Food has not been the focus of climate change discussions as much as it should have been. (...)  We can still act and it won’t be too late”   

Barack Obama, 26 May 2017.¹

Of course, Barack Obama can speak more freely now that he’s not in the White House with the agribusiness lobby breathing down his neck. But he is right in that the climate–food connection has been largely absent from the climate discussions – at least in the official circles. This issue of Farming Matters focuses on this connection. It shows how the industrial food system is a main culprit when it comes to the climate crisis, and illustrates how agroecology and food sovereignty offer solutions by addressing the root causes of this crisis – political, social and environmental.

The latest studies calculate that the global food system – from farm to fork – is responsible for at least one third of all greenhouse gas emissions, a figure that seems to increase with the release of each new report.² GRAIN puts the figure closer to 50%, and stresses that it is the industrial food system which is mostly responsible for this.³ Besides not feeding the people with enough healthy, culturally appropriate and sustainably produced food, the industrial food system is also leading us down the path of a global environmental crisis, of a scale and impact that humanity has never faced before.

Agriculture is supposed to be about turning the energy provided by the sun into food and fibre. But the corporate-driven global food system mostly relies on fossil energy: for chemical fertilizers and pesticides, mechanisation of the farm, pumping water for irrigation, etc.

Deforestation driven by ever expanding commodity crop plantations, soil erosion driven by unsustainable practices, transport, processing and freezing of food produced in places far away from where it is consumed, and the tremendous energy waste in the increasingly centralised corporate retail and supermarket systems aggravate the problem. Each of these emit huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

Despite the obvious connection between the industrial food system and the climate crisis, and the obvious potential that agroecology and food sovereignty offer to turn the tide, these links are nowhere to be seen in any of the governmental climate negotiations. Instead, government officials seem to be betting on financial carbon markets and other corporate-driven ‘solutions’ that get us in deeper trouble. As Michel Pimbert explains, these false solutions include ‘Climate-smart Agriculture’ initiatives which merely conform to the dominant industrial food and farming system and are working against a truly transformative agroecology . REDD+, carbon markets and biofuel policies are additional examples of false solutions that work against agroecology and food sovereignty. In another article, GRAIN shows how industrial meat and dairy production is encouraging over consumption of meat with a disastrous impact on the climate and human health.

It doesn’t need to be this way. A radical shift towards food sovereignty would go a long way in solving the climate crisis: agroecological practices would massively build back organic matter (carbon) into the soils and largely eliminate the need for chemical fertilizers, and a focus on local markets and fresh produce would reduce the need for long distance transport, freezing and processing. Agrarian reforms aimed at supporting small scale food producers rather than promoting plantation farming would give back the land to those who produce food rather than those who produce commodities and help stop deforestation in the process.

Nurturing the soil, cooling the planet

The food–climate intersection is rooted in the earth. The expansion of unsustainable agricultural practices over the past century has led to the destruction of between 30-75% of the organic matter in soils on arable lands, and 50% of the organic matter on pastures and prairies. This massive loss of organic matter is responsible for a large part of the current CO₂ excess in the earth’s atmosphere. But the good news is that the CO₂ that we have sent into the atmosphere can be put back into the soil simply by restoring and supporting the practices that small farmers have been engaging in for generations. This has the potential to capture more than two thirds of the current excess CO₂ in the atmosphere.⁴

Nicholls and Altieri provide plenty of examples outlining the role of diversity, soil organic matter and soil cover in reducing farmers vulnerability to climatic shocks. Another article documents the efforts being made in the United States to learn from farmers’ innovative practices developed to take care of the soil. Increased intensity and frequency of drought is becoming a more common phenomena in many parts of the world. Soil and water conservation that promotes ecological resilience has been a key strategy for farmers in Haiti to continue producing food. But, these Haitian farmers also know that building resilience is not just an ecological question, and they are also challenging state power and defending their rights. The struggle against the climate crisis is also a question of equality and justice.

Climate justice

Those who are most gravely affectedly climate change are those who are the least responsible for it. Shalmali Guttal asserts that: “The struggles of local communities against forced evictions, industrial agriculture, extractive industry and large dams, and to protect their lands, territories, seeds and breeds are all struggles for climate justice.” Today, small farmers are squeezed onto less than a quarter of the world’s farmlands, but they continue to produce most of the world’s food.

Over the past 50 years, a staggering 140 million hectares – the size of almost all the farmland in India – has been taken over by four crops grown predominantly on large plantations for industrial purposes: soybeans, oil palm, rapeseed and sugar cane. The global area under these and other industrial commodity crops, is set to further grow if policies don’t change.

All too often alliances between states and corporations conspire to promote market-driven ‘development’ that undermines small scale producers’ rights to land and natural resources. In the context of climate change and natural disasters, ‘disaster capitalism’ exacerbates this kind of dispossession and permanent displacement of people. For example, in the Philippines, the devastation caused by Typhoon Yolanda, was used to defeat farmers who had been resisting land grabbing for decades before the disaster struck.

The pages in this magazine demonstrate how small scale farmers bear some of the biggest burdens brought about by the crisis, yet, the agroecology that many practice and the food sovereignty that many strive for provide a pathway to cool the planet and feed its people. We won’t be able to stop the climate crisis until this is recognised and accepted by those in power. Obama is right when he says that we can still act and it won’t be too late. But it has to involve challenging the corporate food system and putting agroecology and small scale farmers first again.

GRAIN (grain@grain.org) is an international non-profit organisation that works to support small farmers and social movements in their struggles for community-controlled and biodiversity-based food systems.

Jessica Milgroom (j.milgroom@ileia.org) and Madeleine Florin (m.florin@ileia.org) both work at ILEIA.

References

1 https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/may/26/barack-obama-food-climate-change
2 Climate Change & Food Systems: Assessing Impacts and Opportunities. Meridien Institute 2017
3 Food sovereignty: five steps to cool the planet and feed its people. GRAIN 2014
4 Earth matters – Tackling the climate crisis from the ground up GRAIN, October 2009

The post Editorial: Agroecology getting to the root causes of climate change appeared first on Ileia.

“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.

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.

Why is agroecology especially important for women?

Saro: Women in Asia are, in most cases, the farmers. But more than that, they are concerned about the nutrition of their families. There are actually more women interested in the models of agriculture that support diversity and nutrition. There are many cases of women who are fighting for land, particularly farmers. Once they get the land, they move to agroecology. So that’s why land struggles are central in our agroecology movements in for example the Philippines and India.

How do women’s struggles for land relate to agroecology?

Saro: Getting land is really the priority for peasant women’s movements right now. We have a campaign called ‘No land, No Life’. In the last few decades women have organised themselves to call for land titles in their name, or joint titles in both their and their partners’ names. Often it is easier for the women to control the production on the ground when the land belongs to them. Once they get the land, they want to make use of it in the most profitable way. Experience shows that if they go back to the industrial agriculture they actually can’t survive—the costs of the inputs are too high. So they choose agroecology. As they realise that they cannot do this type of agriculture alone, they have also moved towards collective ownership and collective farming.

What is the situation of female plantation workers?

Loges: Tamil plantation workers in Sri Lanka are among the most oppressed groups in the world. Under British rule there was a big caste problem. Tamil people were slaves in Sri Lanka, because Sri Lankan people didn’t want to work as labourers. Until as recent as 2004, Tamil people were stateless; they had no rights to own land. Women workers do most of the tea plucking on the plantations and they are get a very small wage. But when they have their own land, they can cultivate whatever vegetables they choose and maybe sell them. They need to work hard on their plot for a little bit of money. But it strengthens them. It means they have some money to do something, to educate their children, for example. Only when women have land do they gain leverage in their struggles for other rights; it provides some kind of empowerment. Having land also means they can save their children from pesticides, because the pesticide levels are high in the tea plantations. So the right to land is connected to the right to life.

What is the attitude of your government?

Gracie: Let me tell you a recent story from the Dalit women in India, another very marginalised group. We have been fighting with the government for 6 or 7 years, continuously struggling to get land titles. After the women finally got the land, the agricultural development officer gave them false titles. A government officer told them: “If you want the real titles, I want one of your woman for sex”. But our women, together, told him: “Okay, come to our village and we will give you one woman.” When the officer came to their village, very interested, he chose one woman. He went inside a room to wait for her, and closed the door. All the women together took their brooms and went in and beat the officer. He was so surprised that he ran away yelling: “Please, sorry, don’t beat me, I am very sorry, if you let me get away I will give you the real titles!” And after only two or three days he gave them the true titles. This was great. But the land they got was very hilly, full of stones and difficult to work. The women decided that by working together they got land, so by working together they would also clear it. Now they are cultivating the land together, using agroecology, making compost and earning some money.

What actions can support women in agroecology?

Maimouna: We need to strengthen the women’s movement. In Senegal, for example, we have only one network of female farmers. Our challenge is now to make alliances and expand this network across Senegal and to other countries in region. We need to do more advocacy work with our local government and authorities for women farmers to have access to land. We must help women who do have land to learn about other ways to manage pests. Pesticides are so harmful to women, their children and their land, and agroecology offers them a way out of this devastating cycle.

Saro: We need to have more campaigns, more documentation of successes and struggles. We need more people to support the assertion of our rights over land; to know that this is very important. This is our life. Without land we don’t have production, we don’t have a livelihood. We need land to survive and to use our skills in agroecological production.

Has the situation improved for women in Asia and Africa over the last 10 years?

Saro: A lot more organising is taking place among women. They know the land is their life and if they lose that, they lose everything. A lot of local groups have made it a point to raise awareness and work on capacity building, and women are more open to the idea of fighting for their rights. The communities that are now threatened by land grabbing, for example, saw how other communities lost their land due to the expansion of oil plantations in the 80s ad 90s. So they say “okay we need to organise ourselves” and they ask civil society organisations and community based organisations to support them.

Gracie: Before, only men were recognised as farmers in the communities, but now women are also seen as farmers. Before, the government did not allow women farmers to have land. But now they are working with officials to get land titles in their names and to register their land for agriculture cooperatives. That is a very big improvement.

Maimouna: Ten years ago in Senegal we didn’t have rural women represented in parliament and other councils. But now a women farmer leader was selected to be on the national economic and environmental council. She is the president of a national network of rural farmers and that is a real change for rural women in Senegal.

Loges: In Sri Lanka 10 years ago, they did not talk about plantation issues in national platforms, much less about women. Now they are, and as organised groups we speak about our problems in many platforms. This means others recognise us and our issues. We work with farmers and simultaneously, we work with the political parties. The truth is: wherever the space, as women we need to go and fight for our rights.

Interview: Jessica Milgroom

The post Four rural women leaders: The land is our life appeared first on Ileia.