Many interesting agricultural initiatives take place in the Middle East but few of these are shared in written form. As a result, there is a feeling that nothing much happens there, while the opposite is many times the case. To address this, a project involving practitioners from Jordan, the Occupied Palestinian Territory and Egypt was set up. As part of this project, between April and May 2016, a documentation workshop with participants from the three countries was organised. The goal of the workshop was to use a structured documentation process and produce articles that share lessons from pastoralists’ initiatives and experiences. Most of the participants had never published any of their written work before. Many had not even considered writing down their stories.The 24 participants were invited to join a ‘sandwich’ process: two workshops separated by an intermediate period back home. Participants prepared for the workshop with some introductory reading on documentation and by selecting an experience from their work as a case to describe and analyse in the workshop.

First things first

The first workshop started with a discussion around the general context of pastoralism in the Middle East – the difficulties to find relevant resources in Arabic, and the role that eld practitioners can have in filling this gap. Participants then looked at what documentation actually is, the main principles that shape a documentation process (e.g. that it is participatory), the main conditions needed (organisational support, a critical view), and the main barriers to documenting experiences.

Next, participants started their own documentation process. Based on a set of templates they started drawing clear boundaries around the chosen cases (identifying the area covered, the starting date and duration, the main objectives and the context in which the experience took place). Participants then described all activities and the results of their experience. A third session focused on the analysis, starting with selection of criteria that can be used to evaluate an experience (e.g. environmental impact or repeatability), and then identifying indicators to assess if these criteria were met. With clear criteria and indicators, participants went on to look at the underlying reasons, factors or conditions which contributed, in a positive or negative way, to the results of the experience.

A second meeting

“I always saw my experience as just a story. But now I see how special it really is”

Participants returned to the second workshop with a first draft of an article about their chosen case. This second meeting could best be described as a writeshop as the intention of each participant was to improve upon the first draft of their article. After an introductory session, the participants critically examined their own and their peers’ articles. The peer review process was a particularly valuable learning experience. Two rounds of peer revision took place: a first one with members of their own team, as people who knew about each experience and its context, and a second one with groups that were new to the documented cases. This second group helped to identify extra details needed to make the story understandable to an outsider.

The foundations of the documentation process made it easier to pinpoint where extra attention was needed. It became clear that a common pitfall amongst participants was that their articles were more descriptive than analytical.

Challenges and results

The positive attitude and interest shown by all participants helped enormously. But it was not easy to run a workshop in both Arabic and English, requiring continuous translation and switching of languages. Facilitating a workshop in a foreign language is always a challenge, but it becomes even more complicated when writing is involved as it was impossible to provide quick feedback. In this setting, the (guided) peer review sessions became even more important.Working towards a written output such as published articles provides an incentive to keep working on the documented cases, even if engaging in a critical process is confronting. Moreover, writing helps people see the significance of different aspects of their work. As one participant said, “I always saw my experience as just a story. But now that I have written it down, I see how special it really is.” Publishing written work gives the authors and their work recognition, and it allows them to share their experiences on a global scale.

Many participants had never met other herders from neighbouring countries. This workshop showed that they could learn from each other. It also showed the advantages of a documentation process to raise their own and other herders’ voices, and make them heard.

Documentation and systematisation?
 
The terms ‘documentation’ and ‘systematisation’ are often used interchangeably. Although, documentation is used in this article, systematisation more aptly captures the whole meaning: a process which seeks to organise available information on an experience, analyse it in detail to understand what and how it happened, draw conclusions which will help generate new knowledge, and present this new knowledge in an appropriate, shareable format, for instance as an article. Systematising experiences through well written articles is one way of demonstrating impact. Such an article provides evidence of what works and what doesn’t and enables the reader to draw lessons from others’ experiences. The process of analysis and writing also enables the writer to draw lessons from their own experiences.

Laura Eggens (lauraeggens@yahoo.com) and Jorge Chavez-Tafur (j.chavez.tafur@gmail.com) worked as consultants for ILEIA.

This article is part of the visibility and communications work being carried out under the framework of the Food Security Governance of Bedouin Pastoralist Groups in the Mashreq Project, funded by the European Union. The contents of this article are the sole responsibility of ILEIA and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union.

The post Raising voices: lessons learnt from a documentation workshop in Jordan appeared first on Ileia.

While food can be seen as our most precious possession, farming and the production of food is seen as a last option, carried out by those considered incapable of anything else. Education plays a key role in forming this attitude, both among consumers and farmers themselves. “Interventions in rural areas such as our school may be able to make future generations see things in a better perspective. It can teach them that farming can be an educated option for those who decide to stay in the village in spite of the glamour of the city.”

Meenakshi wanted to give children in the school the freedom to move, enquire and learn. In contrast to conventional schools, she aims to sharpen and encourage the “inherent sensitivity” and intuition of the child. “Sensitivity creates space for creativity and selfdiscovery”, Meenakshi says. She talks about sensitivity to animals, plants and nature. In contrast, in conventional schools learning has become fragmented into different subjects, and removed from life itself.

The Puvidham Learning Centre integrates life and learning, to help children synthesise the knowledge they gain in and outside school. Focusing on “experiential learning”, school activities include drawing, discussions, walks, observations and questions. In groups, children plan how to grow plants on an empty plot, learn about natural pest control, measure their progress, and learn to make a cost-benefit analysis. Children are encouraged to speak about what they already know, and the teacher helps them build on their existing knowledge.

Why was it necessary to start this school?

To be frank, the decision to start the school came from my own need to reach out to children. I wanted to allow at least some of them the freedom and happiness I would have appreciated in my school. You see, during my own school years in Mumbai I was unable to understand why I had to go to school at all when I could learn so much more outside the formal educational system.

I remember an incident in primary school, when I was wrongly accused of stealing and the teacher did not think it necessary to apologise to me, making me feel worthless. Occurrences like these, in the same way as the existing examination system, made me start questioning whether the school existed to turn me into a good person or only into someone who fitted someone else’s ideal. School distanced me from my mother because she was not able to share what I learned and I was not able to explain it in the language she knew.

Yet education is more than a transfer of knowledge to children and young adults. It plays a key role in personality development and self-esteem. It can give you a very warped picture of yourself and the world. Unfortunately, the schooling system in India, and probably in much of the world, is designed to make children remember exactly what they have been told, giving very little thought to the social and psychological effects. The individual is given too much attention while the wholeness of the human consciousness and consideration for others is hardly touched upon.

Often in the rural areas, education tends to disregard local resources and the pride of the local people. The farmers’ children experience the same kind of disjointedness with their families as I did with my mother. They do not belong to the village any more. They can see themselves only as future technicians or labourers living in cities and towns. This is facilitated by the media showing the city as a better place for opportunities and good life.

What do you hope to achieve?

It is very difficult for anybody to survive completely on farming at present. We hope that by getting the kind of education we are trying to give, young farmers can engage in activities alongside farming and not have to sell their lands and move to the city completely. Farmers can find ways to pool their efforts together without the assistance of outside forces. They can make more calculated decisions that may help them to stay out of debt and become prosperous.

In practice, what effect does this have on students’ lives?

Our first batch of students has just graduated, so we cannot say much about how their future lives will be affected. We must also keep in mind that many other factors are at play and will determine whether young people can stay in rural areas, such as the family’s wishes and needs. Some of our graduates, for example, are goaded into the city by family debts or the lack of land, working in construction to be able to repay family loans.

Nonetheless, we find it gratifying that these children have not been spoiled by a system that forces them to think that white collar jobs are the only ones worth doing. They experience dignity in their labour, whatever it may entail. They respect and care for their families. They co-operate with family decisions and want to keep alive the traditions of farming and living as a family.

And what do the children’s parents think?

Parents of the children in our school have not been resistant to the school’s curriculum, since from the beginning it has included “regular” subjects such as language, science and maths. These standard subjects are part of the school as well, although we don’t teach them as separate subjects but combine them as a whole learning experience up until the 6th grade. Thereafter, standardised text books help the children bridge gaps to enrol in government schools after the 8th grade, the last year they spend in our school. Parents see that their children are helpful on the farm and read and write English. In a later stage, when it comes to choosing livelihoods, I think that, deep down, parents also know that farming is a noble occupation.

Do children influence their parents?

We tried working with the parents through a farmers’ group, but other natural and economic forces made this difficult. But we have seen that working with children helps them have a more pragmatic view of their family situation and their society. It helps the children take on the challenges of farming along with their families. In some cases, students are convincing their parents of the harmful effects of pesticides and are persuading them to do part of their farming organically.

Who are the teachers at the school?

Currently, we have five teachers looking after 95 children. The teachers are local young people who have taken a two-year teacher training course after 12th grade. As at first they were not confident in English or in other subjects, they were invited to observe classes for about a month, give feedback and ask questions. I personally tutored them in specific subjects. They are given the basic framework to teach, and then they are given a lot of freedom to experiment and develop their own ways of dealing with difficult and challenged students.

Our curriculum was prepared bilingually to facilitate the teachers’ understanding of the concepts. It is also delivered to the children in both English and Tamil because we believe that children learn concepts best in their mother tongue. This also facilitates sharing of their learning with their parents back home. The English terminology and the writing skills are developed alongside.

You are part of a network of alternative schools…

Yes, we are part of two networks: a conservation network and an education network. Both of these are informal groups of individuals who are doing their best to make a difference in their world and share their experiences with each other in an informal way.

It is a great advantage to meet people from diverse backgrounds. I often feel inspired by their lives and experiences. It is heartening to know that there are others like oneself who are doing as crazy or crazier things with their lives. We have copied ideas from other schools we have visited and seen, and some of our ideas may have been picked up by others.

The Vikasana school in Bangalore, for example, has been a great source of learning for us about how to teach language, and attending workshops by the Rudolf Steiner group of schools has influenced our attitude towards art. We are open to sharing and have occasionally provided teacher training opportunities for other schools that heard about our work, both through the networks and beyond.

How can policies or politicians help?

I believe that policies can do little without people becoming change agents themselves. Our school aims to influence individuals to come forth and build a community of people who are concerned about the environment and about social and cultural values. We are working to develop a collective conscience and thereby propel change in individuals. Perhaps teaching people about the value of agriculture will help them see, for instance, the skewed ways in which different products are valued. The price of a kilo of rice will be negotiated for a bargain, while the price of a litre of Coca Cola is non-negotiable. We are demeaning the value of healthy food, while junk food is promoted at a fixed price. Education may shed light on many such reasons for the continual poverty of the farmer.

To encourage initiatives that build an alternative way of looking at the world, governments must give these types of schools special consideration and support their initiatives. Rather than forcing us to continuously go through approval procedures, it would be much more beneficial if the authorities would make it a point of regularly visiting schools like ours to see if we are following our own principle and statutes with sincerity. Our approach makes us very different from private schools!

Can your approach to education be scaled up?

Personally, I am very much influenced by Schumacher’s idea that “small is beautiful”. I guess our kind of school has to be a small personal initiative to be successful. But there could be many small personal initiatives of this kind, since there are many young people interested in education in rural areas. The problem is that it is becoming more and more difficult for children to go to a small school in a world where education has become a big business. It is almost an industry in our country now – a robot industry of sorts where they try to smooth out the differences in individuals and mass produce people that think similarly and act in ways that they consider proper.

In the light of this loss of human intelligence and its shameful subjugation to random acts of memory, it becomes imperative to have many more small individual schools that strive to work to help the human intelligence to blossom, and the individual to be a harmonious part of a community.

Interview: Laura Eggens

The post “We are working to propel change” appeared first on Ileia.

KRC carries out market studies and shares the results with farmers. As part of its efforts, it brings the farmers and traders who are involved in a particular value chain together, especially those working with coffee, banana, maize and cocoa, and analyses the results and possibilities.

“I learnt a lot about ‘economic agency’ from the Hivos/ IIED Knowledge Network: the level of power that people have because they understand their position in the value chain and are able to make informed choices and decisions about which kind of markets to access. If you only focus on the classical value chains, you may fail to understand the other dynamics that small producers in rural Uganda need to deal with.”

Does the value chain approach work?

I find that this is a good approach, because it looks at the different segments of the chain, helps us connect them and improve efficiency. But pro-poor value chains are not always well developed. If I make a value chain analysis, I need to be very critical: does the smallholder farmer really benefit from being part of it? You often find that other stakeholders, like traders, input dealers, processors or retailers, are well organised.
In reality, the majority of smallholder farmers are not well organised: only about 10 or 20 percent of the farmers around the world jointly market their products. And then we need to contextualise the sophisticated value chains that are the focus of international debates. Do farmers really need to supply supermarkets?
In many countries in Africa the majority of consumers are not supermarket-goers. They buy from informal markets. As development actors and promoters of the value chain approach we don’t always take the time to understand the realities of the smallholder farmers, and to understand the different ways in which they are trying to connect to different markets on their own, within their own means, using their own knowledge

“Does the farmer really benefit from being part of a value chain?”
How do farmers do this?

For example here, in Kabarole, banana farmers from Kasenda market their products in an informal way. Using mobile phones, they contact relatives in different towns, such as Fort Portal and Kampala, to find out the selling price in different regions. This information is then disseminated through their own networks.
When traders come to their village, they already know the prices and have the capacity to negotiate. The farmers cut the bananas on the agreed date and the traders come to collect them. The cycle ends there. There are no rules, it is an informal way of doing things.
Development workers often think that these farmers will be cheated. But when we did an in-depth analysis of these arrangements, we found that there are very high levels of trust. Their group ties are very strong, even without a formal organisation. Using their kinship ties to connect to the market, they are able to beat the formal arrangements that are there. These are pertinent issues that development workers need to think through.

Is there any way to support these farmers?

At KRC we focus on the power of information. For the banana farmers in Kabarole, we have been able to build on their existing internal arrangements. We do market analyses with our partners at a national level and have a toll-free line whereby farmers can call for information. Farmers then make the decision to sell in a specific place on the basis of information that is well researched, in addition to what they find out through their own network.
The liberalisation of trade has encouraged traders to go as far as the farmers’ gardens, which makes it even more important that farmers have the right information.

With more than 10 million Ugandan citizens using mobile phones, over 5 million browsing the internet daily and millions tuning into more than 200 FM radio stations broadcasting in local languages, should we only focus on the co-operatives that used to connect farmers and small businesses to markets in the 1970s and 1980s?

In Kenya, a study reported that 42% of the milk is sold directly from farmers to consumers and usually delivered to their doorsteps. Another 17% is sold to mobile traders on bicycles, and 15% to small shops, kiosks or milk bars that are mostly unlicensed. In comparison, registered dairy co-operatives purchase just 24% of all dairy farmers’ milk.

Similarly, only 2% of the milk produced in Ethiopia reaches the market through the formal dairy chain. The debate therefore needs to shift to understanding how the majority of small-scale farmers are making markets work for them. We need to strengthen these “alternative” ways if we are to support the majority of small-scale farmers.

Without organisations?

Working together with farmers in order to understand the different market dynamics and then making a betterdecision. Photos: KRC
Working together with farmers in order to understand the different market dynamics and then making a better
decision. Photos: KRC

For me it makes little sense to keep stressing the importance of formal arrangements. I’m not saying that we should do away with them, but attention also needs to be given to the informal arrangements that exist alongside them. Only a small percentage of farmers belong to these organisations, despite their benefits.

Most development policies and programmes focus on farmers as part of formal organisations, so these support mechanisms exclude the majority. The problem is that the majority of non-organised farmers are not willing, for one reason or the other, to go into these formal arrangements.

They have examined for themselves the opportunities and constraints of joining a group and have also analysed their own situation at home. They choose to do their business in their own way, based on their own analysis of the situation and the resources that they have available. In general, the political will needs to be there to protect smallholders in markets and support what farmers are already doing.

Do you only focus on local markets?

We work together with farmers in order to understand the different market dynamics at a local, national and an East African level, and then the farmers use their own analysis to make their own choices. Their interest in working at these different levels depends on their capacities and the degree to which they are organised.

Usually, it is only after they understand the dynamics of the local and national markets that they get interested and willing to move towards international value chains. It is also clear that many farmers choose to stay at a local level.

Why do farmers prefer to sell at local markets?

In certain periods local markets give farmers better options. One of the benefits is that they can get quick cash. Many financial responsibilities, such as household needs or paying school fees, cannot wait. For smallholder farmers to sell large quantities, they often have to bulk their produce with other farmers, sometimes for a minimum period of one month, which delays payment.

A coffee farmer revealed to us that, in the three years that he has been a member of his village producers group, he has never sold through this group. He needs to pay his children’s school fees, and the group has to wait to sell, especially if it aims at international markets. So he sells to traders who will give him cash.

Also, the type of product farmers grow determines the market they focus on. For instance, bananas are very perishable and require a quick sale the moment they are ripe, or you lose your product. With no refrigeration or little infrastructure, perishable products cannot be preserved for long. We need to see how much would farmers gain, but also how much they can lose when bringing their banana from their garden to the market, also including the costs of transport. We advise the farmers on these costs and benefits, enabling them to make the best decision for them.

Does it help to focus on regional markets?

In East Africa in general, as in many other places, there is a growing demand for food products. Neighbouring countries buy a lot of foodstuffs from Uganda. When farmers sell to traders from Kenya or from South Sudan they receive a higher price, especially when compared to what the Ugandan middlemen pay.

And in addition to higher prices, these markets give farmers a guarantee. But the biggest problem is the capacity and limited resources of smallholders to access these international markets, even at a regional level. International value chains are long and complex, so we try to reduce the number of middle traders and let farmers sell directly. Our objective is that they are able to join the international markets directly.

Can a certification process contribute?

A certification process can certainly play a role. But the most important thing is that certification standards need to be contextualised. I think that the standards set for the European market cannot be the same standards that the East African farmers should follow. There are already East African organic standards, which makes the certification process a bit easier for smallholders.
Nonetheless, only a very small percentage of farmers in my country can be certified. These farmers know that they can add value to their product, but they are limited by their immediate financial constraints. I think that the agricultural financing mechanisms need to be strengthened first.

A certification process can then help and encourage farmers to produce in a certain way, for example, organically. But then again, we have to consider that the majority of Ugandan smallholders are already producing naturally, even though they are not certified. They are not adding anything artificial to their soils or crops. Their use of mulching comes from their desire to maintain the soil, not because there is a need to produce for a certified market.

Are farmers encouraged in other ways?

Looking at the market before one looks at the production process is a very important contribution of the value chain approach, but this perspective should not be limited to the international arena. For instance, the majority of smallholder farmers in my country produce without really knowing what the market wants. They just push their produce into the local market when it is ready. When we understand what the market wants, we can help develop farmers’ capacities to meet these specific demands. When they produce for a particular market, they must meet particular quality standards. With the right information, they decide on their own if they want to produce for this market.

If the local context is so important, why join an international knowledge network?

Being part of it has widened my knowledge on how small producers try to deal with markets in different contexts. I have seen how Bolivian farmers use their kinship ties for marketing meat and other products, realising that this is happening in my own country as well with different products. I was impressed by the strength of small producers’ organisations in Latin America, seeing that they have been able to change national policies. These are all important lessons which have helped me understand our situation better.
Before, I was fixated on uniting small producers in organisations, considering this as the only way for farmers to access better markets. But the cases we studied with all other members of the Knowledge Network helped me get a clearer picture. As I said, I realised that we were leaving out a large majority of farmers because they do not belong to an organisation. This is something that we are internally reflecting on in my organisation. While the value chain approach has its advantages, it is important to be critical, and look at the constraints that are there, and the opportunities. One of our main conclusions is that, by stimulating and strengthening farmers’ “economic agency”, they are empowered to make an even better decision.

For more information, visit the KRC website (www.krcuganda.org) or write to Medius Bihunirwa directly.

E- mail: bmedius@krcug.org ; bmedius20@gmail.com

Interview: Laura Eggens

The post “We need to support what farmers are already doing” appeared first on Ileia.

The toolkit is aimed at different target groups, including farmers, extension staff, researchers and policy makers. “We wanted to have something both informative and practical,” explains Dr Mei Xie, Programme Leader of the Climate-Smart Agriculture Unit of WBI. “Something visual, so that people who are not familiar with rice can get the message, and that extension staff can understand and show to their farmers.” The toolkit comes in three parts. One targets the general public: it is simple, short and emphasises the advantages and constraints of SRI’s innovative practices. A second is a straightforward “how-to” guide for practitioners which “is easy for farmers to understand.” The third section contains different views on SRI adoption, dissemination, and research, presenting video and audio interviews with farmers, practitioners, researchers and other stakeholders. These include people who have tried it successfully and people who still have reservations. The goal is to disseminate SRI knowledge to a wider audience. Mei Xie proudly explains that the toolkit is successful in this endeavour: “So far, the SRI toolkit has become the most viewed of our learning products. People from all over the world contact us about it.” She tells the story of two Kenyan farmers who learnt about SRI through a series of mutual learning events organised by WBI between farmers and stakeholders in Kenya, India, Madagascar, Rwanda, Indonesia and the Philippines. In 2009, they were brave enough to be the first farmers in Kenya to experiment with SRI, doing so without any funding or technical support. “Now, three years later, around 3,000 farmers in their area are practicing SRI. Local research institutions and universities are now working with government agencies to facilitate farmer
to-farmer learning. If farmers’ willingness is complemented with local knowledge, the adoption can be scaled up.” The toolkit has also become a teaching material for professors at local universities in both East and West Africa, and has been translated by an agricultural research centre in Malawi. From 2009 to 2012, WBI has used the toolkit in South-South learning events which include SRI and conservation farming as climate change adaptation measures. Farmers, government staff and researchers in Kenya and Malawi have reviewed the toolkit and discussed it with colleagues in other countries (such as India, Madagascar and Rwanda) via videoconferencing. “As a result of the South-South exchange, Indian practitioners used the SRI toolkit as a basis for training government officials, university researchers, local artisans and farmers at farmer schools in Kenya,” Mei Xie recalls. At one of these occasions a Malawian farmer commented: “You have given us something better than money, because you can only use money once. This is so good, and it will be with us the rest of our lives and we will be able to make much more out of it.”

The World Bank Institute is the capacity development branch of the World Bank. It designs and delivers learning programmes for development stakeholders, and collaborates with policy makers, civil servants, technical experts, business and community leaders, parliamentarians, civil society stakeholders and other learning institutions. For more information on the SRI toolkit or the South-South learning events, contact Mei Xie (mxie@worldbank.org).

The post A visual guid to SRI appeared first on Ileia.

Alterra (part of Wageningen University in the Netherlands) and WOCAT (the World Overview of Conservation Approaches and Technologies) have been running a research project on the Desertification, Mitigation and Remediation of Land (DESIRE).

From 2007 to 2012, researchers studied 17 desertification hotspots around the world, covering a wide range of problems, from soil erosion by wind or water to salinisation and droughts or flash floods. “Scientists and land users worked together to deliver a tangible product”, explained the DESIRE co-ordinator, Coen Ritsema.

At every study site, researchers discussed the contextspecific problems with a variety of stakeholders. They then proposed a number of scientifically developed solutions, which might complement the experiences of local land users, and gave land users the choice of testing the most promising strategies. Many, if not most, opted for conservation agriculture techniques.

“Unsustainable, expensive and polluting strategies are rarely selected by land users,” said Mr Ritsema. The strategies were then jointly evaluated. Increased productivity was not the only criterion for evaluating these strategies; their impact on people’s livelihoods and in preserving local and regional ecosystems were also considered. “We evaluate the revenues, but also the costs and benefits: the activities have to be interesting to land users in terms of costs as well.”

The outputs of the DESIRE project are freely available online in the multi-lingual DESIRE Harmonized Information System (www.desire-his.eu). On this website, the research programme and its results are available in a variety of forms. Visitors to the project website (www.desire-project.eu) can download the practice-oriented book Desire for greener land, which explains the methodology of the study and all the strategies tested at the study sites.

Knowledge sharing was an important component of the project. The results of the local assessments, including benefits and costs, have been translated into different communication packages, ranging from simple posters and brief information sheets to videos, technical reports, policy briefs, step-by-step guidelines and a book.

“The database of strategies has an enormous educative value. Of course, what works in one area will not be successful per se elsewhere. We are creating a basket of options, from which land users can choose, and they have to test what works in their own area on a trial and error basis.”

Successful interventions can only be effective on a larger scale if they are shared with practitioners, extension services and policy makers in other regions. “We have created white papers and policy briefs for national and international decision makers, giving them ammunition for their policies. We also offer simple and informative leaflets in a format that is understandable by land users.”

The DESIRE approach has already been incorporated in publications and initiatives by the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), FAO and the Global Environment Facility. Now, the project will focus on creating an interactive online tool to make all the possible strategies even more easily visible for the end users. “We can share with a wide audience that there are available solutions to degradation!”

Text: Laura Eggens

The post Learning about … DESIRE’s mapping of sustainable land management strategies appeared first on Ileia.

She is president of the National Dialogue of Peasant Organisations (CNOP-CAM), in her native country, Cameroon, of the Subregional Platform of Peasant Organisations of Central Africa (PROPAC) and of the Pan-African Farmers’ Organisation (PAFO). She has played an active role in the creation and growth of these organisations.

In addition, she is one of the two co-ordinators of the More and Better Network, the African representative in the World Consultative Committee of the International Year of Family Farming, and she owns a banana, vegetable and pig farm 30 kilometres from Yaoundé, Cameroon’s capital.

Elisabeth Atangana is an active representative of African farmers in the international arena, at events like Rio+20. She voices farmers’ concerns, and returns home to inform farmers about global debates.

“Villagers then get to know about Rio+20,” she says. “We are organised like a pyramid, from the pan- African level to the local level. At the local level, we put our priorities together in a strategic plan. At a national level, for example in Cameroon, the national organisation (CNOP-CAM) gathers all its members to discuss these local priorities. Then the national strategic plans are discussed at a regional level, and the common priorities for each region are discussed in PAFO. As a result, all the issues discussed in PAFO are rooted in local level concerns. Of course, PAFO cannot solve every farming problem on the African continent, so we try to tackle only common continental issues. But these are all built on local realities.”

How do you work within a local level, a national, regional and a Pan-African level?

We started very small, at the level of the village, 35 years ago. Now we are at the Pan-African level. I still try to go to local meetings as much as I can. I believe it is important to keep this link, with communication channels going up and down. We bring back information from the regional and national levels back to local farmers’ organisations. We talk about the problems emerging from national and international trade agreements, for example, or about the need for more investments in agriculture. And then it is not always easy to find a common vision for an entire continent. Some countries, like South Africa, have many large farms, while West and Central African countries have a large number of small farms. Different systems of production mean different interests, and consolidating them into one voice is challenging. However, we try to manage this by using a democratic approach.

How did this start?

Traditionally, in Africa, we have a culture of solidarity. In Cameroon, small village level groups have always come together to collectively solve common issues such as water scarcity, or to jointly support production. These self-help groups were strengthened from within when the government stopped supporting small-scale production at the time of the Structural Adjustment Programmes. It was farmers who took the initiative, with the support of some NGOs and sometimes from the local authorities. When we realised that it is difficult for one group at the local level to discuss issues at a national level, many local leaders [including herself – ed.] came together and discussed creating an umbrella organisation that could speak to the government with one voice. Getting local organisations together also helped to compare local problems and solutions nationally and to start learning from each other in this way.

And it all grew from the local level to the pan-African level…

Our need for creating regional-level organisations in Africa grew after 2000, with the creation of NEPAD, the new food security agenda promoted by international institutions at that time and the development of the Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs): the free trade agreements negotiated between the European Union and the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries. These were big issues, and the needs of family farmers needed to be defended at an international level. With the support of IFAD and FAO, five regional African farmers’ organisations were formed. These organisations then decided to build a strong international organisation, which led to the establishment of PAFO. It was great to be part of this whole process.

What challenges did you encounter in this process?

Initially we did not have the funds to travel through the country to connect local leaders and identify existing organisations. We had to find resources for this locally. Only in 2000 were we able to get donor funding for the first National Farmers’ Organisation Forum. Another problem we encountered was a political one. Local elites feared that our involvement in their communities meant that we wanted political power. To prevent this from becoming a problem, we made sure when entering a village to meet up with the chiefs and start a dialogue, explaining to them that the purpose of creating self-help groups is not to gain political power, but to help farmers help themselves.

Do women and youth face specific challenges in these different levels of farmer organisations?

Including everyone is not simple. To be able to participate fully, women and young people need education and training so they can express their ideas or formulate their position. Therefore, it is very important that we strengthen the leadership capacities of women and youth. Secondly, we need to create a space for them to enter into dialogue with decision makers, because in this way they can confront the decision maker with the concerns and needs of the poorest segments of the population.

What role can farmer organisations play in opening these spaces for dialogue?

At a regional level, with PROPAC, we help to structure national organisations, and at a national level, with CNOP-CAM, we help to structure the local member organisations. We offer institutional support, help them mobilise resources and build leadership capacities – helping leaders engage in dialogue with communities. Which organisations we actually help depends on the demand. It is important that farmers themselves ask for support, after which we can help them to identify what training is necessary. Training of farmers is done at different levels. CNOPCAM trains farmers’ organisations in production methods, but also in the management of groups, lobbying, and in forming partnerships. My local organisation, a member of CNOP-CAM, has built training centres in Cameroon to train the youth. They alternate between the school and the farm: they come to school for one or two weeks, after which they return to the village to exchange ideas with the farmers. Now we have 75 young people trained not only as farmers, but also to be leaders for change. Young people are asking to change the way we see agriculture: they want to give agriculture an image of entrepreneurship and professionalism.

In CNOP-CAM, we also link member organisations with each other, as well as with other stakeholders such as NGOs, international organisations, government officials or local communities. We also started to create negotiation and advocacy spaces. We have the support of the More and Better Network, for example, for increasing dialogue, enhancing the capacities of farmers’ organisations, increasing the financing options and the investment possibilities in agriculture. As a farmers’ organisation, we establish collaboration with other sectors to open space for dialogue with decision makers. All stakeholders, including NGOs or the private sector, have a role to play.

Is there more space now for farmer organisations to engage in this dialogue?

Yes, definitely. In Africa, for example, we built the PAFO platform to be able to express a common voice. It is necessary to speak with a common voice to decision makers so that we can be understood and they can take our concerns seriously. By starting from the local collectivity, we increase farmers’ voices, including those of women and youth. This is seen in our programmes which, for example, reinforce the capacity of women to be able to participate in ongoing discussions about climate change, so that their needs can be taken into consideration by policy makers.

What local concerns did you try to bring up at Rio?

One of the main concerns that I brought to Rio+20 included the need to mobilise women and increase their autonomy: help them to access appropriate technologies and to manage their farms, soil and seeds. It is important that we teach women and youth, in a professional manner, how to conserve local and traditional seeds. Another issue that I wanted to highlight is that of land: we need to be able to secure and conserve land. I also believe that we should consider the capacity of the population to be more resilient to climate change. It is important to invest in family farmers, so that they can continue to ensure food security at a local level and at the same time increase their revenue and develop employment opportunities.

Do you feel that you have been heard?

I can say that there is some positive evolution. But more is needed. That is why we still have a job to do. It is important that investments in small-scale farmers’ organisations and family farming increase, so we can train more people and dialogue with government and decision makers. We also need specific financing tools, like local managed credit schemes, which can help farmers. Direct support to farmers is very important and is needed now. We grew from a local level to a Pan-African level: I see this as a very important evolution. We did not have support before; we managed it all by ourselves. But now we need support so we can increase our activities, supporting more people in an autonomous way. This is why we need the support of those who respect our vision. And our vision is sustainable agriculture.

You were appointed FAO’s Special Ambassador for Cooperatives. What do you hope to achieve in this role?

I hope for a greater recognition within the UN institutions of what farmer organisations are doing. I have proposed a plan of action, which I can describe in more detail once it has been approved. In general, I hope to promote co-operatives at different levels. I believe that co-operatives are important tools in terms of social, economic and environmental development.

You are actively involved in the campaign for the International Year of Family Farming. What role can farmer organisations play in this?

I have been part of the IYFF campaign from the beginning. Farmers’ organisations need to mobilise. They need to identify the needs of farmers: organise themselves or strengthen existing organisations to bring these issues together. Only then will they have the power to negotiate with governments. My hope is that the celebration of the IYFF will help more and more people recognise the role of family farmers. Family farmers need investment, training, capacity building, and resources, which can all help farmers to change their environment. We need to sensitise governments to the fact that more than 70% of the population is directly involved in farming and agriculture, and that farmers play a very important role in guarding a country’s food sovereignty and alleviating poverty.

Interview: Laura Eggens

PAFO is made up of five regional farmer organisations: the network of Farmers and Agricultural Producers’ Organisations of West Africa (ROPPA), the Southern African Confederation of Agricultural Unions (SACAU), the East African Farmers Federation (EAFF), the Maghrebian Farmers Union (UMAGRI) and the Sub-regional Platform of Farmers Organisations in Central Africa (PROPAC).

The post A pyramid of farmers’ organisations appeared first on Ileia.

Near the town of Espera Feliz, in Minas Gerais, Brazil, a group of farmer families has jointly bought land to grow their own crops and established the Padre Jesus community. By organising themselves as a co-operative, they were able to access the government programme that provides farmers with a loan to purchase land.

Julio, Ednea and their children are one of these families. After working as sharecroppers and having to move seven times, Julio and Ednea were finally able to put their names on the title deed of six hectares of arable land two years ago.

Using agro-ecological approaches, they now use this land to nourish their family and also earn a decent income. They grow food in their fully organic vegetable garden for their own consumption and to sell on the farmers’ market. They also grow coffee, intercropped with seven varieties of beans, maize, banana and cassava.

As one of their neighbours said, “when we conquered this land we not only freed ourselves from bondage, we also freed the land of toxic chemicals.” All the families are now growing coffee individually, but plans are being made to harvest, process and export the coffee collectively next year. “Working together is giving us the chance to learn how to produce food and make a profit without relying on external inputs”.

Text and photo: Laura Eggens

The post Farmers in focus: “It’s our land!” appeared first on Ileia.

A lot has changed in the international development arena in the past 30 years. This will be visible at Rio+20 as well. “I imagine that in Rio there are going to be numerous farmer organisations and civil society organisations to voice their own demands,” says Ann Waters-Bayer.

“Since 1984, we have been trying to build a bridge between policy and practice, but back in 1984, most farmer organisations were not as strong as they are today.”

What helped bring about the larger role these organisations have?

I believe ILEIA and similar organisations played a role in that. They always tried to make the voices of smallholders heard – including pastoralists or landless farmers. I think we managed to bring more confidence to a number of organisations, who saw that they could make themselves heard outside their countries through these international means. Then they started sharing their experiences much more inside their own countries as well. Organisations that published in the LEISA magazines in the past now have their own publications. And there were more organisations like ILEIA doing this, focusing on “We can talk about smallholders and ecologically oriented agriculture, and trying to put information together and make it readable. This was before you could find everything on the web.

What triggered the interest in exchanging information?

Probably the “Limits to growth” report that came out a few years earlier, and which warned about the direction the world would go if we were to continue in the same way, especially regarding the use of natural resources. I think that this sparked off things in people’s heads. Some of these people had experience with farmers that practised an alternative type of agriculture than what was being proposed as “the future” as part of the Green Revolution. The limits-to-growth thinking struck a bell with a lot of people, who started to look at local knowledge and its potential. The UN conference in Rio in 1992 gave some strength and confirmation to what these people were doing, but this wasn’t a big turning point.

Many of the same warnings are coming out now. Is there a difference?

In the last couple of years we’ve seen much more attention being given to ecologically oriented agriculture and to the “green aspects” of the world economy. I think that the food crisis, environmental damage, political uprisings, inequalities, the immense wastage of food in the North, and the climate change discussions, have all contributed to this growing interest. Some methods of agriculture are damaging and other ways are less damaging, and are possibly more resilient. There has been much more evidence emerging on how productive ecologically-oriented agriculture is. And in the last two or three years, many people have started to question whether the high-external-input intensification of agriculture is the way to go. I think that the IAASTD report played a big role as well, because the influential people involved in that assessment really made a point of making the results widely known. For a lot of NGOs, here was a multistakeholder process that had come to conclusions that they had made years before. It gave a lot of impetus to the policy-lobbying work and brought people in organisations other than NGOs to think about the direction in which agriculture is going.

Do you think that the internet changed how people share knowledge?

In the beginning, when we were trying to put together information for a newsletter, we were working only within our network, looking for field-level information that was not in the doublerefereed journals. Now a lot of local knowledge on best practices is just put on the web. Of course, you still have to judge the validity of the information that you find. A lot of high-level policymakers will not go around the internet to find local experiences; they need some kind of selection and valuation. I think that institutions like ILEIA or its partners can do that by collecting, validating and analysing experiences, and drawing out the key policy issues and findings, and making them known.

Also at a local level?

I think that influencing policy at a local level should be done by local people. There can be a role in building capacities and participatory research to enable practitioners and local experts to gather the evidence that they need, but also in getting supportive evidence from other sources. And then putting this together, and thinking through strategies of how to bring this to policymakers at a local level. A documentation process can help local organisations do their own lobbying by providing evidence.

What is the role of Prolinnova in this process?

Prolinnova is trying mainly to influence agricultural extension and research organisations. The network wants to raise awareness on the capacities that farmers have to develop their own technologies, systems and institutions, which they have been doing for ages. Research and extension activities can build on those existing initiatives. We would like to link much more with smallholder agriculture movements. All too often, statements about agriculture talk about the type of agriculture that should be promoted, but not about how it should be promoted. At the same time, I am amazed at how much more verbal attention is given to local innovation and supporting local initiatives, at least on paper. Even though the support for transfer-oftechnology approaches did not disappear overnight, some documents do recognise the importance of local initiatives. This is a different approach.

Do you have any hope that Rio+20, or the changing attitudes, will lead to changes in policies?

I don’t like to put all of my cards on one event, but I think that an event like Rio+20 can make a big contribution. It allows various movements to come together. You can always use Rio+20 to get your message across, not only to people that are involved in the actual event, but also around the world. Supposedly, a lot of financial support will be made available now. But we have to make sure that the right message is heard. People should also see what has been happening for decades on the margins. International organisations, like FAO, the World Bank or the bilateral and multilateral donors, are now supporting more ecologically-oriented agricultural programmes, so we can talk about a paradigm shift in these organisations. But there is a very large group of smallholder farmers and supporting organisations that have been thinking like this for decades!

Interview: Laura Eggens and Marta Dabrowska

The post “We can talk about a paradigm shift” appeared first on Ileia.

Even though Rio+20 holds many promises for changing the world’s perspectives on sustainable agriculture, it is important to remain realistic about the limited possibilities of it leading to serious political commitments.

Jean Marc von der Weid is a “Rio+20 realist” – he does not expect much from the official meeting, but he is very positive about the political impacts that civil society mobilisation can have on international public opinion, “with positive effects in the medium to long term”.

How are the preparations for Rio+20 going?

Preparations in Brazil are progressing at a snail’s pace. The facilitating committee is too large and has strongly conflicting views. One group of organisations gives more importance to lobbying government representatives, and are more receptive to some of the “green economy” proposals. A second group is more focused on organising external demonstrations to denounce the anticipated failure of the official conference. This group is looking to mobilise opinions around the issue of peoples’ exclusion from development and the negative impacts of development. A last group rejects the whole framework of the official document that will provide the basis of discussions at Rio+20.

These organisations criticise the document’s inadequate diagnosis of the causes of the multiple and interrelated ecological crises. They denounce the “green economy” proposition as a lure to make people forget about the promises made at the 1992 conference that were not kept. This group criticises the very concept of development and proposes alternative pathways and policies to change the present situation.

AS-PTA and Rio+20reg
 
AS-PTA is the Brazilian ional partner of the Agricultures Network: they produce Agriculturas – Experiências em Agroecologia. Since 1983, ASPTA has been working to strengthen family farming and promoting sustainable rural development in Brazil through the application of agro-ecological principles.
 
As a member of the political co-ordination group of the National Agro-ecological Alliance (ANA), AS-PTA is immersed in a dialogue process with the Brazilian government over how to elaborate the National Agro-ecological Policy, an official initiative to be launched during the Rio+20 conference. ANA brings together movements, networks and organisations engaged in the construction of alternative sustainable rural development.
 
AS-PTA and ANA are organising a set of regional seminars around Brazil in order to engage civil society networks and movements in this process. The two organisations are also involved in laying the foundations for the debates about agriculture that will be held at the People’s Summit, the side event of the Rio+20 conference. “Our future role will be to co-ordinate the activities around the agriculture issue surrounding the conference at the national level with the rural social movements,” Jean Marc explains. AS-PTA and ANA are discussing the launch of an initiative to unite all the organisations involved in the multiple issues surrounding sustainable agriculture and food security and to put together a parallel event just before the beginning of Rio+20.
 The outcome will be a document based on an updated and expanded version of the “Time to Act” document. This document will be taken to government representatives, published through various media and (if agreed with the facilitating committee) be presented to the conference. On behalf of ANA, AS-PTA will also contribute to organising the Sustainable Agriculture debate. Paulo Petersen, executive-director of AS-PTA, elaborates: “In coherence with our methodological principles, we will propose activities that will be based on concrete experiences and cases. Our magazines provide a strong voice for our political proposals.”

How did the 1992 conference influence small-scale farming?

I think that conference consecrated the concept of sustainability, even though the definition of the concept is still subject to intense debate, with everyone, from Monsanto to Via Campesina, considering they have the right take on it. From a practical point of view, since 1992 there has been a strong expansion of industrial agriculture, with more use of pesticides and chemical fertilizers, as well as the launch of GMOs. The conference did try to address this trend, but most of the decisions taken there to try to control the onslaught of conventional industrial agriculture were eroded at further international negotiations.

What would be your desired outcome from the Rio+20 conference?

“Desires” in this case are more like dreams. We need a clear “anti Green Revolution” resolution, a condemnation of chemical inputs, and most of all, of GMOs. We need resolutions in favour of agrarian reform. We need resolutions in favour of fair trade and food sovereignty. Internationally, in relation to sustainable agriculture and food security, there is a paper signed by some 130 organisations called “Time to Act”. Its main message is to condemn conventional agricultural development and push for strong support for agro-ecological development, centred on family farmers.

The document seeks to push the agriculture issue to the forefront of the Rio+20 debates as the most important single cause of many of the present ecological crises. I have participated in the formulation of this document and in the discussions in Washington last summer to build a consensus around it.

Agro-ecological farming has made great progress, and we can now present hard evidence of its successes, and demonstrate its potential as a solution to the evil effects of industrial and corporate agriculture. However, all these advances cannot hide the fact that family farming is being destroyed all over the world, and that public policies at a national and at an international level have been biased to support unsustainable forms of industrial agriculture. This situation is simply a result of a “rapport de forces” or “balance of power”.

Corporate money, plus government power and policies, plus a supportive international framework (CGIAR, WTO, etc.) have been more powerful than small-scale farmers and the environmental and consumers’ movements.

So do we need another Rio conference?

We do need an environmental conference, but not of the kind that is offered by governments and the UN system. Governments and international UN organisations have shown themselves to be unable to implement the dramatic changes in national and international environmental policies that are needed. They have consistently watered down whatever gains were achieved in 1992 in the series of negotiations and conferences that followed that event.

I do not believe any amount of lobbying will be enough to bring about the international and national policies needed to promote sustainable agriculture based around family farming and agro-ecology. Civil society organisations in Brazil are divided on these issues, even though my feeling is that most organisations are critical.
What do you believe will make a difference for small-scale farmers?
I guess we may have more success by denouncing the official meeting as irrelevant and convincing civil society of the urgent need for a radical transformation of the present food and agricultural systems. Of course, I don’t believe that civil society by itself can substantially change the status quo. We need appropriate national and international policies, and as such we need governments and international institutions to act responsibly.

However, I think that a change in the latter will not occur without a very strong pressure from the public opinion and social movements. It will be hard to succeed in pressing the conference to adopt the needed reforms, but demonstrating against their conduct will be a step for further changes in the future. Unfortunately, I think that the crisis will have to become even more pronounced before the actions needed are adopted. Let us hope it will not be too late.

Do you think that the voices of small-scale farmers will be heard?

There has been very little participation of small-scale farmers’ organisations up to now. In the facilitating committee there is Via Campesina and FETRAF (the National Federation for Family Farming) which both represent farmers. We are missing the biggest (and more conservative) small-scale farmers’ organisation, CONTAG (the National Confederation of Agricultural Workers). There are also several NGOs who work in support of small-scale farming, including ourselves, that have not yet been involved in the committee. This can be changed once a clear call to arms is launched by a significant group of organisations.

We hope to encourage such a mobilisation. We think that the choice of civil society activities during the conference will provide a starting point for other social movements to identify where and when they can participate. At a national level we believe the farmers’ movements will become more engaged as the conference date approaches. As for the international farmers’ movements, I don’t have a clear view of their intentions. We know Via Campesina will gather an international group at a camping site at the People’s Summit, but I don’t know how big this mobilisation will be.

I believe that the most important positive effect of this event will be the education of the general public: publications, like Farming Matters and Agriculturas, will reinforce our case through examples and studies. This is most welcome.

More information:

• AS-PTA – Assessoria e Serviços a Projetos em Agricultura Alternativa
• Rio+20

Interview: Laura Eggens

The post “We need to convince civil society…” appeared first on Ileia.

Rio+20 will focus on an economy model that promotes sustainable development and aims at eradicating poverty (a “green economy”), and on the institutional framework required to meet these goals.

Participants at the conference will include high level government representatives of UN member states, together with non-government stakeholders who participate in formally constituted “Major Groups”, representing farmers, civil society organisations, women and indigenous peoples, etc.
Greenwashing or a historical opportunity?

There are those who fear that Rio+20 is going to be a repeat of the 1992 conference and become another event where the necessities of eradicating poverty and saving the environment are discussed, without leading to any concrete results. They wonder if Rio+20 will lead to “green” measures that are built upon the existing system, which has caused much of the problems we are trying to solve.

The Women’s Major Group has emphasised that a “green economy” need not necessarily contribute to poverty eradication and sustainable development. There is a risk that the term “green economy” will be used for “greenwashing” existing unsustainable economic practices. Instead of this, Rio+20 needs to focus on questioning and fundamentally transforming the current economic paradigm.

From a more optimistic perspective, others argue that Rio+20 offers a historic opportunity to transform abstract commitments into concrete actions. Rio+20 can be a platform for fundamental transformation. There are real opportunities to upscale sustainable practices and to support viable local food systems.

No green economy without sustainable family farming

“The global mode of agriculture has dismally failed us”
Shuhao Tan, Renmin University of China
Agriculture is both part of the problem and part of the solution. How do we move from the present un-sustainable global food and agriculture system towards a much more diverse system that is fair and respects small-scale family farmers and environments across the globe?

Cosmetic changes are not enough. The Major Groups of farmers, civil society organisations and women are making strong cases for sustainable family farming, regionalised food systems, and for upscaling time-tested agro-ecological approaches.

Agriculture can nourish everybody with healthy, diverse and culturally appropriate food, provided the right political choices are made. The outcomes of Rio+20 need to support rights and access to resources for women and indigenous people. Land grabs need to stop, and food production should not be compromised for biofuel production. Public funding for agricultural development should be restored, including support for (participatory) knowledge generation and dissemination.

Building a roadmap

“There is an urgent need to bring a balanced perspective on small farmers to the Rio+20 debate. The disbelief of policymakers must be challenged head on”
Olivier de Schutter, Special UN Rapporteur for the Right to Food
We need a roadmap informed and inspired by the concrete experiences of farmers. Both successes and failures (which tell us the obstacles to upscaling sustainable practices) need to be widely shared and systematised. Rio+20 should give a boost to efforts that document crucial practical experience.

Let us use Farming Matters to share convincing experiences and reach out to policymakers and policy advocates, providing them with the ammunition they need.

We ask you, our readers and authors, farmers and scientists; those with a deep and experiential understanding of sustainable farming, to make your voices and your experiences heard in Farming Matters. Family farming does matter in a truly Green Economy.

Farming Matters forms part of a global network of magazines: www.agriculturesnetwork.org Together we reach more than half a million agricultural practitioners in 194 countries. This is a strong platform. You can influence global thinking on agriculture. Share your views, dreams and practical experiences! The more inspiring contributions we get, the stronger the message that Farming Matters will convey in Rio will be.

Text: Laura Eggens and Edith van Walsum

The post What shade of green will Rio+20 provide appeared first on Ileia.