Somaliland, the autonomous region of northern Somalia, is a predominantly pastoralist country. Pastoralists dominate the economy and play an important role in governance. Livestock exports account for around 90 % of export earnings, and pastoralism has the capacity to withstand and recover from droughts, thanks to mobility, large herd sizes and strong social capital. Households tend to move towards ‘pastoralism +’ – maintaining traditional livestock keeping while taking on new activities like agriculture. Some 30 % of the population are now agro-pastoralists, 54 % remain semi-mobile pastoralists, and 16 % are urban residents.

Sources of conflict

Common property systems and customary law prevail in the rangelands, while private property and ‘modern’ law are the norm in urban areas. In agro-pastoral areas, a combination of the traditional and modern models prevail. These regulatory mechanisms support export-oriented pastoralism and a healthy private sector. But in recent years, they are under strain due to rapid population growth, an expatriatefuelled real estate boom, and increasing government intervention. Weakening customary law means more environmentally destructive charcoal production, more enclosures on rangelands, and new settlements established by urban and expatriate investors.

Communities empowered

There is always a decision to make, and at the local level, village committees are responsible. Committee heads handle everything from minor personal disputes to large land issues. They consult widely, and on bigger issues also with traditional leaders, aqils and sultans, hereditary clan or sub-clan positions. All is governed by traditional Somali law (Xeer) with clear rules for land management, but village heads face many issues for which Xeer does not provide straightforward answers.

A recent story from Dheenta shows how resource use was negotiated by a strong, capable and progressive village committee, representing and respected by its community. The committee has authority to allocate land and oversee transactions, working with district and central governments but has the power to overrule them. Hargeisa’s Amal Construction Company began quarrying around Dheenta in 2014, and approached the village committee for permission to use bulldozers. This was granted on condition that impacts would be limited. But when grazing land was damaged, the committee told Amal to stop work. Discussions followed, and Amal was allowed to resume operations only when they agreed to employ and train local youth and abide by new rules to protect farms, pasture, shrubs and water points.

Somaliland
 
Somaliland celebrated 25 years of independence in May 2016. Not bad for a country that doesn’t officially exist! Once British Somaliland, it joined with the former Italian Somalia in 1960, but declared independence after the government collapsed in 1991. It has its own currency, customs, passports and EU-monitored free and fair elections, but remains unrecognised by the international community. Puntland to the east is also semi-autonomous, meaning the Mogadishu government effectively governs only (parts of) south Somalia. Neighbouring French Somaliland became the Republic of Djibouti in 1977.
 
Power relations underlie land governance in Somaliland. Governments, elites and vested interests wield power to seize land from communities. But, powerful clans and an armed population resist ‘land grabbing’ and can frustrate infrastructure development. The government claims ultimate ownership of land and issues titles and deeds, but cannot effectively oversee land sales. The government’s capacity to re-assert its authority and strengthen land use policy, laws and enforcement is severely limited. In this partial vacuum, basic functions such as maintaining a land registry are performed by UN agencies. Also, NGOs work with communities to prevent rangelands enclosures and maintain or re-establish seasonal grazing reserves. However, in many instances the success of such projects are hindered by power relations that do not favour traditional pastoralist communities. But in the eastern provinces of Sool and Sanaag gun ownership by pastoralists has enabled local people to protect their institutions, traditional culture and kinship networks.

Villagers ‘win’ again

In 2013, the government granted rights to the Turkish oil company Genel Energy for oil exploration in the pastoral heartlands of Somaliland. First greeted with enthusiasm and hopes of oil wealth, issues of land rights emerged when exploration began. PENHA (Pastoralist and Environmental Network in the Horn of Africa was conducting consultations in the pastoral village of Sanyare when the first fleet of Genel trucks came sweeping in. There was consternation. What was going on? Who were these people? Heavy vehicles damaged fodder shrubs and trees, and problems quickly deepened. Said one aggrieved local leader, “if they behave that way now, what about when they find oil?” Another implored that, “we shoot at our own people to stop them cutting acacia trees for charcoal, so how can we allows others to clear them away?”

Communities were deeply concerned about what discovery of oil would mean for their future. “We don’t know what’s underneath the ground, but we know what’s on top of it – and they are destroying it,” one elder said. “And if they find what they are looking for, how do we know that we’ll get anything out of it?” Would their land ownership be maintained? Would they have to abandon their pastoral livelihoods? If so, would they be given compensation and a share of the benefits? Tensions eventually led to armed clashes. The village committee talked with clan elders and traditional leaders in other affected communities. The consensus: shut down Genel’s operations. Local leaders told the government, and that was the end of that. Genel suspended work and pulled out in September 2013, but recently announced a desire to return, this time working alongside communities. This was welcomed, with proper consultation. In Somaliland, unlike elsewhere, local people call the shots.

Emerging hybrid institutions

Somaliland’s upper house of parliament is reserved for traditional leaders, and elsewhere we see the development of hybrid institutions that formalise roles for traditional institutions. This mix of traditional and modern law and institutions works well, allowing the development of strong Somali-owned businesses in water supply, telecommunications and aviation – sectors where foreign companies dominate in most of sub-Saharan Africa.

Traditional, common property ownership is not synonymous with ‘backwardness’ and economic stagnation

Expanding positive outcomes

Pastoralism will continue to be central to Somalia’s economy, even with the growth of service-oriented urban areas and farming. But to reduce the risk of conflict, participatory and inclusive processes for land management and land policy development must become the norm. Formal institutions need to work with traditional ones, with constructive debate and decisions made at the community level, building collaboratively towards coordinated decision-making at national and regional levels. Traditional, common property ownership is not synonymous with ‘backwardness’ and economic stagnation. Traditional institutions are compatible with progress, and traditional leaders are not opposed to change. They are ready to negotiate, and to participate in designing new approaches.

Sadia Ahmed (penhasom@gmail.com) is country director for PENHA-Somaliland, Hargeisa, Somaliland. John Livingstone is policy and research officer, Amsale Shibeshi is regional programmes coordinator, and Nick Pasiecznik is research associate.

This article builds on a paper by Sadia Ahmed and John Livingstone, ‘New participatory approaches to land governance and conflict resolution in Somaliland’, presented at the International Resilience, Research and Innovation Conference, Djibouti, 26-28 October 2015.

The post Who calls the shots? Adapting traditional land governance in Somalia appeared first on Ileia.

The ‘landscape approach’ has been increasingly promoted during recent years as a new perspective for addressing global problems. In the face of increasing and competing claims on the land, planners, scientists and policy makers have realised that sectoral approaches do not work. ‘Integrated land management’ or broad landscape level considerations have at last begun to supersede those restricted to water, forests, farming, etc., in national policies and development programmes.

The landscape approach promises to tackle the negative effects single sectors may have on the others when left to grow on their own, and it also promises to deliver complementary benefits by integrating different landscape elements. This holds the potential to improve livelihoods, food security, well being, climate change adaptation and delivering ‘environmental services’. But some serious challenges still remain in reconnecting agriculture to other functions of the landscape, and especially in finding a balance of interests in the face of unequal power relations.

Connecting to the landscape

For many family farmers, pastoralists, forest communities and fisherfolk, a holistic ‘landscapes perspective’ is not new. Their landscapes have always been shaped in dynamic interaction with others and the natural environment.

The interdependencies between different components are a given, and a logical daily reality that relates closely to the interdependencies within families and the communities they live in. Landscapes not only provide food, fodder, fuel, timber and medicine, but they also have cultural and religious significance. They are where people live, and provide the fundamental framework to all aspects of life.

Each person holds his or her own specific knowledge and perspectives about different parts of the landscape. She or he works with whatever is available in terms of highland or lowland, water sources, seeds, trees and so on, through practices that have been built up and continue to develop over generations. Women and men may use different pieces of farmland or forest for different purposes, and their animals may get a separate patch to graze. Such landscape elements are combined to fulfil various roles, often strengthening each other and the system as a whole but there is bound to be competition as well. Through these and other activities, family farmers maintain landscapes, many of which have been recognised as culturally and environmentally valuable.

Many communities however risk losing the knowledge and practices that make the landscape connection. For more than half a century, policy makers, extensionists and researchers have pushed hard for modern farming, promising that this would improve the lives of all. Production and livelihoods were seen as individual units in isolation from their environment. Focus was on maximizing productivity at farm level, and farmers were to specialise in single crops and seek growth in external, rather than their own, inputs and knowledge. Though this focus on single crops and farms may have contributed to short or medium term gains, in the long run it has contributed to degradation of landscapes and to unsustainable farming systems. In this issue we find several illustrations of such processes.

Finding balance in power

The landscape approach is hailed as inclusive, equitable and multi-stakeholder, as a new way of addressing and resolving conflicts in land and water management, but as practice shows, it is clear that the challenge of power remains.

While in some cases, such processes have resulted in agreements acceptable to all parties, all too often a seat at the table is not enough. Family farmers, local forest users and fisherfolk are confronted with powerful political and commercial interests. Even when facilitated in a fair and skilful way that addresses inherent power imbalances, the real decisions may be made behind closed doors. Or these communities are excluded from other land governance structures, natural resource management programmes or policy development that may be more decisive. This is especially the case when landscape perspectives and demands are in serious conflict, as is the case with mining or fracking. In such situations, real landscape democracy appears to be little more than rhetoric.

Reconnecting

Even when facing hugely un-level playing fields, farmers in the broadest sense, i.e. who may depend on crops, animals, trees, fish or other natural resources, are finding ways to score goals while running uphill. Where possible, they are taking control to ensure that they make the decisions about what happens in their territories. This issue of Farming Matters presents a selection of these experiences, concluded by a ten-year reflection on integrated landscape approaches .

Farmers have reconstructed and reconnected with landscapes often by building on local knowledge as a starting point for further development and innovation. We see them using their traditional knowledge in India  and organising themselves into an effective ‘landscape powerhouse’. In Nepal, biodiverse farming systems come to the rescue when their orange orchards are killed by a disease. Farmers turn to the water when climate change threatens their land in Bangladesh (page 18), and take up new knowledge to make the most of invasive trees in Djibouti . As argued eloquently by Million Belay (page 21), knowledge and historical memory that exist in communities are highly inspirational in this regard. John Liu also tells us about how we need more farmers in the landscape, not less , and Jeff Campbell explains that how they organise themselves into effective organisations is key.

These family farmers, pastoralists and forest communities have used the space they have as effectively as they can. They have also managed to expand it, amplify their voice and assert their rights by organising themselves and by forging alliances. In the Netherlands, farmers formed territorial cooperatives and collaborated with scientists and civil society to change policies and implement a self-governing landscape structure .

As we see from the experiences presented here, creating a political space for family farmers and community organisations is of crucial importance, while efforts should be made to harness women’s rich knowledge and organising capacity.

This issue of Farming Matters is a call for those involved to challenge top-down concepts that frame today’s landscape approach. But we should not seek an alternative. Rather, we must provide a better platform for those who need to be heard – the real managers of the land, our landscapes. Only with them can we shape a sustainable future.

Edith van Walsum and Nick Pasiecznik

Edith van Walsum is director of ILEIA – The centre for learning on sustainable agriculture. Nick Pasiecznik is editor of Farming Matters. ILEIA is also the secretariat of the global AgriCultures Network.

The post Editorial – Farming communities in living landscapes appeared first on Ileia.

From desert to forest

Prosopis – valuable resource or invasive weed?
 
In tropical dry areas of Africa and Asia, one species stands out – Prosopis juliflora. It was widely planted in the 1980s as part of reforestation programmes, and quickly spread, creating dense and impenetrable thickets in agricultural, pasture and natural areas. It out competes native species and forage plants, is very thorny, and can completely block paths and roads. But in its native American range, prosopis are appreciated as valuable trees, especially for their sweet and protein-rich golden-yellow pods which are ground into flour for making animal feeds or human food.
 
The wood and charcoal is of high quality, posts and poles are marketed, and the heartwood is very hard indeed making excellent flooring and furniture. Prosopis honey fetches a premium price, the resin is equivalent to gum Arabic, and all plant parts have medicinal uses. It is also a nitrogen fixing tree that improves the fertility of surrounding soil, and provides good shade, shelter and erosion control.

Most of the planted trees died and most of the native trees that were left were cut down for firewood. Sandstorms became more common. Poor soils and lack of experience meant harvests were meagre.

In the 1990s, civil war came and went, and many left for the city, or abroad if they could. But better rains came and some managed to improve their yields. The one introduced tree species that did survive began to spread, thanks to animals eating the pods and its ability to grow in the harsh desert climate.

In only a few years, large areas became covered with a mass of thorny thickets. A decade later, thickets turned into forests covering hundreds of hectares. The invasion of prosopis trees had begun.

But the wrong trees

In 2013, it was estimated that some 60,000 hectares of this small nation was covered by prosopis. And half of this is around Hanlé, where prosopis had become a huge problem for the community, having invaded huge swaths of agricultural and pasture land. The same problem is also shared by many people in other countries.

There is thought to be a million hectares of invaded prosopis in neighbouring Ethiopia, the same amount in Kenya, Sudan and Australia, two million in South Africa, five million in India, and millions more in Brazil, Mexico and the USA, Pakistan and Sri Lanka, from Senegal to Somalia, in eastern and southern Africa, and numerous island states. Prosopis is classified amongst the ‘world’s worst alien invasive species’, and is a legally declared national weed in many countries.

However, prosopis trees and ‘forests’ also produce a multitude of resources, some of which are already used to some small extent but most remain very much underutilised. Since the 1990s a small but growing group of professionals have been developing and promoting an innovative approach of ‘control by utilisation’ as a win-win solution to address this dilemma of how to manage a useful but invasive species. The aim is to turn this unappreciated tree into a source of valuable products to help alleviate poverty and improve food security in dry areas, while at the same time reducing its negative ecological and social impacts.

The need for knowledge

Known as mesquite or algarrobo in their native Americas, prosopis has been introduced around the world since the 1800s. They were seen as useful, fast growing and drought tolerant trees that could provide fuel, fodder and shade, but whereas the trees were successfully introduced, the indigenous knowledge on how to manage and fully utilise them was not.

In the late 1990s, experts from Argentina, Peru and Mexico were brought to India to show people there the many uses of prosopis trees and ways to process them, such as how to mill the pods and how to saw the often twisted logs.

The experience gained was then transferred to Kenya some years later, where it took hold. Government policies changed and many businesses sprung up, with an estimated million US dollars per year now added to the collective incomes of selected communities through the sale of prosopis charcoal and pod flour. A ‘green’ power station is also being built in Kenya that will supply 5 MW of electricity by burning prosopis wood alone, based on a model in use in India.

And on to Djibouti

Thanks to the pioneering vision of Mohamed Awale, then Secretary of State for National Unity and now Minister of Agriculture, successive visits were made to transfer this knowledge to Djibouti beginning in 2008 and later supported by UNDP.

Beginning in 2012, the FAO as part of a Technical Cooperative Programme assisted the government in providing four communities with equipment and training so they could better manage and utilise the ‘free’ prosopis resource growing ever larger around them. Pod milling machines from India that were tested and proved successful in Kenya were imported and installed along with improved charcoal kilns.

Tools and protective clothing for managing thorny stands were also supplied, and training was given on stand management of invasive stands, and the operation and maintenance of these new technologies.

The cooperative in Hanlé took up this opportunity with both hands. In 2013, they organised the collection of almost six tonnes of pods from over a wide area and brought them all to the site of the mill.

Much of the milled pod flour was given out to cooperative members for mixing and feeding to their own livestock, and the people saw how the animals appreciated it, growing strong and with better milk yields. The cooperative was especially happy with their first sale of milled flour, of 110 (25 kg) sacks that were sold to livestock producers for FD1500 each (or a total of almost US$1000). There was strong demand for more, with buyers saying that it was a very nutritious, competitively priced and locally sourced concentrate that replaced some of the expensive, imported feeds that they currently rely on.

Ali Hamad said that the cooperative would certainly take up the pod processing technology and wanted to increase production from last year’s ‘experiment’. They would invest in fuel, oil and empty sacks, had already identified 10 families in each of the three main prosopis area to lead the pod collection, and would use their own cash reserves to pay FD300 for every 10 kg sack of pods collected. If production only equals that of 2013, this would mean that collectors in the local area, mostly women, would receive a total of about US$1000 thanks to the development of prosopis pod flour as a new value-added product. A neighbouring community on Gob’aad is also planning to make more use of prosopis, but they see more benefits from charcoal than from the pods. Beekeeping is another avenue worth further exploration.

Landscape management

Benefits from milling prosopis pods
 
When eaten whole, the hard seeds pass through the animals’ gut undigested, and germinate into new invasive plants. In the dry season when the sweet pods may be the only forage available, the sugars also tend to cause tooth decay and stomach disorders in livestock, and some animals even die. And most of the protein is in the seed, which is then ‘wasted’. By processing the pods, not only is the seed protein made available for the animals to digest, it is easier to mix, and some two million seeds are destroyed for every tonne of pods that are milled. The pod flour is also used a nutritious ingredient in human foods in its native Americas but it not eaten in Africa.

Ali also told of a recent meeting between livestock owners and charcoal makers in the area, which resulted in an agreement on the future management of dense prosopis thickets. The causal issue was the death of seven camels due to attacks by hyenas. Whereas small livestock are corralled at night, camels are left to roam freely but are normally able to evade attack. Now, however, many paths have become blocked by encroaching thorny prosopis and hyenas are able to corner camels and kill them.

Camel owners asked if charcoal makers could clear roads through the dense stands as they cut wood for charcoal instead of just clearing blocks of trees as they usually do. They agreed. This is an excellent example of different interest groups within a community being able to agree a common approach to natural resource management in a changing environment, for everyone’s mutual benefit.

Introducing new tree species or any other crop is not enough, if the traditional knowledge on how it is best used does not accompany it. Though as is seen from this example, the knowledge can come along later, and will be adopted if it is appropriate for the locality. With invasive plants, there is the added advantage that the resource is effectively ‘free’, and there is much potential for adapting the ‘control by utilisation’ approach for other weeds. Also, this case shows how knowledge from the native range been adapted in steps for each situation, and also the importance of committed development professionals in ensuring that ideas make it out into the hands of farmers.

Before leaving the shade of the doum palm, Ali Hamad summed up their experience. “Before, we didn’t know what we could do with prosopis pods, but then we milled it, people took the flour home, mixed it and gave it their animals. They ate it with relish, and now we have started selling prosopis pod flour – the pods have really become ‘gold’ for us.”

Simon Choge and Nick Pasiecznik

Simon Choge works for the Kenya Forestry Research Institute (KEFRI), Marigat, Kenya.
Email: skchoge2002@yahoo.com

Nick Pasiecznik works for ILEIA, with a lifelong interest in dryland agroforestry.

 

The post Making the most of invaded landscapes appeared first on Ileia.

]]> https://www.ileia.org/2014/09/15/listening-trust-basis-working-forest-farm-producers/ Mon, 15 Sep 2014 05:30:45 +0000 https://www.ileia.org/?p=5588 Jeff Campbell – “Working together is a motivating and powerful approach to getting things done” says Jeff Campbell, manager of the Forest and Farm Facility. “This holds true for my own approach to life; for the work of the millions of forest and farm families stitching together complex livelihoods and ecosystems at a landscape level. ... Read more

The post Listening and trust – the basis for working with forest and farm producers appeared first on Ileia.

]]> Jeff Campbell – “Working together is a motivating and powerful approach to getting things done” says Jeff Campbell, manager of the Forest and Farm Facility. “This holds true for my own approach to life; for the work of the millions of forest and farm families stitching together complex livelihoods and ecosystems at a landscape level. Local indigenous peoples, smallholders, female farmers and forest dependent peoples have the knowledge and history, the culture and the potential to maintain and revitalise vibrant rural landscapes – we must trust and support them.”

The Forest and Farm Facility (FFF) helps in the creation and development of strong and equitable organisations and networks amongst smallholder farmers, women groups, farm and forest communities and indigenous peoples. It aims to enable them to make their voices heard in policy making processes at all levels, and to build their capacity and opportunity to access finance and investments for forest and farm development. It also supports governments to set up multi-sector platforms to coordinate the many ministries, private sector and civil society stakeholders involved.

---

What are the greatest threats to our landscapes?

In my view, the greatest threats are fragmentation, insecure tenure, vested interests, and the cult of simplification for short term benefit. A fear of complexity and the loss of what I think of as ‘land memory’ are also major problems. This is compounded by climate change which adds to uncertainty. What to most communities is a living, breathing life-support system, with forests, mountains, rivers, fields, pastures, villages and homesteads has been broken up into different ‘natural resources’. For a variety of political and technical reasons, these have been given different land use designations and so, in turn, tend to come under the jurisdiction of different parts of government.

Common property rights have often been nationalised, leaving only actively farmed land that is recognised as belonging to those who use it. The push towards larger scale monocultures of forests, farms, water, land and more mineral exploitation in the name of efficiency is destroying the complex relationships between the many different parts of ‘living landscapes’. And worst of all, those people who have been listening to the landscape as a whole, tend to be devalued and marginalised.

What do you think are the opportunities?

I feel that there is a resurgence of interest in understanding the critical importance of landscapes as lifeboats for sustainability that will carry us into the future. Intrinsic to this is an appreciation of the complex interactions between the ecological and the cultural components, between forest and farm, and a growing awareness that these must be defined in terms of all their interlinked communities, people, animals, plants and the geography in which they live. We might also be thankful to the triple crises of climate, economy and food, in forging a better understanding that the solutions to these are also connected.

The complexity of ecological and cultural land use patterns increase our adaptation to climate change, diversify local livelihood possibilities and contribute to a more resilient approach to food security and nutrition. There is also a growing perception that well being is about a combination of things that landscapes provide, and not just GDP.

Rural communities, smallholders and indigenous peoples are mobilising around this new awareness. They are becoming more visible and are being heard more, even in the face of the accelerating rush to extract the last remaining untapped resources on our planet.

Why are forest and farming families so important?

It is clear to me that forest and farming families, including fisherfolk and pastoralists, are the social keystones that sustain the very functioning of landscape. Maintaining traditional practices, they hold on to a mosaic of land use systems and keep alive the knowledge and genetic diversity that will be needed in the future. By living in the very landscape, they use its many products, goods and services. They sample the fruits in different seasons and notice the changes in weather, moisture and soil condition that need to be attended to. By striving to build and and more sustainable and resilient livelihoods, they remain connected to these landscapes as part of larger, interlinking ecological and cultural cycles. By being present as families, they also nurture future leaders, new plants and animals, and keep hope alive.

You say forest and farmer organisations are vital. Why?

Forest dependent people and smallholder farmers are amongst the poorest and most marginalised people in the world, that is sure. Conversely, they often live in places that provide a lot of economic benefits at the national level, such as timber, minerals and water resources, but they rarely receive fair benefit from the exploitation of these resources. Furthermore, as long as these people are kept from organising themselves, it is more difficult for them to match the systems of resource control and extraction with which they find themselves competing with. The ownership and control of markets and the future of landscapes are all so connected.

By becoming organised at whatever level, farming and forest communities increase their ability to be heard, to be seen, to access resources, to make connections and contacts, to find buyers for products, to diversify their livelihood strategies, to make their own decisions and to deal with change and opportunity on their own terms. But there are also many stakeholders who have much to gain by communities not being able to organise themselves and express their rights.

What is the Forest and Farm Facility doing?

The Forest and Farm facility believes that farm and forest organisations are one of the levers towards a transformative change. This will reactivate rural economies and exert a more sustainable and rooted management over the different elements within a living landscape.

By providing resources directly to help forest and farm families organise themselves at different levels, we believe they will then be able to raise and push through the changes needed, through policy advocacy and livelihood development.

By connecting forest and family farmers, we believe that they will better see how similar their challenges are in terms of gaining recognition, tenure rights, access to organisational and business development support, access to credit, and opportunities for value addition. We also believe that the concept of food systems and landscapes are inseparable.

Most family farmers are very dependent on their landscape, on forest products and ecological services for example, while at the same time they are often portrayed as enemies of forests. Forest producers also have much to learn from the power of farmer organisations.

What role can governments, corporates and NGOs play?

In the Forest and Farm Facility, we strongly believe in the role of government to provide an enabling and supportive policy and administrative landscape. Through direct support to multi-sectorial and multistakeholder platforms, we aim to help innovators cross traditional boundaries and begin thinking at a broader and more holistic level.

The more different groups know about and share information on each others’ plans and programmes, the more likely it is that they will see the overlaps and contradictions. The more the government begins to appreciate the major role of well organised small producers as landscape managers and primary private sector actors, the more they will see the benefits of offering incentives allowing them to grasp opportunities, protect their legal rights, and provide space to operate constructively.

Civil society and NGOs can play an extremely valuable role in helping this process, communicating, monitoring and facilitating positive change when needed, but then stepping aside when communities and producers can speak for themselves.

As for the corporate private sector, they too can help to build a more distributive economy, helping small producers thrive rather than by taking their places. Big companies and corporations will have to give way to small and medium scale businesses, however, as it is these that collectively energize the economy for the benefit of all. Industrial and vertically integrated monoculture, the agricultural ‘assembly line’ model for working with natural products and natural systems will soon be shown to be archaic, highly wasteful and inefficient, and poorly adapted to climate change.

Interview: Herman Savenije and Nick Pasiecznik

The post Listening and trust – the basis for working with forest and farm producers appeared first on Ileia.

]]>