of farmer networks and community seed banks with state actors or professional breeders – in some cases under the CBD and the Nagoya Protocol, and only recently emerging under the Treaty.

A fundamental factor of success is putting farmers at the centre of such collaborations, such as in the case of seed development and improvement seen in China. ‘Professional’ breeders from the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences (the national public breeding institute) and the Guangxi Maize Research Institute are working with farmers to improve an open pollinated maize variety. Farmers benefit through the recognition of their expertise, improved availability of and access to quality seeds from both institutes, income generated from seed production and marketing, and the provision of scientific and technical knowhow through collaboration with the formal seed sector.

A fundamental factor of success is putting farmers at the centre of ABS collaborations with state actors or professional breeders

Under certain circumstances, access and benefit sharing mechanisms can also be established through collaborations of private parties and farmers, as the unique participatory plant breeding tradition based on farmer-selected potato varieties in the Netherlands demonstrates. It is important to note however that a major reason for the success of this initiative is the specific historical context of the Dutch agricultural sector. Decades of public investment in breeding has fostered relationships between farmers and public and private sector breeders.

Collaborations are also successful when they make collections of genetic resources of key crops accessible to family farmers, especially in cases where farmers have little access to quality seed. The initiative of coffee farmers in Costa Rica demonstrates the positive impact of facilitated access of farmers and breeders to the germplasm of horticultural crops. Access to diverse crops is of strategic importance to farmers as it enhances their resilience to climate change and other shocks. This experience points to the need to include horticultural food crops in the multilateral system of the Treaty.

Local community organisations

This publication furthermore highlights how local community organisations can and must play a leading role in the maintenance of the rich bio-cultural heritage embodied in local varieties. State authorities can support such civil society networks in the construction of seed security systems that allow family farmers to build their own food and nutrition strategies as well as increasing their resilience.

An example comes from Paraíba, Brazil, where the state government launched a seed bank policy in order to reinforce existing community seed banks, and donated stocks of seeds as an incentive for communities to construct new seed banks. When local varieties became formally recognised by the national government in 2003, the door was opened to more progressive innovations in the government seed programme. This could only happen through coordinated efforts of farmer networks, government institutions and scientists.

Simplifying the system

Research and capacity building initiatives, such as a Bioversity-led project in eight countries, make an effort to identify ways to strengthen the usefulness of ITPGRFA for farmers. Although significant progress has been made, the project reveals that progress in national implementation of ABS regulation under the Treaty is modest, especially with regards to benefit sharing. In an interview, François Meienberg echoes this observation, noting that under the Treaty’s Benefit Sharing Fund to date no mandatory payment has been made that would allow the sharing of benefits with farmers. This can be considered an injustice created by the system.

François Meienberg proposes to simplify the system: corporations that want to access genetic resources under the multilateral system should contribute a fixed benefit sharing payment on an annual basis. Despite the shortcomings, the Treaty remains important as it offers a legal basis to compel industrial agriculture to repay its dues whenever it sells seeds in a member country, as argued by Guy Kastler. The time has come to make concrete proposals to improve implementation of the Treaty.

Self-organised mechanisms

What emerges from the various contributions is that self-organised access and benefit sharing mechanisms can be highly effective for family farmers. Examples are innovative farmer-led seed banking and plant breeding initiatives. They are often based on long standing customary practices and enable family farmers to develop, exchange, sell and use traditional and region specific seed varieties.

In some cases, community seed banks provide an alternative to an ABS regime and may be more effective in protecting biodiversity and encouraging farmers to contribute to the genepool than the formal system. This is the case in India, where Farmers’ Rights are embedded in national law, but implementation poses challenges because of the regulations on trade related aspects of intellectual property rights. In this context of an emerging ABS regime, the TheruBeedi Seed Bank turns out to be very effective in ensuring access and benefit sharing for family farmers. This is also true in Zimbabwe, where smallholder farmers hardly benefit from formal ABS agreements. The Community Technology Development Trust supports alternative mechanisms that have resulted in a substantial increase of farmers’ access to seed diversity and their ability to share in the benefits of the continuing cycles of seed conservation.

Similarly, in the Ecuadorian provinces of Bolivar, Chimborazo and Cotopaxi, family farmers are creating new initiatives and capacity to conserve and use the biodiversity on their farmland through agroecological practices. They are gaining greater access to and control over their biological resources while increasing resilience and food sovereignty. Women in particular have gained greater appreciation within their communities due to their abilities to conserve and improve varieties and seeds and maintain an informal culture of free access and sharing of seed through a mechanism referred to as ‘pass the gift’. In these initiatives, concepts of distributive justice, reciprocity and equity are some of the guiding principles used by family farmers for access and benefit sharing.

Rooting the system

It turns out that access and benefit sharing is a highly complex matter, especially when it comes to supporting family farmers. We may conclude here that the success of an ABS system not only depends on creating fair and effective institutions and rules, but most of all on learning from and strengthening existing (and sometimes longstanding) ABS-mechanisms at a local or regional level. Family farmers can collaborate in their own way, developing their own access and benefit sharing mechanisms. Research and public institutions can play a important role by strengthening them, either through collaborations or through formal policy, which can be beneficial for all parties involved.

In this sense, it is notable that new civil society networks are emerging to ensure access and benefit sharing for family farmers, be it in the form of seed networks, farmer communities, or the agroecology movement. In the light of a trend towards legislation that could severely undermine farmer seed systems, such as is occurring in Africa, these networks at local, national and even global levels hold great promise for ensuring that farmers can continue to be the world’s custodians of genetic resources. The ‘formal’ ABS system could be more effective for family farmers if it becomes firmly rooted in such networks- both longstanding and newly emerging community based seed networks.

Robin Pistorius, Janneke Bruil and Ronnie Vernooy are the editors of the special issue of Farming Matters: Access and benefit sharing of genetic resources. Making it work for family farmers.

Robin Pistorius (pistorius@facts-of-life.nl) is an independent consultant and guest lecturer at the University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Janneke Bruil (j.bruil@ileia.org) is Coordinator Learning and Advocacy at ILEIA, the Centre for learning on sustainable agriculture in Wageningen, the Netherlands.
Ronnie Vernooy (r.vernooy@cgiar.org) is Genetic Resources Policy Specialist at Bioversity International, Italy

The post Conclusions: Learning from farmer-led access and benefit sharing appeared first on Ileia.

In agroecology, farmers continuously build situation-specific knowledge that allows them to develop under unpredictable and changing circumstances. There are no  fixed prescriptions in agroecology about how to produce, process, market or store food, feed, medicine and fibre. Rather, different practices work in different ways depending on each specific context and ecosystem. This is why agroecology is knowledge-intensive and why the combination of different types of knowledge is so essential in agroecology.

Knowledge co-creation is especially relevant and urgent in the context of climate change. Developing climate resilient agriculture is all about building knowledge related to locally rooted adaptation strategies. Farmers’ knowledge of seeds, land, water and other local resources is absolutely central in this process.

Solutions to problems or ways of improving production emerge through experimentation, practice and learning with others, especially because different types of actors generate different types of knowledge. Bringing people with various perspectives, experiences and questions together can facilitate creativity and innovation. Co-creation of knowledge happens when such new knowledge emerges from sharing, learning and working together with other people.

The various contributions in this issue take a look at the following questions: what kind of knowledge are we creating in agroecology? How can learning and sharing turn into co-creation of knowledge? How can farmers become equal players in co-creation of knowledge with scientists, policy makers and others? How is co-creation relevant for the agroecological movement?

What knowledge and whose knowledge?

In agroecology, knowledge about the way the farming system works as a whole is important. Often, innovation requires knowledge about the relationships among elements of the agroecosystem, for example insects, pests and companion plants (see this article). Or -in the social world- between farmers’ preferences and diverse varieties of crops (see this article).

Questions and uncertainties are also a highly relevant form of knowledge; knowing what we do not know can shape further inquiry and courses of action. Both in the experiences from Mexico and from India people came together and organised around a quest for knowledge. This is also evident from this article which points at our lack of knowledge about effective policies that work for agro-biodiversity.

And in order to act, we need knowledge about how (through what methods and procedures and skills) a desirable outcome such as higher yields, healthier soils or better nutrition may be achieved. Last but not least, co-creation may involve knowledge about people involved in the process. This is relevant because innovation often requires alignment between people who depend on each other to get something done.

While scientific knowledge aims to be largely explicit, a lot of relevant knowledge and skill in agriculture is tacit, implicit or hidden in (women) farmers’ practices and in their heads. Bringing it to the table may require deliberate exploration, elicitation and discovery. Experiences in Rwanda and the Netherlands indicate that in these processes, it is necessary to first establish trust among different actors.

Furthermore, as this article points out, questions about whose knowledge ‘counts’, and why this matters are fundamental ones – but rarely addressed, As a result, practical knowledge held by food producers is often grossly unrecognised. This may especially be the case for women’s knowledge, even though they make up 70% of the farmer population worldwide.

Beyond individual learning

“The diverse knowledge and ways of knowing of our peoples are fundamental to agroecology. We develop our ways of knowing through dialogue among them”
– Declaration of the Nyéléni Forum on Agroecology, 2015

What distinguishes co-creation of knowledge from individual learning is the collective generation of new knowledge. Agroecology blends different types of knowledge: traditional, indigenous knowledge, farmers’ knowledge, and scientific knowledge, to name a few. Each of these types of knowledge holds different treasures. Indigenous practices often hold clues about innovative ways of doing things, based on years and years of experience, such as how to manage pests using local, available resources. Farmers’ knowledge can contribute context-specific insights about a particular type of seed, planting dates, or soil resource. Scientific knowledge can inform us about processes and phenomena that are more difficult to see and comprehend with the naked eye. Bringing together these types of knowledge has led to ground-breaking insights in the eld of agriculture. The partnership experience of farmer Jim Cochran and academic Steve Gliessman is a good example of this.

As described eloquently by Elizabeth Mpofu, co-creation of knowledge occurs regularly in day-to-day life as people ask and discuss questions in an attempt to resolve problems, and as they jointly put solutions into practice. From such a process, and this often happens in agroecology, innovations can emerge that are not only technical but that are also social or political in nature. Innovation often emerges over time and requires repeated meetings and sharing. As an experience in Honduras indicates, a long lasting commitment between the actors is therefore fundamental for these processes.

Co-creation between practice and science

A very specific and important, but delicate type of knowledge co-creation happens between farmers and scientists, as many of the articles in this issue demonstrate. This has a long history. When co-creation of agricultural knowledge is mentioned today, the first kind of co-creation that most people think of is that between scientists and farmers. Already in the 1940s, British soil scientist Sir Albert Howard wrote his famous book ‘An Agricultural Testament’, in which he beautifully describes different systems of compost-making as practiced by Indian farmers. A plethora of participatory methods have been developed since then and nearly 50 years of agricultural research ensued that involved farmers in one way or another.

While many of these processes remained top-down, and farmers were only nominally consulted or involved as ‘beneficiaries’, more radical thinking and practice emerged in which farmers were seen as researchers in their own right. These notions were at the roots of the birth of ILEIA and its magazine in 1984. This kind of thinking manifested itself in, for example, the Farmer to Farmer methodology which originated in Central America, and many other initiatives which together formed the basis for the agroecology movement. At the heart of many such approaches is Paulo Freire’s adagio that poor and exploited people can and should be enabled to analyse and change their own reality.

And this work continues to evolve. This issue of Farming Matters moves away from the lab-to-land mentality in knowledge sharing and looks at existing practices and processes in which farmers truly engage in processes of co-creation. The stories presented on these pages indicate that farmers can be central players in co-creation of knowledge. Although it is still not the norm, there are cases where farmers have a role in setting the research agenda, carrying out the research and analysing the results.

As top-down processes are increasingly met with bottom-up resistance, perhaps one of the most remarkable changes that can be noted over the last decade of participatory research is the co-creation of a new attitude towards the role of farmers in co-creation processes, from both the farmers and the scientists, as Victor M. Toledo points out in this interview.

Creating knowledge in the movement

Agroecological movements are growing stronger around the world. Much of this movement building evolves around knowledge sharing about identity, history, territory, culture and strategy, leading to collective advocacy and organisation as well as other types of political use of knowledge in interactions with others. The Nyéléni processes that bring together various actors around food sovereignty and agroecology are testimony to the strength that can be generated by knowledge co-creation processes.

Another example can be seen in India, where communities are building resilience to climate change through an innovative assessment of the impacts of and responses to climate change in their region. This has given them strength to stand up against the externally imposed REDD (the UN programme for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation). Three authors from Coventry University argue that fundamentally rethinking and reshaping the co-creation of knowledge can advance the struggles of social movements who are striving for agroecology and food sovereignty.

This issue of Farming Matters offers a rich palette of practices of knowledge co-creation in agroecology. Around the world, people are generating insight into some of the key factors that can strengthen co-creation processes. As agroecology is gaining momentum as a practice, a science and a movement, further exploration of these factors is necessary. The crucial next step will be to embed these insights firmly in fundamentally new types of practice, policy and research for healthy food systems based on farmer-led agroecology.

Jessica Milgroom and Janneke Bruil work at ILEIA, the Centre for Learning on Sustainable Agriculture and the publisher of Farming Matters

Cees Leeuwis (cees.leeuwis@wur.nl) is a Professor of Knowledge, Technology and Innovation at Wageningen University in The Netherlands.

The post Editorial – Co-creation in the practice, science and movement of agroecology appeared first on Ileia.

What links family farmers and soils?

This depends on the type of agriculture you are looking at. In industrial agriculture, the soil is regarded as little more than a substrate to which fertilizer and seeds are added. In this type of agriculture, which requires expensive inputs and creates an unhealthy environment, family farmers may lose everything.

However, in sustainable agriculture or agroecology, the soil is very important. Good soil quality gives farmers autonomy, resilience and long-term productivity. This is why healthy soil is important for family farmers. But family farmers are also important for soils, because building and maintaining healthy soils requires work – exactly what family farmers do.

Many farmers all over the world tell me “the land has to function” and they know they have to make it function. As they work with nature all the time, they see the difference between living soil and degraded soil. They see that a plant growing in healthy soil does not need fertilizer. But very few of them use the word soil, and talk only about land. Why? ‘Soil’ is a more scientific word. The term ‘land’ implies a more integrated approach, referring to political and social debates around access, ownership and control. For example, farmers don’t ask for soil reform, but for land reform.

Family farmers live from the soil, but they also live on the soil. Their children will inherit the soil with the quality they leave it. The soil is almost part of the family. And you can hear farmers all over the world saying that “the land is our mother.” What is also important about family farmers, are the women. Women family farmers tend to have a stronger connection to the land, and a better awareness of the importance of food sovereignty and food security than men.

Can you give a good example of how farmers improved their soil?

“They wanted to repair their ‘poisoned’ land after decades of applying fertilizer and pesticides.”

In 1993, me and other people from the University of Viçosa worked with CTA, an NGO promoting agroecology in the Zona da Mata, in contacting the union of coffee farmers in the nearby town of Araponga. Using Participatory Rural Appraisal methods, we identified the main problems and needs. The farmers were clear that their biggest problem was poor soils: “The land is weak” they said. Technical staff already knew this, but the important thing was that farmers also recognised this explicitly.

We set up a committee called ‘Strong Land’, and farmers came up with some very effective solutions to increase soil organic matter, including green manure, cutting and not uprooting weeds. The technical staff proposed agroforestry systems (planting trees in and around their fields). And it worked. The soil, once recovered, became alive again, and the practices are spreading.

The success was helped by using participatory methods, discussing the problems and planning actions together with farmers. What also helped was working with their ideas. The only new practice we proposed was agroforestry, the rest they knew, or at least some of them remembered it from the past.

What makes this story so relevant?

Extension services and universities usually tell farmers to follow new, ‘modern’ techniques. What we see in our region though, is that farmers who want to follow another path can do so if they have the opportunity. We noticed that participation is important: the most experienced farmers sharing their knowledge with others and taking decisions together. This was significant in the historical context. The farmers wanted to use better farming practices to repair their ‘poisoned’ land after decades of applying excessive amounts of fertilizer and pesticides. Such practices were part of the Green Revolution technologies that started in Brazil during the 1964-84 dictatorship. The government supported these technologies with new policies, changing agricultural university curricula and reorganising extension services. As a consequence, university research and research-based extension promoted the use of pesticides, fertilizers, mechanisation, irrigation, and hybrid seeds that later developed into GMOs. All these supported monoculture production, further encouraged by the banks who offered farmers lowinterest credit for investing in these technologies.

How did the Brazilian agroecology movement start?

With the Green Revolution, production increased in some places, but not in others. And the rate of increase declined too, as the soil became degraded. Our agronomists said: “if you switch from food crops to producing monoculture coffee, you will earn more money to buy your food.” But what happened is that farmers got into debt and went bankrupt. Production of only one crop makes farmers entirely dependent on international commodity markets. Those farmers who switched to coffee could not afford to buy food when the price went down, and they no longer produced their own food. Small-scale farmers could not pay their debts, and many abandoned their farms and moved to the cities. And there were other consequences: land became poisoned, soils died, food and water quality deteriorated.

So these Green Revolution approaches went against food security and food sovereignty. Some farmers resisted this, however, and continued to farm the way they used to – at least on part of their land. This became a cultural resistance because it was about the way people live and about being respectful to the efforts and investments of their parents and grandparents. These few farmers kept the traditional knowledge about soil health alive, and this later fed a new way of thinking. With the re-democratisation of Brazil, we looked for better practices, and we turned to these farmers, with the unions, grass root organisations linked to churches and other groups, and we saw the start of the agroecology movement in Brazil.

Does Brazil’s national agroecology policy support soils sufficiently?

Our National Plan for Agroecology and Organic Production (PLANAPO), launched in 2012, supports family farmers and biodiversity. But the link with soils is only indirect, and this is a mistake in my view.

We are now discussing the second PLANAPO, and it is good that this is happening in the International Year of Soils, as the role of soils in agroecology should be highlighted, with explicit reference to what measures are needed for good quality soil. In that way, PLANAPO can raise awareness and support better practices. For example, we do not want heavy machines that damage soil structure but lighter machines, and PLANAPO can support the development of such technology, as well as launch a credit programme for soil conservation.

How does the global food system impact soils around the world?

There are many worldwide policies and practices that connect our soils, in good and bad ways. Our soils in Brazil are red and yellow because of the iron oxide they contain. As iron oxide locks up phosphorus, there is less of this available for plants. So we import thousands of tonnes of it, for example from Africa, and add it to our savannah soils to produce soya beans. The soya is then exported to Europe for livestock feed. But European soils do not contain high levels of iron oxide, so the excess phosphorus we originally imported from Africa is leached out and ends up polluting European soils and water. This is an example of how the nutrient cycle is not closed in the global food system, and this has severe impacts on soils worldwide.

In another perverse example, Brazil imports 92% of the potassium used in its agriculture, including for coffee production. But coffee bean skins contain a lot of potassium which could be a great ecological fertilizer if returned to the soil. What was happening in recent years was that foreign companies were buying coffee skins to produce ‘clean’ energy in Europe. The argument was that Brazilian farmers were polluting the environment as the skins were put into piles and left to rot. This is true, but there would have been another solution: to process the coffee locally and leave the skins on the land, so that Brazilian coffee skins could fertilize Brazilian soils.

How can we change power imbalances between farmers and big business?

In the name of productivity, policy makers are protecting the sectors that produce the most. There are few possibilities to question this. This will change, but only with time. Private companies are not more important than citizens. We have to start a new cycle of development, based on deepened democracy and participation, which looks beyond elections every four years. It is a long process, but there is no other way. And we are already seeing some changes, in empowered farmers, in some companies being open to discussion, and in progressive individuals within certain companies.

So what is your message for the IYS?

Everybody wants to see healthy soils, but few want to talk about what degrades the soil in the first place. And we have to do so in order to change things. The real cause of the problem is the way we have been treating soil as a mere ‘container’ to add fertilizer, pesticides and GMO seeds.

We must understand that the soil has to be kept alive, whereas pesticides kill soil life. When you think of it, soil life needs the same as a human being: a house (a good soil structure so that organisms can live there), a clean environment (no chemicals), water (but not too much), air and food. To get these conditions, farmers have to work with biodiversity, there is no other way. And a healthy soil has lots of life, each organism doing its own job. Some of them fix nitrogen, others decompose, some aerate, and so on. So we must take care of our networks, above ground and below ground.

For example, I call mycorrhiza, which are soil fungi, the Facebook of the soil. They have the information about the soil and they are constantly engaged in exchanges with plant roots. We need to support these networks and use organic matter, no poison, and little or no tillage. Heavy tillage and heavy machinery destroy soil structure, destroy the house of the soil organisms. And even if chemical fertilizers are used, organic matter is needed. But with good soil quality and enough organic matter, you can decrease or stop using chemical fertilizers. If we feed the soil, we can feed the world.”

Interview: Janneke Bruil

The post “Healthy soils give family farmers autonomy, resilience and long-term productivity” appeared first on Ileia.

When 2014 was proclaimed the International Year of Family Farming (IYFF), the United Nations shone a spotlight on the essential contributions of family farmers to food security, community well being, the economy, conservation, biodiversity, sustainable resource use, and climate resilience.

However, the trend in recent decades has been for governments to focus on agricultural commodities and free markets, while the majority of the world’s 500 million farming families lack the investments and policies that would allow them to grow. Family farmers and their organisations are often excluded from decision making processes, and they are finding it increasingly difficult to access land to farm and the resources to be able to so, including local seeds and breeds. Combined with climate change, this leads to increased rural poverty, chronic hunger, resource degradation, and an unprecedented outflow of people to urban areas, especially the young.

Throughout the International Year of Family Farming, specific policy recommendations and best practices were proposed in many rich debates. They are collated here into nine areas that indicate ways to address the major issues affecting family farmers.

1. Cross-sectoral approaches

Discussions on family farming should also address urbanisation, rural infrastructure, traditional and indigenous knowledge and culture, education and support services, and youth development.

A cross-sectoral and territorial approach was emphasised, such as in integrated rural development programmes. Diversified agroecological practices that use local knowledge should be promoted as the basis for climate resilience, and the importance of expanding income opportunities in rural areas were also highlighted, including off farm income and agritourism.

2. Agrarian reform

Repeated demands were made for genuine agrarian, aquatic, forestry and pastureland reform, to reduce urban migration and incorporate the right of access to land, water and irrigation, infrastructure, education, health and marketing, including for women. This included the exemption of small scale family farmers from policies designed for larger industrial farms.

FAO was requested to ensure that the Principles for Responsible Agricultural Investment protect the rights of small food producers because of their central role in food production and because together, they invest more in agricultural development than any multinational. Promoting food sovereignty was raised as a means to strengthen family farming and eradicate hunger and poverty, and FAO was asked to promote a broad, inclusive and dynamic analysis of the concept of food sovereignty.

3. Access to natural resources and implementation of the Voluntary Guidelines

Improving access to land and water should be prioritised through special land use and water management programmes. The right of farmers to produce, reproduce, exchange and sell their seeds must be protected, because “without land, water and seeds, no peasant family farming is possible”. Land grabbing was condemned, and there was a call for a moratorium on industrial agrofuel production. Overwhelming worldwide support was expressed for governments to implement the Voluntary Guidelines on Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests, considered as the best way to guarantee access to natural resources for small scale family farmers, especially women, youth and indigenous peoples.

4. Improving trade and building markets

Trade agreements and trade policies should be reformed or reconsidered, in order to better serve family farmers. Governments and other actors must guarantee the human, economic, social and cultural rights of small scale family farmers and food workers, and strengthen their access to markets and ensure fair prices, for example through the promotion of local markets, public purchasing from family farmers, and improved storage and transport. The value of food from family farming can be enhanced by establishing rules of origin, creating specific family farming labels, and providing information on its nutritional and health value.

5. Access to credit and finance

All regions recommended improving access of family farmers to reliable and stable financing, such as simplified lending procedures, insurance facilities to reduce risks, and the development of farmer-centred financial institutions.

6. Gender equity

Specific programmes are needed to empower women farmers, facilitating their participation in decision making and their equitable participation in flexible rural labour markets. Positive discrimination for women is essential, especially regarding access to natural resources and capital.

7. Stronger farmer organisations

The importance of producer organisations was emphasised, to balance the economic and political power of other actors, and to consolidate the voice of family farmers in policy making processes. Key areas were the need for governments to include farmer organisations in dialogue and decision making, capacity building programmes that are ‘family farmer-centred, owned and led’, climate change adaptation and value addition. Proposed activities included education and training programmes, and sharing experiences between organisations.

8. Farmer-led research and extension

Innovative research and extension must put farmers at the centre and strengthen their own efforts, particularly as they are being most affected by, and are actively adapting to, impacts of climate change.

9. Attracting youth

The participation of youth in agriculture should be enhanced in all possible ways, as “the generation and gender gaps are the biggest threats to family farming.” Vocational training should be better geared towards agriculture and the needs of rural youth. Policies could support youth access to productive resources, especially land and finance. A holistic view of young people’s needs is required, and policies must ensure the right of young people to live their lives in their own territory.

… and after the International Year of Family Farming?

It is clear that the visibility and recognition of family farmers has taken a leap forward this year, including many signs of greater political commitment to support family farmers and to create pro-family farming policies. The farmers themselves, women, men and youth, have been able to articulate their perspectives and their aspirations, but there remain areas of great concern, so these empowering processes must continue.

We can only truly celebrate the power of family farmers when we can also guarantee their rights, and when the political, economic and cultural space is created for them to use their strength and choose their own development pathways. For this, the IYFF has generated many solid, proven approaches. As stated in one civil society declaration: “the IYFF should be the beginning of a longer process that strengthens non-patriarchal, indigenous and peasant family farming. We are part of the solution”.

Janneke Bruil

Learning and Advocacy Coordinator at ILEIA.

Email: j.bruil@ileia.org

The post Towards stronger family farms: Recommendations from the International Year of Family Farming appeared first on Ileia.

Phrang Roy has a modest appearance and warm voice and is fond of weaving jokes into the conversation. He is a member of the indigenous, matrilineal, Khasi tribe from India and one of the world’s leading advocates for the rights of indigenous peoples and agrobiodiversity. Between 2002 and 2006 Mr. Roy served as the Assistant President of IFAD (the International Fund for Agricultural Development) and he continues to live in Rome.

In 2010 Mr. Roy established the Indigenous Partnership for Agrobiodiversity and Food Sovereignty. The Partnership promotes a dialogue between indigenous peoples and agricultural research and advocacy groups and promotes the acceptance of local knowledge within the agendas of international institutions.

In addition, Mr Roy is a prominent member of the International Slow Food Movement and an advisor to the International Fund to Amplify Agro-Ecological Solutions.

“My experience with international organisations taught me that there is a need for a more inclusive approach that treats the custodians of traditional knowledge and modern day researchers as equal, but diverse, knowledge holders. The well-being of future generations cannot be sustained if we continue to marginalise indigenous peoples, fail to learn from them about their cultural ways of respecting agrobiodiversity and do not defend their food sovereignty to practice their farming systems.”

What is blocking the mainstreaming of agrobiodiversity?

Current agricultural trends are all about moving towards a cash economy rather than subsistence farming. Unfortunately, the question is often not “how can I grow healthy food for my own family” but “how can I grow crops that will reap monetary benefits”. In the current system, we don’t look at hidden subsidies or at the cost of ill health that comes with a long dependence on chemically supported commercial production. The narrow focus on production, the obsession that we cannot feed the world without chemicals and ignorance about traditional systems are some of the biggest challenges to transformation.

Creating local livelihoods based on agrobiodiversity is one strategy for responding to this situation, but this is easier said than done. It is crucial that farmers proactively share their successful experiences. But many farmer groups have limited opportunities to make their distinctive ecological practices known, or they lack the leverage to influence policy makers. We should be more involved in connecting these dots. We also need to “glamorise” local economies. This would also help the younger generation feel more attracted to farming. Finally, farmer organisations must push more actively for a thorough and true cost accounting of commercial agriculture.

Who are the “shakers” of the system?

These are the farmers and communities who maintain their local agrobiodiversity despite modern influences and climate change, including those who adopt modern technologies and adapt them to local conditions. One group of people that I think we seriously overlook in our search for sustainable agriculture are the cooks. Agriculture starts with seeds and ends on the plate. The cook stands in the middle. By influencing our food habits to become more respectful of family farmers, cooks have the potential to be great “shakers”.

In addition, I think that scientists are indispensable partners. But, agricultural research must be driven more by communities and public funding instead of by commercial groups who see agriculture as a strategic investment opportunity. Mechanisms such as Citizens’ Juries can enable farming communities to set the research agenda. We are currently involved in a research project on agro-ecological indicators of how indigenous knowledge is sustaining agrobiodiversity. The most important aspect of such an initiative is that it is being done in a participatory manner. Knowledge should not be simply extracted from grassroots peoples but they should be actively involved and informed.

How can agrobiodiversity be effectively promoted?

We will gain a lot by linking biodiversity with the pleasure of consuming local food. Food connects communities and shapes their environment, economy and culture. Recent research has confirmed the importance of pride and cultural re-affirmation in encouraging communities to continue their roles as custodians of biodiversity. In this regard, food festivals have proven to be useful entry points.

In our last festival we attracted 10,000 visitors who exchanged knowledge with each other. We displayed around 200 edible local plants, of which more than one third were derived from the wild. We invited local chefs to celebrate local dishes, adapted to modern standards of hygiene and aesthetics. The result is that many previously neglected foods are now promoted by farmers and in urban areas.

Another effective strategy is to link local biodiversity to local food shops. For example, in Meghalaya (India) we have set up the first rural indigenous café. It sources products from nearby farmers and foragers and presents local dishes in an appealing way. It gives income opportunities to farmers and sustains the cultivation of local, nutritious crops.

We have also worked with schools to improve children’s knowledge about wild edible plants by organising educational walks and “biodiversity picnics”. Children can come to better appreciate their local food through such initiatives.

Documentation is another important strategy for raising awareness. In the northeast of India, participatory plant breeders are documenting farmers’ agrobiodiversity management practices. One of the farmers is now working with her community to promote local agrobiodiversity in the surrounding villages and in schools. What we learn form all these examples is that it is crucial to work with local culture, pride and knowledge.

How do you view the promotion and rise of GMOs?

I am not against biotechnology as long as its development has the prior and informed consent of all involved, and as long as the impacts are robustly and honestly considered. Unfortunately, GMO crop technology, as it stands today, is owned and driven by very few companies who are mainly seeking to maximise their profits. Moreover, by replacing diverse multi-cropping systems with monocultures of seeds that cannot be sown year after year, we risk losing important agrobiodiversity that has been built up through thousands of years of intergenerational knowledge transfer. As a result, we risk entering into a fragile system where we have to rely on fewer crops that depend on more chemical inputs.

It is clear that that the existing Intellectual Property Rights regime does not provide adequate recognition or protection of the collective rights of indigenous peoples. The regime is designed to foster commercial growth, while the intellectual property system of indigenous peoples is based on the collective rights of communities. They are very closely linked to their lands and territories, the environment and biodiversity and their cultural heritage. These unique systems need to be upheld. The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples recognises the collective rights of indigenous peoples. That declaration needs to be supported, as well as the ongoing work that is taking place between indigenous communities and UN Agencies, such as UNESCO and the World Intellectual Property Organisation.

What appeal would you make to young people?

When it comes to food there is an emerging trend of localism. Especially in Europe, young people are being very creative in developing a trend of favouring fresh, local and tasty food. “Disco Soups” is one activity from Germany and the Netherlands that creates an interest amongst young people. I believe that if we have a passion and share it with others we will be able to inspire people around us. Even small initiatives, such as kitchen gardens, food festivals or informal conversations can be strategic entry points to important changes in society. If young people don’t make that change, we will lose everything.

What difference might this International Year of Family Farming make?

The year can highlight the role of women and young people as the future custodians of agrobiodiversity. It should generate greater respect for, and the empowerment of, family farmers, especially the indigenous communities, whose world view is very different from other peoples’, and who are often ignored.

My hope is that we can create a platform that increases recognition of the important role of the silent and the marginalised, allows grassroots peoples to voice their opinions, facilitates exchange of knowledge and re-affirms pride in local food systems. Food, when responsibly produced, protects the environment, enhances our health and well being and highlights the role of women as custodians of our agrobiodiversity and our food traditions. I envision a future where our food systems are defined by strong bonds between people, planet, plate and culture.

Interview: Janneke Bruil

The post “Link biodiversity with the pleasures of food” appeared first on Ileia.