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.

This time, the underlying themes of the conference are a “green economy”, in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication, and the institutional framework needed for sustainable development. Since the conference was first announced, however, many people have been wondering if it makes sense to organise another Earth Summit as we still have not fulfilled the commitments of the previous two.

Also, many fear that the focus on a “green economy” implies neglecting the multiple aspects of sustainable development. The doubts expressed by many “Rio pessimists” have been balanced by the statements of the “Rio optimists”, like UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, who see this as a “once-in-a-generation opportunity”.
The Zero Draft of the outcome document of the conference was presented in January 2012, again provoking a backlash. Many were disappointed with the vagueness of the document, the lack of commitments for making radical changes and the omission of several important issues, including any reference to agro-ecology as a sustainable alternative to conventional agriculture.

Family farmers’ organisations were happy to see the inclusion of a proposal to remove harmful subsidies from conventional agriculture, but criticised the text for avoiding serious discussion about the major problems facing agricultural systems today.
Civil society organisations have been actively involved throughout the preparatory process leading up to the conference. However, as it became clear that the output document of the conference is not likely to deliver serious commitments, many organisations started to step out of the official process and sought alternative paths for promoting their agendas.

Gradually, many actors have realised that it may be possible to achieve more by participating in the processes outside the official negotiations and have shifted their focus to the parallel side-events that will be organised and to building coalitions with other organisations with the aim of ensuring that the discussions will continue long after the conference is over. In particular, many organisations place their hopes in the process of contributing to defining the Sustainable Development Goals that are likely to replace the Millennium Development Goals after 2015.

Is it really green?

The benefits of agro-ecology are numerous

Just a few days before the conference, the meaning of a “green economy” is still being contested. UNEP describes a green economy as a system of economic activities related to the production, distribution and consumption of goods and services that result in improved human wellbeing over the long term, while not exposing future generations to significant environmental risks or ecological scarcities. However, this definition is open to many interpretations. National governments and the UN agencies tend to support modest changes within the existing economic systems, focusing on technological solutions and policies to promote “sustainable growth”.

Yet, many civil organisations call for more radical measures, and insist that a transformation of the entire economic system is necessary. They advocate a radical “paradigm shift” and new economic models that put the environmental and social dimensions of development at the centre. The main question, however, is if we need new ideas, or if we should rather look at solutions that are already in place, and which recognise the potential of the alternative systems that have been developed over the years.

The debate over the future of agriculture illustrates this discussion well. There is a consensus that agriculture production has to become more sustainable, and that small-scale farmers, especially rural women, need to be acknowledged and receive more support. Yet, views on how to achieve sustainable production are strongly polarised. One model proposes “sustainable intensification” and looks to the development and dissemination of genetically modified seeds and farm mechanisation. The supporters of this model do not see any need for a major transformation of “conventional” agriculture system, which they claim just needs improving. Proponents of the alternative model call for a transition from conventional, input-based agriculture to agricultural practices based on agro-ecological approaches. This will require a change in the current way of thinking about food production which is based on a globalised food system and on large-scale, inputbased farming practices.

Instead of investing time and energy in “improving” conventional farming systems, we should explore the potential of an alternative model and adopt a more holistic approach to farm management.

Is this such a new idea?

Many civil society organisations advocate scaling up agroecological approaches and often refer to the IAASTD report, arguing that this could provide a solution to many problems currently facing the world. The Time to Act Manifesto, signed by civil society organisations from all over the world, argues that agro-ecological agriculture can produce enough food to feed a growing human population and contribute to the creation of fairer, more equitable, social systems.

To many this might come as a surprise, or as “news”. However, agricultural transitions towards more sustainable systems have been going on for a very long time. For more than 27 years, the organisations which make up the AgriCultures network have been collecting and sharing evidence that supports these claims. Our magazines regularly present concrete experiences of farm families and communities which show that agro-ecology and sustainable agriculture are at the centre of development.

The benefits of agro-ecology are numerous: a holistic management leads to balanced farms systems that produce sufficient yields while taking care of the environment. Agroecological systems are less polluting and richer in terms of biodiversity. They maintain ecosystem services and preserve local resources. Moreover, they can contribute to poverty reduction.

The vast majority of the world’s farmers, the small-scale farmers who are the victims of the policies geared towards conventional agriculture, benefit the most from agro-ecology. The enormous amount of evidence that we have found over the years only strengthens our conviction that a healthy food production system is the basis for sustainable development.

In this issue of our magazines we look at how agricultural practices are linked with food security, climate change, energy and poverty. These are the four issues that the Zero Draft of the outcome document has identified as the priority areas. We make an attempt to picture the benefits of an agro-ecological farming system from these four perspectives, building on the extensive evidence gathered over more than 25 years.

The articles in this issue show the need for scaling-up alternative approaches, and what could be the steps in the process. This idea is not new. Now is the time to make it happen!

Text: Marta Dabrowska

Marta Dabrowska is a specialist in development and rural innovation. She has co-ordinated the Rio+20 preparatory process for ILEIA and the AgriCultures Network.
E-mail: m.i.dabrowska@gmail.com

The post Theme overview – Twenty years later appeared first on Ileia.

In January, the Zero Draft of the outcome document (which provides the basis on which the final resolutions of the conference will be agreed) was published on different websites.

Even though this Zero Draft gives an impression of what the outcome document of the conference will look like, much can happen between now and June, so the outcome is not set in stone. Governments, UN agencies and civil organisations will continue to negotiate over the text of the final document, and campaign to put their issues on the policy agenda.

Many parties are still working hard to ensure that small-scale sustainable family farmers are not left out of these discussions.

Zero or minus twenty?

There has been a truly mixed response to the Zero Draft document. Generally, it is considered a major step forward, in that it talks about sustainable development indicators that go beyond GDP, proposes a Sustainable Development Council, an Ombudsman for Future Generations, and a reform of environmentally-harmful subsidies, including those for agriculture.

Yet, many believe the document is too vague and open to too many interpretations. There are also some important omissions. The document does not mention sustainable agriculture or family farming. How can a document seeking to set the direction of a future “green economy” leave out 400 million farm families? So, what is a “green economy”, and what is the role of sustainable family farming within it? There is a growing conviction that for the economy to become green, it has to be totally redesigned.

Hans Herren, one of the authors of the IAASTD report, says that cosmetic changes like “climate smart agriculture” and “sustainable intensification” are not enough, and while the Zero Draft document talks about green jobs, there is nothing about better working conditions (and returns) for self employed farmers.

This suggests that a “green economy” is only about the “money economy”. Vandana Shiva points out that sustainable family farming is about much more than money. It is about decent rural livelihoods, about the management of biodiversity and about democracy and freedom. La Via Campesina is arguing that ecosystems cannot be treated as economic goods. And Olivier de Schutter is making the case to establish a mechanism of accountability regarding the right to food.

Recognition

"The Zero Draft is a minus twenty draft" Vandana Shiva, Indian scientist and environmental activist

The key message to be taken to Rio is that sustainable family farming needs recognition. This was the conclusion of a recent global meeting of small-scale farmers’ organisations at IFAD in Rome. They are not alone.

All over the world there is a growing consensus among organisations of family farmers, scientists, civil society groups and influential actors within the UN institutions that sustainable family farming is key to the future of the planet.

Major global problems – hunger, climate change and environmental degradation – cannot be solved without recognising and supporting family farmers.

The momentum of alliances that support this view is stronger than ever before. Yet, in spite of tireless lobbying, campaigning and dialogues, it is not clear how strong this message will come through in the outcome document of the Rio conference. There is still fierce resistance from numerous individuals and institutions who do not see sustainable family farming as having any potential. Even within the UN institutions that do support sustainable family farming there are very different perspectives.

Some within these institutions still see large-scale agricultural systems as the best option, believing that “low input, by definition, means low output”. Others attempt to subvert the notion of sustainable innovation in agriculture by advocating nanotechnologies and genetic modification. Whom will policy-makers (at Rio and after) listen to? And who will benefit from their political support?

In the fields and in the streets

"Sustainable family farming is the core of a green economy but it is not mentioned in the Zero Draft. It’s really a joke"
Ulrich Hoffmann, UNCTAD

The Outcome Document of the Rio+20 Conference will provide a general policy framework for several years. The outcomes of Rio will not be binding on governments, so the “follow through” will depend on the voices and actions of the people in the streets and in the fields: farmers, consumers and civil society.

Influential thinkers like Ulrich Hoffmann, Head of the Trade and Sustainable Agriculture Section at UNCTAD, believe that the needed paradigm shift has already started: many positive developments are happening in the sustainable and organic agriculture spheres, millions and millions of farmers are practicing and developing sustainable methods every day. But this shift requires more time and more formal support.

A Brazilian civil servant, involved in the organisation of the civil society event that will take place parallel to the main conference, said this with conviction: “the major decisions are made in the streets”. Many farmers already made many decisions in their fields. Change is under way, and we have to document and share the experience. Rio+20 has to be owned by the people, not just by policymakers.

Your voice is important

Some of our readers may travel to Rio, but most of you will not be there. Even so you can make an important contribution. If you have a message to share please send it to us. We will compile and publish all the messages to Rio that reach us, and take them to Rio.

And… do send us your best photos of family farmers, women, men and youth, in your area. We want to show the many faces of family farmers to the people that will be meeting in Rio. We hope to get thousands of pictures and to paste them on a very long wall! Send your contributions to info@farmingmatters.org

Text: Edith van Walsum and Marta Dabrowska

The post Sustainable family farming needs recognition appeared first on Ileia.