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.

What does the term ‘climate justice’ actually mean?

For us at Focus (Focus on the Global South) we see climate justice as intrinsically linked with other forms of justice – social justice, economic justice, political justice, justice between genders, and definitely environmental justice. So, climate justice is not about securing rights that are alienated or separated from other struggles for rights. 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.

One of the most important tenets of climate justice is that those who have done the least to bring us to this point of the climate crisis continue to suffer the worst burdens of the crisis. And, they also have to take the most drastic actions in response to the crisis, with the fewest resources and the least amount of ‘official’ support. Ethically and morally this is one of the biggest failures of our society and economy. Any solution to the climate crisis must address these injustices appropriately.

In terms of climate justice, what is at stake for small scale food producers?

Small scale food producers are literally at the frontline when the big waves come crashing down, during droughts and floods, when crops fail and fish and livestock die, and when prices of food are manipulated and there are shortages. They are tremendously vulnerable to both, environmental and economic shock. And the climate crisis, as we’ve seen, has created huge economic shocks. For example, natural disasters – floods, landslides earthquakes, droughts, tornadoes, cyclones, increased variability and unpredictability in weather, etc. –  have huge economic impacts, including destruction of homes, entire communities, water supplies and other infrastructure, and destruction of the fields and crops that farmers earn their living from.

The types of food production that small scale food producers are engaged in have the smallest climate footprint

At the same time, the types of food production and the kinds of food provision that small scale food producers and providers are engaged in have the smallest climate footprint. From an environmental, economic and social perspective, this is some of the most sustainable food that’s produced. It’s seasonal and the food miles are few. Many small scale food producers provide food that directly supports communities in rural areas in terms of actually feeding them, as well as providing employment, purchasing goods and services, etc. This type of production is also extremely important in terms of preserving local food cultures and food systems that are resilient to shocks. Besides keeping the planet cool, small scale food producers make significant positive contributions to tackling hunger and malnutrition.

What is the role of today’s development paradigm in  exacerbating climate change and inequalities for small scale food producers?

The development paradigm that’s dominant across Asia is obsessed with economic growth. In this paradigm anything goes as long as it results in financial benefit for ruling elites. People’s rights, nature, dignity, public health, employment, etc., do not matter; everything is sacrificed at the altar of economic growth. Over the past two decades, the main strategies to achieve this kind of development have been enabling large scale private investment, especially in physical infrastructure, and privatisation of just about everything. Governments, international financial institutions and corporations have colluded in allowing corporations to gain control over different aspects of our lives, and nature.

Many communities across Asia say that that they do not want this type of development because whenever there is ‘development’, their resources are extracted, nature is destroyed, and they are displaced. Before this so-called ‘development’, their territories were managed through customary tenure and law. Communities of food producers and providers shared rights and responsibilities to use and to protect local land and water resources. They were able to find ways to adapt to environmental, social and economic changes. But ‘development’ brings the language of property rights, alienable titles and trading rights for elements of nature such as soil, land, water and carbon. As a result, almost anything is up for grabs and is put onto the market in order to generate profits for whoever is able to invest. In the end, there is no value left in the local area because it is extracted and sold in another market far away.

Inequalities and inequity are deepening for small scale producers

Look at the results. What benefits have the economic growth development model yielded for local communities? Forests, lands and water sources are sold to corporations that invest in industrial agriculture, mega infrastructure projects, build dams and extract natural resources. These corporations are supposed to provide, or at least contribute to jobs, social services and local infrastructure in rural areas. Where are those jobs and services? Inequalities and inequity are in fact deepening for small scale producers and rural peoples. They have no safety nets, they have nothing but the territories that they protect and that is what is being extracted and expropriated.

What are some of the tricky arguments you face when challenging this economic growth-obsessed development?

Today, the role that industrialisation, deforestation and excessive use of fossil fuels plays in causing climate change is widely accepted. But in many parts of Asia now, there’s a push to industrialise and ‘modernise’ in the same way, and to catch up with the west’s high-consumption lifestyles. The fact that the planet just cannot bear any more of this doesn’t hold as an argument because if the richer countries enjoy high-consumption lifestyles, why shouldn’t Asian and African countries be able to? For us (i.e., Focus), this presents a huge dilemma because on one hand, there are huge global inequalities and inequities in the distribution of so-called benefits of development. Those most responsible for the climate crisis—wealthy, industrialised nations—must take proportionate responsibility for reparations. At the same time, at the national level in much of Asia, economic growth and development are not delivering benefits for the majority of the people. The elites and a small proportion of middle classes are getting richer at the cost of the working class, peasants, small scale producers and the poor.

Also, when small scale food producers say, “we cannot survive like this!” and demand fair prices which cover the costs of production, their efforts are countered with arguments from policy makers and corporations about the need for ‘cheap food’ for the poor. This is very unfortunate because, rural and urban ‘poor’, small scale producers and workers, are all being oppressed by the same forces of capital. By dividing these people, their potential to organise and demand regulation that benefits urban and rural citizens, food producers and workers equally are weakened.

Why do activists from different movements need to work  together when talking about food and climate change?

We have no choice but to work together because the issues are too huge, too complex and they are interconnected. The case of the aftermath of the Super Typhoon Yolanda in the Philippines in January 2014 illustrates this well (see page 42). The typhoon itself is a climate issue. Yolanda victims had their land taken away from them in the post typhoon reconstruction – this is land grabbing. Those who had been displaced became refugees, creating a social protection issue. Many of the victims don’t have access, even today, to adequate food and nutrition – this is a food and nutrition issue. Moreover, in Cambodia, large scale investment projects result in deforestation, destruction of water bodies and displacement of rural communities. The list of issues in one case include: food and nutrition, land grabbing, climate, environmental and social protection.  On top of this, whether it’s in the Philippines, Cambodia, Laos, Thailand or India, when small scale farming, fishing, herding and indigenous communities defend their lands and fight against predatory capital, the military and police are called in, they are beaten up, they are arrested and jailed. These are human rights and justice issues. So, with all these aspects coming up simultaneously, I can’t actually see how we could not work together.

I think if we work separately from one another, we are dividing and weakening ourselves.  This is a time for us to come together and pool our resources, strengths and capacities. Big companies and big capital always come together to get what they want. We should not give them additional power through our fragmentation. This doesn’t mean that we don’t focus on sectoral priorities, but that we must make connections across sectors, constituencies, spaces and levels.

Can you talk about a few  heartening initiatives that are advancing climate justice?

I think La Via Campesina is brilliant. I’ve known them for many years and when you’ve accompanied, worked and allied with a movement for 20 years you see a lot of change. I’m just so heartened when I see members from La Via Campesina hold their own in national policy debates and international policy spaces. They articulate the links between small scale food production, peasant agroecology, cooling down the planet and building food sovereignty so well. They do this through their own practice, through federating, through making alliances with other movements, and also reaching out to the public. So, for me this is a very inspirational movement.

Another movement that is becoming stronger, at least in Asia, is the World Forum of Fisher Peoples. The risks that they face, including their vulnerabilities because of climate change and the development model we talked about, are huge. And they also are holding their own by articulating the issues, doing their own research, and mobilising and reaching out to people.

Another movement that I see growing across Asia, especially in India, Thailand and the Philippines, is amongst small scale vendors who practice what they call a low circuit economy. They source food from marginal producers, either urban gardeners or peri-urban gardeners and local fish mongers. They process and sell this food locally. In this way, they are really building bridges between producers and consumers, and between producers and processors. These types of urban/rural movements are powerful because they bring people together, they reduce alienation in urban environments and they show how interconnected we are. The National Hawkers Federation in India is a very good example.

What I don’t understand is why governments, financial institutions and large foundations aren’t learning from these examples. This is a crucial question: why is the enormous potential of these and other similar movements in addressing climate change and related issues such as hunger, poverty, malnutrition, not being recognised? Instead, governments, financiers, multilateral institutions and many large NGOs continue to promote false solutions that are very dangerous because: a) they do not address the root causes of the climate crisis; b) they create opportunities for corporations and wealthy people to profit from the crisis; c) they undermine genuine resilience of communities to disasters/shocks and the potential to build such resilience; and d) they give the illusion that the climate crisis is being appropriately addressed when in fact it is not, and the crisis is actually worsening.

Interview by Madeleine Florin

The post Interview with Shalmali Guttal: “Small scale food producers are at the frontline” appeared first on Ileia.

Download the full report in English (PDF).

The post Report from the Nyéléni Pan-European Forum for Food Sovereignty appeared first on Ileia.

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

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

Access and control over land

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

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

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

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

Local and global voices

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

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

New alliances

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

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

Finding a way

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

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

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

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

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

How has Tanzanian pastoralists’ access to land changed recently?

There has been a lot of restriction of pastoralists to certain areas of land. There are several factors contributing to this increased restriction. But generally in Tanzania, large scale investment is increasing and this has a huge impact on pastoralists’ access to land. Most of the areas that investors are interested in (for conservation, wildlife management and hunting) happen to be pastoral areas.

When investors come in, most of them go through the government and there is rarely appropriate communication with pastoral communities to let them know what is happening. There is a lot of friction between the investors and pastoralist communities because by the time the government and an investor have come to an agreement, pastoralists have not had any opportunity to participate in the decisions that affect them.

What are the consequences of increased land rights restrictions for pastoralists?

In Loliondo, my home and where I work, we have several investors. Some have direct links with our communities and we find agreements together. But we also have problems with investors who come in through the government. For example we have had several struggles with a hunting company that has been in the area since 1992. In 2009 during a major drought, the company blocked access to a vital area for grazing and watering our livestock in the dry season. The company had backing from the government and the communities were left on their own. There was mass death of livestock as a result. We have had several of these type of problems across Tanzania.

Can you explain why women pastoralists have been most active in the recent struggles for land rights?

Women have to react because they are most impacted by each case of land grabbing. It is relatively easy for men to move to other areas to look for alternative forms of livelihood. But for women, who have five or six children to look after, how will they move and where will they go? Women have a strong attachment to their land. They ask: “where will our children live if we don’t speak out? If we don’t act, the men will not act on our behalf. They do not feel the same about the future of our children.”

We see that women come together, contribute the little they have and are prepared to go all the way to the national level. In Loliondo, the government wanted to create a 1500 km2 conservation reserve that would restrict pastoralists’ access to their village land. In 2013, it was the women who came out strongly to fight. They went all the way to speak to the Prime Minister and the national press.

In the villages, women also struggle to influence change in the traditional, all male, leadership structure. Women are taking steps to participate in decisions and hold local leaders accountable for their actions. For example, there are cases where male leaders of the village council accept bribes to give outsiders access to village land. In one such case in Simanjiro District, Manyara Region, a group of women occupied the village council office in order to have their land rights recognised. They slept for five nights on the ground until their claims were heard by the village council.

The women went all the way to speak to the Prime Minister and the national press

How do you support women to uphold their rights?

I am the gender coordinator for the Ujamaa Community Resource Team and I lead the women’s rights and leadership programme. In this programme we organise women’s leadership forums. The forums include training on empowerment, womens’ rights, land rights and traditional management practices. For example, we simplify laws such as the village land act so that women know their rights and can defend them.

A forum usually has 24 women participants with each woman representing a sub-village (administrative unit within a village). The women are elected by other women in their communities as they are responsible for sharing their lessons from the forum. Traditional leaders from the village council are also included in the forums. This is a way to show the broader community that pastoralist women have the capacity to lead and to promote acceptance of these type of changes.

As well as empowering women to have access and control over land, the challenge we face now is about economic empowerment. I hear a lot of women saying, “we have the knowledge, I know my rights and how to acquire a piece of land. But without the resources to support myself – I still have a challenge.” This is why, as an organisation, the Ujamma Community Resource Team also addresses economic empowerment. For example, in one community women have set up a cattle dip business which ensures they have their own income.

Why is it so important to support grassroots actions as well as advocate for land rights at the national level?

These two levels need to be connected because things happen at the top which affect people on the ground. We empower and consult at the grassroots level so that pastoralists are able to reach higher levels to claim what is rightfully theirs. The women’s rights and leadership forums is a good example. We also play a role when pastoralists are not aware or able to participate in decisions and discussions at the regional or national level.

For example, recently there was a land policy review conducted by the government. It took place in a very short space of time. We worked to ensure that if people at the village level could not attend the regional meetings arranged by the government, we could at least represent their issues at that platform.

Another example is the constitutional review due to be finalised in 2020. The government review team visits villages but they don’t take the responsibility of ensuring that all people are able to participate and they do not visit all the villages. Again, we work to make sure that people are aware that this is happening and that there is an opportunity to participate and have their voices heard.

If pastoralists have their land rights and economic independence, how different would Tanzania be?

It will be different when pastoralists have access to and control over their resources. Pastoralism in Tanzania will be seen as an official mode of livelihood. The government will give more weight to pastoralists. They will be recognised for their role in supporting the national economy and Tanzania’s daily food and basic needs.

Although we have a lot of struggles, there is a lot happening on the ground. And, it is the women who are coming out strongly and are fully prepared to forge the change we need.

Has your work inspired other communities and women under similar circumstances?

I don’t want to take credit for things that don’t link directly back to mine and colleagues’ work at the Ujamaa Community Resource Team. Generally though, our successful approach of working with traditional leaders to influence change is being used more widely now. In the Maasai pastoral system, and generally in pastoral systems in Tanzania, male traditional leaders make rules and regulations in the community. These same traditional leaders are very influential in the community and are able to bring about change. We work together with them, especially for acceptance of women as equal beings capable of engaging in community development. More and more communities and particularly women are engaging with the traditional leadership system to influence the changes they want to see in their communities.

Interview: Madeleine Florin (m.florin@ileia.org)

The post Interview: “Pastoralist women have the capacity to lead” appeared first on Ileia.

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

Why are so few plant species valued?

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

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

Traditional plants and agroecology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Farmers’ knowledge

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

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

A holistic approach is needed

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

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

Resilience and resistance

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

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

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

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

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

"GM crops simply cannot address multiple nutritional challenges"

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

What is your concern with genetic modification of these crops?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can you elaborate some of these real solutions?

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

What steps can be taken towards these solutions?

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

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

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

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

The role of both rural and urban spaces for rebuilding food systems is ever more relevant today. Cities are growing and globalisation is impacting everyone, producers and consumers alike. Hunger, malnutrition, unhealthy diets and obesity affect billions of people, soil degradation affects billions of hectares, and we face an alarming climate crisis. In this context, our food systems – how our food is produced, where, and how it ends up on our plates – must be rethought. From a production perspective, we need to value agroecological approaches and family farming as a way of life. From a consumption perspective, we need enough safe, nutritious and culturally appropriate food for everyone and to break out of non-resilient patterns of urban development.

Many debates on rural and urban development have remained rather dislocated. The city was mainly conceived as a far-away place where consumers had to be reached with ‘market access’ programmes but very little real connections were established between producers and consumers. Rather, the role of rural areas was reduced to a supportive one: feeding cities with cheap food. Policies pushed for intensive industrial agriculture, disconnecting people from their food and leaving room for middlemen, large distributors and retailers to take control over ever larger parts of the food chain. Decision makers in cities were hardly concerned about the ecological impacts of urban development for their peri-urban and rural surroundings, and saw no role for themselves in developing policies to influence food consumption and production patterns of their inhabitants. But all of this is rapidly changing, and there is growing awareness that improved rural–urban linkages are an essential element in the necessary transition towards more sustainable and resilient food systems. This is seen in joint initiatives by farmers and urban-based consumer groups for concrete changes that span across the urban–rural divide, with examples in this issue.

The important role of rural–urban linkages is also increasingly recognised through policy as a key factor for the development of sustainable, healthy and resilient food systems. That more than half of humanity now lives in cities, and that this share is likely to increase further in the coming decades, especially in Africa and Asia, has shifted policy priorities and introduced new actors. Concerns over climate change, resilience to environmental and economic shocks, food security and health have put food firmly on urban agendas. Cities have become important policy actors on food issues, and many have developed their own urban food policies in an area that was traditionally dominated by rural and agricultural policies. Likewise, civil society organisations in cities increasingly take up activities around urban agriculture and food, either for reasons of gastronomy or for environmental, social and health concerns, thereby building bridges between the rural and urban.

But where does the rural stop and where does the urban start? This is difficult to answer as the boundaries between city and countryside, or urban, peri-urban and rural, are ever more blurred. Rural and urban spaces cannot and should not be categorically separated. They are intimately linked and recognising and further strengthening these linkages is an important starting point for building viable pathways to sustainable and resilient food systems.

Dual identities

With rapid and increasing urbanisation, what does it mean to be urban? The move from rural to urban is often a result of necessity. National and international policies that favour industrial types of agriculture make it more difficult to continue family farming, pushing people to the cities, who can then send money to support those who stay on the farm. Pablo Tittonell points out that such ‘safety nets’ enable many farmers to continue producing when sole reliance on farming is no longer an option, but that this also works both ways, with urbanites in turn depending on traditional and diverse foods from their rural families.

These mutual relationships, made possible by urban people holding firmly to their rural identities, transcend individual families and rural–urban divides, and can manifest themselves as class-based alliances. Bolivian domestic workers fighting for food sovereignty is one such example where city dwellers, often recent migrants from the countryside, work together with peasants to create alternative food systems.

Strong rural identities in an urban context are also seen among growing numbers and increasingly varied urban agriculture initiatives. Such ‘rural’ activities in cities serve social needs, provide food security, and income-earning opportunities in marginalised communities. City farmers in black townships in South Africa introduce elements of rural lifestyles such as a sense of place and community ties in the urban context. Urban agriculture is also political, and citizens are fighting for control over their food systems and for recognition as urban farmers. In many cases, these objectives overlap, as in Rosario.

Counterforces

Even with hostile market and policy environments and increasing urbanisation, family farmers provide 70% of the world’s food. ‘Feeding the world’ is no small task, but citizens are not passively being fed, they are actively shaping how their food is produced and by whom (see box), ever more preferring food from family farmers. For this reason, farmers and consumers build new connections and start to collaborate.

Innovative direct marketing arrangements are an important link between farmers and consumers that contribute to overcoming the rural–urban divide. Shortening value chains, and developing direct relationships between farmers and consumers is gaining ground, and the strongest and most successful are those where the new social relationships are much more than a mere economic exchange. They include trust, friendship and new communities, as seen in initiatives that circumvent the strongly globalised food system in the Netherlands. Community Supported Agriculture, an alternative food system popular in Japan and the USA, spreading rapidly to Europe and also emerging in the global south, is a good example. In China, this concept is popular, providing consumers with reliable and safe food while also supporting young farmers to produce ecological food and pursue a lifestyle of their choice.

Besides direct marketing arrangements that build social networks, other initiatives that strengthen relationships and cooperation between farmers and citizens also emerge, founded on mutual benefits and often with shared or converging goals. For instance, across Japan, a system of shared ‘ownership’ supports farmers and urbanites to work together to preserve their highly valued but threatened rice terraces. Farmers share their traditional knowledge to preserve cultural landscapes and revive their rural communities, while people from the city want to learn about farming and educate their children.

Although the net flow of people is from rural to urban areas, there is an emerging counter-flow. Young people in particular are moving from cities to start farming. These so called ‘new farmers’ or ‘neo-rurals’ are motivated by social and environmental concerns and often choose agroecological practices. This is happening in many different parts of the world, and concepts such as Community Supported Agriculture, as in China and (peri-)urban farming, as in Brazil, are part of this dynamic.

Governance structures for agroecology

Agroecology is a consistent thread in building stronger rural–urban linkages. It is striking that urban agriculture initiatives like those in Argentina and South Africa explicitly choose agroecology as a point of departure, both in terms of production methods and for social and market relations that these initiatives embody. Also, several urban-based initiatives aim at closing nutrient and water flows at the local level, thereby improving the ecological ‘metabolism’ of the city. This shows that agroecology is as much the domain of the urban as it is of the rural. We see a convergence between rural- and urban-initiated movements, showing that consumers and producers alike have a stake in agroecological food production. Besides safe and healthy food, sustainable farming offers other benefits such as protection of cultural and environmental landscapes, carbon storage, biodiversity and clean water which city dwellers demand. Ecosystem services provided by farmers to cities deserve particular recognition.

A common denominator of the successful examples highlighted in this issue, is that they all have succeeded in putting into place appropriate social networks and institutional arrangements needed to add value to and strengthen the potential of rural–urban linkages. These range from marketing structures like Community Supported Agriculture or ‘food hubs’, social mechanisms that mobilise voluntary labour and initiatives that provide required knowledge, support and exchange. These structures allow citizens and farmers to govern their food according to their own values and principles. Without such governance structures that interconnect and strike the right balance between key rural and urban actors, improved rural–urban linkages would not be possible.

New and international policy making arenas  are embracing the importance of rural–urban linkages, as seen in this issue. These pages provide examples from across the world, where citizens, farmers, consumers, workers, women and youth, are building new, and strengthening existing rural–urban linkages with positive and concrete benefits. While these practices are promising, many challenges remain and still need to be addressed. On the one hand, it is key that international and national policies create space for emerging alternatives, Biraj Patnaik demonstrates for the World Trade Organisation that this is not always the case. On the other hand, we must make sure that rural–urban linkages continue to be grounded in practice, to avoid that it turns into another new buzz-word. For this, the active engagement of citizens, both consumers and producers, is the best way to create new pathways towards sustainable food systems we so urgently need.

Madeleine Florin (ILEIA) and Henk Renting (RUAF)

The post Editorial – Building sustainable food systems beyond the rural–urban divide appeared first on Ileia.

Survey respondents

More than half of those who responded were from sub-Saharan Africa, and almost a quarter were from Asia. But only 16% were women, and only 12% were young people.

Farming Matters is unique

The magazine focuses on family farmers yet the magazine covers many related issues both local and global. You told us that this breadth is unique and appealing, and that Farming Matters is down to earth and applicable to your work.

A ‘cloud’ was generated, where the size of the word corresponds to the number of times it was mentioned by respondents, the key message being ‘practical information on farming’.

One important reason articles remain practical is thanks to you, the readers, who continue to write and submit articles that are grounded on the real life experiences of farmers and others.

We encourage you to keep writing

We treasure the written participation of our readers. However, the survey highlighted some of the barriers that stopped many of you from writing and submitting articles. The three most common reasons were;

• (a) not feeling like an expert,
• (b) not realising that you could contribute, and
• (c) not feeling comfortable writing an article.

You are very welcome to contribute and we are not only looking for experts, all perspectives and stories are valuable (see the invitation for articles on inside the front cover).

The digital transition

We have already travelled quite far down the digital path. From June 2011 to December 2013, the number of electronic subscribers rose from 361 to 15,262 with a corresponding decline in subscribers to the paper copy from 16,907 to 937. Shifting from print to digital is not something we take lightly, and we are still thinking about how far we should go – so your input into questions of access and usability is very important. Two thirds of readers who responded to the survey are now accessing Farming Matters online.

The most favoured digital format is pdf, and about one quarter of the surveyed readers are printing out at least part of the magazine, or sometimes all of it. One in six people use the Farming Matters Android ‘app’, and half of those not currently reading Farming Matters online in some way or form, plan to do so in the future. The biggest single barrier to reading online both now and in the future was reliable internet access, especially amongst our sub-Saharan African readers. But more than half of those who struggle to get online now are optimistic that internet access will improve in the future.

Two thirds of respondents are active on Facebook, Twitter or both, and a quarter of them use these platforms to follow ILEIA or the AgriCultures Network. However, about half did not know that it was possible to follow us in this way, and a number of you suggested our social media presence could be improved with more frequent postings.

Key messages from women and youth

The visibility of role models on the pages of Farming Matters is important for both women and youth, and both groups would like to see more articles that focus on issues especially relevant to their own situations.

As suggested by the young respondents, this would be possible with a greater youth input. We agree, so please get in touch with your ideas! A practical message from the women who responded is to use existing networks and platforms to improve physical access to the magazine.

Putting Farming Matters to work

Farming Matters is not only widely read but also widely shared. Half of the surveyed readers share the magazine with 10 people or more. The ways that information from Farming Matters is used depends in part on the readers occupations.

For example, development field workers tend to share information from the magazine within rural communities, try out approaches or technologies, or use the content for training.

Researchers, however, use information from Farming Matters mostly as inspiration for further research, whereas decision makers/administrators tend to use the information to stimulate discussions within their organisation or with other stakeholders.

An ongoing process

This is a small window into the whole set of results that emerged from the readers’ survey. We have analysed all of the results in detail and we thank you once more for the useful feedback that contributes to the resilience of Farming Matters.

Madeleine Florin and Harmony Folz

The post What our readers say appeared first on Ileia.