What was the main motivation behind the urban agriculture programme?

At the end of the 1990s, there was an emerging movement for territorial development, and looking at the benefits from vegetable gardens, the municipality was interested in promoting local development, and establishing an inclusive municipal policy on urban farming.

Building on experiences from earlier programmes which focused on agroecology and targeted disadvantaged neighbourhoods we defined a number of aims that would contribute to vulnerable urban families achieving food sovereignty. We wanted to improve neighbourhood landscapes by producing healthy organic food, to establish markets that directly connect farmers with consumers, to uncover the potential of unemployed people and secure tenure rights. We saw an urban agriculture programme as a most suitable vehicle to meet these objectives.

Why did you choose agroecology as an approach?

We want to promote sustainable crop cultivation as a means for social transformation and to generate conditions for ‘living well’. Agroecology has the advantage of using accessible technology while reducing the dependence on external inputs. Farmers learn to produce their own inputs and they manage the entire production process themselves.

How big is the programme?

There are currently 1500 farmers who produce food for their own families and another 250 who also sell their surplus produce. And there are various types of urban farming in Rosario. Some are in families’ own gardens, or in schools, or public parks, as well as on 24 hectares of ‘unused land’. This land that is owned by the national government, the municipality or the railway company, is divided into plots of between 600 m2 and 2000 m2 and free and secure tenure is assigned to interested families.

Where is the produce sold and to whom?

Rosario’s urban farmers produce the only widely available agroecological fruit and vegetables in the city. This food can be bought from the farms themselves, at farmers’ ‘agrochemical free’ markets, through vegetable box schemes or eaten when dining out, as some urban farmers also sell their vegetables to restaurants.

The market for the programme’s produce is expanding rapidly, and it has transformed from a niche market into a ‘mass’ market. Much effort has been made to ensure that the most vulnerable can produce or afford to buy seasonal fruit and vegetables. For example, families from the same neighbourhood can join ‘exchange clubs’.

How did the programme establish producer–consumer relations?

We value all knowledge and wisdom embedded in farming practices

During its 13 years, the programme has built a trusting relationship between the state, urban farmers and consumers. The Network of Gardeners of Rosario has been very active. And, a consumer network the Green Life Network, organises farm visits, guarantees the purchase of vegetables before harvest, and many members participate actively in monthly ‘healthy lunches’, a farmer-inspired idea.

Is this only an urban experience or are rural farmers involved?

We are actively involved in the National Forum for Family Farming which helped to create the national Secretariat for Family Farming in July 2014. The positive experience in Rosario was one of the reasons that small scale urban farmers became recognised by this new institution. This is important, as it enables them to be registered with the National Register of Family Farmers, which then gives rights to beneficial tax and pension schemes.

We work with farmers in Rosario’s peri-urban zone but also those in the rural areas beyond, and with several associations and agroecology technicians. Through CEPAR, we are also linked to organic farmer networks in Argentina and with the Latin American Movement of Agroecology (MAELA). For the past few years, a movement promoting agrochemical-free rings around the towns in the highlands where Rosario is situated has become more active, with our programme being a focal point.

Amongst the participants, those with a rural farming background have been able to share and promote their agroecolical knowledge, particularly that related to soil improvement and pest management.

Photo: Silvio Moriconi

How are women and youth involved?

Through workshops and other activities, we build awareness about the need to change the asymmetric power relations between men and women. Women lead the network and make up 65% of all involved. They participate in all activities, in gardening, processing, management, and take a leading role in commercialisation in local markets.

We believe farmers and gardeners should be at the highest level of the social hierarchy, because without food, there is nothing. However our society still does not adequately appreciate farmers’ work. We make an effort to improve the image of farmers and gardeners as caretakers of the environment. This helps to make urban farming more attractive to our youth.

Young people are increasingly active within the programme, and today, about 140 are training to become urban farmers. Some are members of cooperatives which offer ecological gardening services. Another youth group provides courses in vegetable gardening, while others train school children in the city centre. This latter work is particularly important because it encourages interactions between young people from the poorest neighbourhoods and those from the wealthier city centre.

What about training, and links to schools and universities?

Photo: Rosario Urban Agriculture Team

Training and long-term capacity building are at the core of our work. Learning starts in the field, and is complemented with workshops, encounters, exchanges, excursions, seminars and congresses. We value all knowledge and the associated wisdom embedded in farming practices.

We have created a mobile school that focuses on ecological crop production practices. The first 18 people have received their certificates and later this year a second group will follow. The certificate opens opportunities for them to work as specialists in ecological farming.

The programme is embedded in 40 schools that have vegetable gardens to promote healthy food and care for the environment. We also undertake many activities with different faculties at the University of Rosario, including the Faculties of Agrarian Sciences, Architecture, Medicine and Civil Engineering.

How do you share your experience?

Our pioneering experience has inspired other urban agriculture initiatives across Argentina, in Morón, Mar del Plata, Rio Cuarto, Corrientes, Tucumán and Santiago de Estero. And we have also inspired other Latin American cities that are now implementing urban agriculture initiatives, including Lima in Peru, Belo Horizonte and Guarulhos in Brazil, and Bogotá in Colombia.

Political decision makers, technicians and professionals from other cities have visited us to learn and adapt our experiences to their situations. Many come during our annual Week of Urban Agriculture called RAICES (Roots: Networks, Food, Inclusion, Culture, Ecology, Solidarity) that we have organised for the past 12 years. Our farmers and team members also actively participate in other events.

What makes the programme so relevant?

Although we work primarily on urban farming, our programme is strongly focused on social issues such as territorial approaches, agroecology, social inclusion and environmental protection. The programme has built bridges between the rural and the urban, between the public and private sectors, and between farmers, consumers and civil society as a whole. And in particular, we have helped to transform the image of farmers into a positive one, and farmers are now appreciated in Rosario as caretakers of the earth and our landscapes. And perhaps most importantly, the youth, the farmers of the future, have been infected with enthusiasm for agroecology as an innovative occupation.

For more information visit www.agriurbanarosario.com.ar or twitter.com/AgriUrbanaRosar

Interview: Teresa Gianella-Estrems and Teobaldo Pinzás

The post Urban agroecology – a tool for social transformation appeared first on Ileia.

The Vilela have been breeding livestock and farming in the semi-arid Chaco region of Argentina for centuries. Ever since she was a young girl, Deo Sumaj has been involved in defending her people’s resources and land, a struggle which her family have been involved in for four generations.

Ms Sumaj is the Secretary of the National Indigenous Peasant Movement, and she also keeps goats and produces honey with other members of her community.

What is happening to family farmers in your region?

The global crisis is pushing more and more men and women into extreme poverty. Where I live, we are witnessing it in our daily lives. The Chaco is a fragile ecosystem in which 40% of the land is being desertified and becoming saline due to wind and water erosion. Land grabs and destructive investments by large companies, especially large soy monoculture plantations, contribute to climate change and decimate peasants, fisherfolk, indigenous peoples and pastoralists. Big business has an extremely harmful impact on peasant territories, while making excessive profits. It is not only agribusinesses that are the cause of so much misery, but also extractive industries, real estate speculation and drug trade, all of which affect people in many places – from rural villages to the outskirts of cities such as Buenos Aires.

As a remedy, MOCASE-VC promotes and practices sustainable agriculture and agro-ecological systems. Our organisation is building another model of food production, based on a different logic, another paradigm which we call food sovereignty. We produce food to meet the needs of local communities, while protecting our common heritage: our land, biodiversity, water, native seeds, culture and local history. In our view, food sovereignty is not just an issue for those who work on the land. It is also a fight for everyone who consumes, who eats.

How do you build this new model?

MOCASE -VC has started collective production companies, where decisions on work contracts are taken collectively. We have candy factories, a goat milk cheese factory that runs on solar power, and several community butcher shops which are managed and do their distribution and pricing in a completely different way from conventional butchers. These are examples of ways we try to build a just relationship between rural and urban producers and workers. They create employment, contribute to rural development and give consumers and producers an opportunity to relate directly with each other.

We have been able to develop and implement these strategies by ourselves, but this does not mean that we should not be involved in lobbying the government. Today more than ever, agricultural policies are needed that can improve the skills and resources of peasant organisations, training and empowering indigenous family farmers, men, women and the youth. Policies should stimulate a return to the rural areas and production systems around diversified food instead of commodities.

How did MOCASE-VC start?

At the end of the 1990s, we started to organise ourselves to halt the agribusiness-driven evictions of farming families from their land. Through our indigenous peasant family unions, we defended our land and ancestral territories. We gained strength and built solidarity, which is the basis of our movement today.

In 1999 we organised a historic congress “Peasants united in the fight for land and justice”. Since then we have taken on board other issues apart from land grabbing. These now cover health, education, production, marketing and communication. We have formed teams around these topics composed of delegates from the various provincial departments. In territories where there was conflict over access to land, we offered possible solutions led by the farmers in those areas.

We realised that it was difficult to organise the native peoples within this province. They were chased from their land many years ago by the timber industry, which led to a loss of cultural identity. In the 1940s, the timber industry withdrew from the province. The families who had worked for these companies, clearing the forests with axes, were left without work and had to survive with nature as their only sustenance.

Even though today their land and production have recovered, the struggle goes on. We are now facing threats and attacks of large companies grabbing peasant land, especially for genetically modified soy.

What role does power play in this struggle?

Fundamentally, this fight is unequal. In Argentina, the political and judicial authorities protect the companies more than farmers, who are sometimes criminalised and pursued. Tragically, some members of MOCASE-VC have been murdered by assassins hired by the land grabbing companies, including Cristian Ferreyra (age 23) in November 2011 and Miguel Galvan (age 39) in October 2012. But we have also had some victories. Our protests have managed to halt various planned evictions of peasants from their lands.

There is a large degree of elitism in Argentina – which often translates into racism against indigenous people. This elitism is present in the traditional institutions such as the judiciary and in the opaque notary and land registration systems across the country. It also has to do with feudal characteristics that can still be found in some local authorities in the interior of Argentina.

What are your strategies?

Our strategies aim to strengthen our production systems, to rescue and revive ancient knowledge, and to allow the participation of grassroots organisations and peasant families in decision making.

We have also developed a communication strategy. This was much needed, because the communications system of the Chaco region was completely under the control of the former governor and his family. To break the media monopoly, we have been working with our allies since 2000 to build our own radio network. We have trained indigenous farmer communicators who today are part of six FM radio stations located in different departments of the province.

Another important part of our work is to give political and technical training to indigenous peasant youth. Our agro-ecological schools enable young people to contextualise and practice agro-ecology in the communities. Since 2007 we have been establishing these schools in various municipalities. They have become a permanent training base for young activists – both men and women. Through their studies these young people start to take on responsibility for addressing the inequalities that exist within their localities and establishing links with urban areas. To date around 800 youth have participated in these agro-ecology schoolsand another 11,750 took part in our summer youth camps.

Our largest school is a university: the Peasant University UNICAM SURI (Indo-Peasant Rural University System). It brings together hundreds of peasants and urban workers around four educational tracks: Agroecology and rural development, Human rights and planning, Music and popular culture, and Popular media. UNICAM SURI is recognised and supported by the National Universities of La Plata and Quilmes, the Ministry of Agriculture and many other organisations.

Basically, we view this as a kind of alternative development project that is socially and environmentally sustainable. It keeps our collective food production systems alive, and safeguards their diversity and accessibility.

What do you propose for the IYFF?

The challenge of the International Year is to recognise, value and strengthen the role of indigenous peasant family farming, not only in food production but also as a political and economic force in our societies. Humanity is in crisis; we are experiencing climate change, hunger, energy crisis, unemployment, urban migration, pollution and degradation of natural resources. Many of these problems result from the exploitation of natural resources by capitalist agriculture. Peasant family farming could provide many answers to these issues.

The 2014 International Year of Family Farming should be a wake up call to nation states. They need to start to support, promote and encourage the development of farming systems that have been able to feed the world for centuries. Our national, regional and international peasant organisations will continue to mobilise and act in defence of life and the rights of Mother Earth, in pursuit of the good life of today and of our future generations.

Interview: Teresa Gianella

Deo Sumaj is one of the jury members in the international family farming photo competition.

The post “We are a political and economic force” appeared first on Ileia.

Awa Faly Ba: “We need better bridges”

Every analysis of what happened in Rio needs to look back at the expectations we all had. We wanted political decisions to be taken, and clear commitments from world leaders, so it has been a disappointment that this did not happen – especially when compared to the first Rio meeting and to the enormous challenges we see now, 20 years later. But the representatives of many organisations were able to present and share the solutions they advocate, and which they are trying out in their own sphere of influence, at the People’s Summit and elsewhere. This can be seen as a very positive result.

According to Awa Faly Ba, editor of AGRIDAPE, Rio showed the gap between the civil society and decision-makers, and the different expectations of the two groups. “What we need to do is develop better bridges between those who are trying interesting initiatives in the field and the authorities and decision- makers, and thus link both processes.” This is not something that can be achieved in a one-off event, but is a long-term process which will help us influence policy processes at the local level.

Better bridges can help those representing farmers and consumers to voice the opinions and needs of these farmers or consumers, and also help them provide feedback. “Those who went to Rio cannot just go back to their job. There is an urgent need to provide feedback, and to involve everybody in the preparations for future meetings. We need better bridges, but that is something that all stakeholders need to build together.”

KVS Prasad: “Our job starts now”

Many analysts have concluded that Rio+20 gave them a “more-of-the-same” feeling, of “business as usual” once again, or that this was just another platform for governments or international organisations to continue pursuing their own agenda. But many other voices were also heard during the conference, and the concerns of the readers of this magazine were also discussed. It has been very encouraging to hear these different voices, and especially “to see that they are so many”, said KVS Prasad, Executive Director of the AME Foundation.

He finds it comforting to think of the large number of voices and opinions heard in favour of family farming and agro-ecology. “The Rio+20 conference gave us a great opportunity to see how strong we are, and how strong we can be”. What we need to do now is to look at the all the contacts made, and to further develop them into ‘relationships’ so that we move forward. “We cannot expect to see outcomes and outputs immediately, but we can nurture these relationships, developing something like a ‘real life Facebook’ that will not only let us keep in touch, but actually help us work together towards our common and shared goal. In this sense, our job starts now.”

Teresa Gianella: “Translate, and continue”

Good or insufficient, the results of Rio+20 run the risk of getting lost if they are not “translated”, or at least analysed with a local level perspective. Teresa Gianella, editor of LEISA revista de agroecología, thinks that this is especially necessary in Peru and in Latin America in general, where social differences are huge, and where “one-size-fits-all” approaches are particularly difficult. There is an urgent need to look at how the discussions and agreements reached, or at how the issues raised in Rio, relate to the growing inequalities that go hand in hand with the impressive figures of economic growth.

“What we need to do is to translate what we’ve talked about and heard, looking at the macro and at the micro contexts: at the initiatives that are being tried at a national level, but also at what’s happening in, for example, a village that is resisting the expansion of large-scale mining enterprise.” This translation is necessary to turn general proposals into concrete action plans.

Equally important is the need to look in more detail at agriculture, at the problems that small-scale farmers are facing, and at the enormous contributions they can make.“Rio+20 needs to be linked to the International Year of Family Farming”. While it may not be necessary to organise a large-scale world conference again, we may need “to follow its example”, and encourage a large scale exchange of opinions and discussions that are based on what is happening, and on what needs to happen, at a local level.

The post Globally connected: Rio+20 – what now? appeared first on Ileia.

T.M. Radha: “A gradual process”

With a population of over a billion and persistent poverty levels, government efforts in India are focusing mainly on the eradication of poverty and growth.

However, as India is already facing the impacts of climate change, more prominently on the livelihoods and health of the people, the efforts towards “greening” the economy are gaining significance.

Water conservation, renewable energy, converting waste into energy and protecting land from degradation are some of the priority areas. In countries like India, with a huge population, any investment is expected to generate local employment.

Heavy investments are being made in the name of a “green economy”, especially in the private sector. Yet, many fear that those “greening” the economy may end up controlling it completely, leaving local people clueless and unable to access the benefits.

But India has another side too. For thousands of years it has been a land of recycling and resource conservation. Nothing is wasted, everything is re-used or recycled. Traditional Indian agriculture is the best example of this principle. Living simply is also part of the culture, even if this has been seriously affected by exposure to western cultures and domestic commercial interests. So most efforts only require “going back” to traditional cultures and practices.

According to T.M. Radha,  “a ‘green economy’ driven by a prescriptive global development model may not be viable for a country like India. We can only be green if we follow our own development priorities. In developing countries like ours, the transition to a ‘green economy’ is essentially a gradual and a time consuming process.”

Anthony Mugo: “It needs to make economic sense to ordinary Kenyans”

Talk of a “green economy” is popular within the private and public sectors in Kenya – even though the resources to raise public awareness are scarce. Anthony Mugo, deputy director at ALIN, says that Kenya needs to “engage developed countries to put in the resources needed so that poorer countries can develop along the low carbon path.”

But, it is even more important to recognise that a truly “green economy” can only be viable if the public is conscious of what it means. “Discussions on ‘greening the economy’ should focus on ‘green’ options that make economic sense to the ordinary Kenyans.”

The private sector in Kenya is promoting environmentally friendly practices; many non-state actors are promoting the adoption of alternative energy sources, and the government has taken steps to monitor the environment. Since climate change is already having a negative impact on Kenya’s economic sectors (such as agriculture, or wildlife and tourism), the government is calling for a sustained national effort to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.

The Ministry of Environment and Mineral Resources is also developing an action plan for implementing the National Climate Change Response Strategy (NCCRS). According to the NCCRS, the adoption of low-carbon production practices is necessary to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and combat climate change.

These practices, in the same way as the carbon market, can increase incomes and help mitigate climate change. However, some government intervention is needed to help citizens understand and take advantage of them.

Teresa Gianella: “Our large social differences need first to be reduced”

In Peru today, large capital investments in extractive industries (such as mining) are the main reason behind the pollution of soils and water, and therefore behind the conflicts and social unrest seen in some parts of the country.

In the Andes, there is still a very high prevalence of poverty in rural areas; it is in these areas where the impacts of these industries are the most controversial. On the one hand, they are not “green” enough; on the other, they provide the financial resources needed for infrastructure and social services. Defining and adopting clear standards can be one way to avoid conflict. Yet, the concept of a “green economy” should not only be applied to largescale enterprises.

Teresa Gianella, editor of LEISA revista de agroecología, thinks that “greening” the economy should also consider smallscale agriculture and the less privileged sectors of society: “Peru’s large social differences need first to be reduced”. A “green economy” approach should build on the agro-ecological approach to producing food, respecting the rights of peasants and indigenous communities to land and territory, as well as to water and other natural resources.

Two newly created ministries (for Environment and Social Inclusion) give some hope for the future, as do the current debates concerning the country’s economic development and rural people’s rights to natural resources.

A necessary first step is to establish a communication strategy aimed at increasing awareness among rural and urban consumers, as well as policy makers, of the importance and potential of an alternative model.

The post Globally connected: What is a “green economy”? appeared first on Ileia.