Agroecology is ever more present in our food and farming system. In recent years, this approach to farming and food has gained visibility and recognition among food producers, scientists, citizens and policy makers alike. It is heartening that farmers increasingly take up agroecological practices, while both social movements and multilateral institutions such as the FAO develop policies on agroecology. However, the transition to a fundamentally different food system still has a long way to go.

It cannot be stressed enough that the way our food system is currently organised is incompatible with principles of equity, peace, biodiversity conservation and economic and environmental sustainability. Perverse subsidies supporting input intensive production systems and production chains that benefit a few agro-input providers and retailers, in the context of an urgent need to address climate change, biodiversity loss and malnutrition, point to the need for radical change. Here lies the potential of agroecology as a food system that can contribute to solutions for many of these challenges. But, while many successful agroecological examples exist, it is generally not yet regarded as the most effective food system. This tension is partly explained by the way society looks at impact. The multifaceted benefits of agroecology cannot be measured through the traditional ‘productivist’ lens.

Looking at progress

Understanding the impact of agroecology requires that we assess ‘progress’ through a different lens. In simple terms, starting from the notion that yield per hectare of one single crop is not the be all and end all measure of progress. New ways of measuring impact can highlight two important elements of our food systems. First, to show what is wrong with dominant ways of producing and distributing food. As Patrick Holden argues in his article on the ‘true cost of food’: if the environmental damage and the social costs of our current food system were actually accounted for, food in many places would not be so cheap. Second, to make explicit the various benefits from alternative systems such as agroecology. The impact of agroecology at any level, whether in the field, farm, community or across a nation or continent, is more adequately assessed in terms that reflect people’s well-being in all facets of life, including environmental sustainability. It requires a departure from oversimplified ratios that consider farming to be nothing more than conversion of material inputs (e.g. fertilizers, hectares) into commodities (e.g. yields). Our intention is not to downplay the importance of yield, but to place it in the context of many other, equally important, economic, social and environmental indicators. Shiney Varghese illustrates that this approach can provide decision makers with sufficient information to allocate resources in ways that generate the greatest positive impacts.

Monitoring change and impact

In many instances, ‘new’ ways of measuring impact of agroecology are not actually new. We can learn a lot from farmers who have been monitoring change and the impact of their decisions since time immemorial. The stories and perspectives in this issue are therefore grounded with farmer’s responses to the question, “how do you assess the impact of agroecology?” Their answers serve as a reminder of the richness in diversity of worldviews and that there is no one way to practice, let alone measure, the impact of agroecology.

Similarly, Jan Douwe van der Ploeg explains how peasants constantly ‘read’ their own and others’ farms to improve their on-farm natural and social resources. His call to recognise and learn from peasant’s ways of measuring impact is echoed in an interview with Clara Nicholls who calls for researchers assessing impact to work in a participatory way with farmers. Moreover, urban farmers in the city of Kaduna, Nigeria refer to indicators such as the increase in reliability and spread of income, their ability to send their children to school and consuming a greater variety of fruits and vegetables.

Further, agroecology transcends the farm, and for example, includes the development of new markets. This is a reminder of the challenge of measuring impact: capturing multiple dimensions such as farm resource use, health and citizens’ ability to choose and shape the way food is produced and; assessing impact holistically and at different levels such as fields, farms, communities, markets and regions. A story from Bolivia provides an example of measuring the impact of short production chains, taking into account farmers and consumers’ level of satisfaction as well as the access, availability, utilisation and stability dimensions of food security. Likewise, an experience in Burkina Faso shows how a holistic impact assessment can reveal nuances, such as equal distribution of benefits, that may otherwise go unnoticed.

Finally, even if there is more than enough captivating evidence that agroecology works, the power and influence vested in keeping the current food system in place should not be underestimated. For this reason, the ‘movement’ dimension of agroecology is especially relevant. Engaging in socio-political processes is paramount – of course armed with plenty of evidence and an appropriate lens through which to observe and value change.

Indicators for agroecology
 
Some things simply can’t be measured, nor is it feasible or practical to measure everything. Yet, in order to appreciate impact it is often useful and practical to use a repeatable measurement or observation. This is where indicators come in handy. Indicators, both quantitative and qualitative, can be seen as proxies for things that we cannot directly measure and also serve different purposes for different users. For example, in assessing soil quality, a researcher may consider soil organic matter a useful indicator while a farmer may prefer to assess soil quality with its colour, smell or feel. Factors such as the speed and ease of measurement, the level and time-frame of assessment and the sensitivity of the indicator are all considered when selecting indicators.

The post Editorial: Proving the potential of agroecology appeared first on Ileia.

There are no recipes in agroecology. Instead, its manual is in the heart and minds of those who practice it, which is evident in their interactions with the environment and other people. Harmony with nature and nutrition takes precedence over profits. This anchors our culture, shapes our identity and sets the parameters for our transformation as a society.

Personally agroecology has enabled me to learn from other women and to promote and create awareness about women’s issues. Through agroecology, women have contributed to shaping a society and healthy communities based on justice and solidarity. This society is able to withstand and adapt to an ever changing environment – socially, politically and economically.

Finding indicators to measure these impacts is not easy, especially during this era concerned with statistics, costs and profits. Most assessments of agroecology focus on ecological benefits such as no use of chemical fertilizers and diversification, but very little attention is given to gender aspects. Such a bias hides the impact agroecology has as an instigator of social change and as a result, such changes are attributed to other causes such as policy shifts. How then to duly attribute important social change to agroecology?

Social integration and cohesion provide a foundation for society to tackle various issues, including gender inequality. Learning and sharing, at the core of agroecology, provides women with the space to meet regularly and mobilise for various issues including equality. Cohesion is strengthened through, for example, horizontal learning exchanges and by keeping cultural and religious practices alive with rituals and ceremonies. This creates social conditions that erode patriarchal barriers: women are mobilised and the silos of patriarchy that kept women within the homestead and crop fields are less now. This has changed the mindsets of policy makers, traditional leaders and men in the home. The evidence – seen in Africa, Latin America and Asia – is improvements in women’s rights. These include access to and control over land, inheritance, and active roles in decision making by women.

No conventional accounting can capture the real profits from agroecology. But besides the fact that a billion rural farmers feed about 60 % of the world with diverse and nutritious crops, we do know that agroecology is changing the lives of women farmers and their communities. Through this lens, industrial agriculture, with its collateral damage to soil biology, the atmosphere and to social cohesion, cannot be justified.

Elizabeth Mpofu (eliz.mpofu@gmail.com) is the General Coordinator of La Via Campesina and the chairperson of the Zimbabwe Organic Smallholder Farmers Forum (ZIMSOFF). She is Farming Matters’ regular columnist for 2016.

The post Opinion: Agroecology for gender equality appeared first on Ileia.

Agro-chemical and fossil fuel intensive agricultural food systems not only destroy the environment but also ignore both the health implications (of the crops/food produced), and the socio-economic implications (for the people engaged in producing that food). Agroecological approaches, in contrast, see food production as one, albeit crucial, component in the larger web of life. They draw on science, but are built on the firm foundations of traditional knowledge; and they seek to enhance ecological integrity while attempting to address food sovereignty concerns. While industrial farming operations are dependent on outside (and often fossil fuel-based) inputs like herbicides, synthetic fertilizers, antibiotics and genetically modified crops, local food and farming systems minimise off-farm inputs by rotating crops, integrating livestock production, and following agroecological practices. For those who see ecological approaches as necessary for achieving the food, water, health, poverty and environmental targets of the post 2015 agenda, agroecology with its emphasis on local, shared knowledge is not only central to maintaining ecosystem integrity, and revitalising rural economies but also to realising the food sovereignty of those involved in food production and consumption.

There is relatively little data to show how agroecological farming systems positively impact the environment, farm economics, public health and the food sovereignty of the community at large

Meeting global challenges

Many readers are likely well familiar with the three fundamental aspects of agroecology – a scientific discipline, a practice, and a movement. While it has long been known as a scientific discipline, agroecology as a practice and a movement has come of age at a time when there is growing support around the world for changing agricultural practices in response to natural resource depletion and climate change.

Agroecological approaches are developed in the context of an increasing support for less chemical-intensive, more resource use efficient, ecological approaches to agriculture – especially systems that produce healthy food for local markets while also ensuring fair wages and safe working conditions to agricultural workers. This approach is supported not only by farmers and workers engaged in farming, but also by parents interested in healthy food choices for their children, by food workers and chefs interested in supplying healthy food alternatives to consumers, and by local governments interested in rebuilding local economies. Such agricultural-food systems have the potential to provide a whole host of benefits – from environmental to social to health to local economy.

Agroecological transition

We started with principles of agroecology and food sovereignty and for each principle listed corresponding practices and indicators. Photo: Silvia Quarta

However, in most agricultural research and policy circles, these benefits are not assessed or valued adequately in a holistic manner. Most agricultural research supports the industrial farming systems, with an almost exclusive focus on crop productivity and cash income. But there are two problems with this primary focus on industrial agriculture.First, it puts any other methods of farming at a distinct disadvantage, since there is relatively little data to show how agroecological farming systems positively impact the environment, farm economics, public health and the food sovereignty of the community at large. As a result, whole systems of food and farming get excluded from research and policy support. Second, policy recommendations stemming from current mainstream research often propose single vector solutions (which in fact may exacerbate the crisis on another vector) to the complex set of ills resulting from industrial food and farming systems. For example, faced with the problem of low productivity associated with resource depletion, researchers working on industrial farming systems may propose modifying seeds with in-built traits such as improved water resource use efficiency or drought resistance. However, there is little examination as to whether such seeds are in conflict with either ecological, or socioeconomic interests of the communities that grow, harvest and/or consume the crops, or whether adoption of these seeds will support the food sovereignty of communities concerned.

To truly measure the value and sustainability of agroecological approaches to local food and farming systems, we need indicators that are multidimensional and cross-disciplinary, and that fully capture the range of outcomes contributing to the success — economic, environmental, socio-political — of the system. This recognition led us at the IATP to develop a set of indicators that would help identify the markers of agroecological practices. In developing those indicators, the report, Scaling up Agroecology (2013), not only looked at the interconnections between agroecology and food sovereignty, but also at policies and practices needed to make agroecological approaches central to food and farming systems.

From principles to policy

We wanted to situate the scaling up of agroecology very firmly in the context of food sovereignty. Thus we drew up seven principles – five principles informed by an ecosystem-based approach shared by all strands of agroecologists; and two principles recognising the pivotal role of small scale producers and workers in ensuring their food sovereignty both in terms of their tremendous agroecosystem knowledge base and also in terms of the democratic control of local institutions.We started with the principles of agroecology and food sovereignty, and for each of those principles we listed a set of practices. Corresponding to each particular practice, we developed some indicators of success – ecological as well as socioeconomic – to help policy makers understand what makes a particular practice agroecological: it is not simply about ecological benefit, but also about addressing the questions raised by political ecologists and their critique of modern agricultural systems. Against each of the principles and corresponding practices, we went on to identify policy support needed to promote wider adoption of those practices. In developing these indicators, feedback from our partner organisations and from many individuals was crucial. A matrix of principles, practices, assessable indicators and policy support is found in Appendix 1 of the report.

Indicators of success

It is not simply about ecological benefit, but also about addressing the questions raised by political ecologists and their critique of modern agricultural systems

For example, let us take one of the five agroecological principles: ‘Agroecological practices enhance beneficial biological interactions and synergisms among agrobiodiversity components thus resulting in the promotion of key ecological processes and functions.’ We identified two practices (from amongst many) that could help contribute to promoting key ecological processes and functions: having democratically controlled, local renewable energy programs and water resource development that respects ecological limits; and having crop diversification programmes that integrate crops, vegetables, livestock, trees and fish in the ecosystem.

Next we identified how such practices can contribute, on the one hand, to ecosystems, and on the other hand, to socioeconomic benefits to the community. In this case these practices could help global efforts in: biodiversity conservation; water conservation; climate mitigation and adaptation. In this instance the increased ecological functions could be measured in terms of water quality improvement of runoff; increased plant biodiversity; increased soil microbial diversity. At the same time, the synergies among economic, ecological and climate adaptation benefits (especially stability in terms of assured farm outputs from unit of land by integrating trees, crops, vegetables, livestock and fish in the agroecosystem) could help contribute to enhancing socioeconomic conditions of the community.

Agroecological versus top-down approaches
 
Not only farmers faced with environmental challenges, but also national and international agricultural research and policy establishments concerned with food security, have been concerned with natural resources (soil, water, biodiversity) related challenges. Initiatives such as Sustainable Intensification and Climate Smart Agriculture proposed by technocrats, and supported by international actors including philanthropy capitalists and state and international agencies, are top-down responses to climate related challenges to food security. Climate Smart Agriculture is advanced by UN agencies such as FAO in intergovernmental spaces such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Moreover, for example, the Global Alliance on Climate Smart Agriculture includes stakeholders such as Yara and Haifa Chemicals Ltd – agribusiness corporations selling fertilizers. While initiatives such as Sustainable Intensification and Climate Smart Agriculture may at times also include sustainable practices, these are fundamentally different from agroecological approaches. This is because the latter’s roots lie in a political and economic critique of modern agricultural systems, a holistic ecosystem analysis as well as being founded on a sound local knowledge base.

The next step was to identify the supportive policy environment to promote these practices. For these practices to be adopted widely by communities, it is necessary that agricultural, water and energy policies prioritise the use of natural resources (such as land and water) for food production, local energy security and local water security.

Rooted in food sovereignty

Similarly, corresponding to the two principles recognising the pivotal role of small scale producers, we listed sets of practices, a set of ecological indicators and socio economic indicators, and finally the policy support needed for scaling up those practices around the world.

To take another example, we start with the principle that ‘agroecological movements enhance abilities of small scale producers and workers to self-organise, retain, reproduce and redefine cultural practices to pursue sustainable and gender-sensitive livelihood strategies; and effectively influence social and policy processes as well as governmental decisions’.

A corresponding practice would be mutual support among farmers and their communities to establish locally controlled democratic institutions, including cooperatives that have a mission and vision to promote key ecological processes and functions.

Here too, we identified indicators to assess how such efforts by agroecological movements can contribute to on the one hand to ecosystem sustainability and on the other hand to socioeconomic benefits to the community. Practices such as developing local democratic institutions with clear commitment to ecological sustainability can ensure not only that livelihood strategies at community level are ecologically sustainable, but also contribute to the empowerment of local communities, increased economic viability of traditional livelihood practices, revitalised rural and agrarian economies. Once again for such practices to spread widely, it is necessary, though not sufficient, to have pro-democratisation policies that recognise women’s central roles in agricultural and food systems, revitalise rural economies, minority cultures as well as marginalised livelihood practices.

Together, these agroecology policy options can achieve a number of interlinked goals that are part of any sustainable development agenda, including, but not limited to: climate adaptation for agriculture, stability of farm outputs, community access to micronutrient rich food and local food security while ensuring long term ecosystem sustainability. The important role of the corresponding indicators is that they can be used to track change and show whether we are heading towards the vision of agroecology firmly rooted in food sovereignty.

Shiney Varghese (svarghese@iatp.org) is a senior policy analyst for water, agroecology and global governance at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy.

The post Perspectives: Indicators as a tool for changing policy and practice appeared first on Ileia.

“Agroecology produces food for all life forms”

Ablacé Campaoré, peasant and activist in Burkina Faso

“I was born a peasant. I grew up in the countryside and I have never stopped farming. Now I am also part of a peasant organisation.

When you look at the way agroecology is lived in Burkina you can easily see the extent of its impact. There is life in the soil, you feel how plants cohabitate with microorganisms, and you see the work of man.

On an agroecological farm, you may notice that vegetables are sometimes slightly damaged by bugs. These crops are not completely destroyed or wasted, they are still eaten. Insects do not carry their own tools to grow their own food. This is the way life is. Agroecology produces food for and nurtures other life forms as well.

You may ask if this is really agroecology? In agroecology you can feed livestock from your crops, or you plant companion crops that produce smells and flavours that minimise damage by insects. That is a real cohabitation, working together and not against nature.”

Interview: Georges Félix and Diana Quiroz

“Farmers and agronomists increasingly support agroecology”

Saad Younis Dagher, farmer and extensionist in Palestine

“I am a farmer, an agronomist, and I also volunteer for the Arab Agronomists Association, providing technical support to farmers transitioning to agroecology.

I know that I have arrived at an agroecological farm when I look at the diversity of plants. If there is diversity of vegetables and fruit trees and these are mixed together I know they practice agroecology. I also look at the soil. If the soil is rich in organic matter and if I see compost I recognise that I am in an agroecological farm. Also, I look at the weeds. If the weeds are dead, and the crops alive, it means that herbicides are being used. The same goes for insects. If I find dead insects, then it is likely that the farmer uses pesticides and insecticides.

I think we can first measure the impact of agroecology by looking at the increasing number of farmers and agronomists who practice and support agroecology. A second indicator of impact is the reduced use of chemicals by farmers and also the increased use of local seeds. These are some of the indicators by which we can measure the impact of agroecology.”

Interview: Georges Félix

“Agroecology promotes integration”

Abel Morales, farmer and agroecological coordinator in Cuba

“I am a farmer and I also coordinate the agroecological movement of the National Association of Small Farmers (ANAP) in a municipality of Camagüey, a province of Central Cuba.

In order to measure its impact, we first need to take into account the objectives of agroecology. These are: to obtain healthy products through clean processes and in harmony with the environment and all the elements of our natural surroundings. Taking these fundamental objectives into account, I would say the impact of agroecology is very positive.

Socially, agroecology promotes integration through family and community farming. In terms of production, sustainability is achieved through high biodiversity and holistic farming. The economic impact of agroecology is also great because farmers don͛t need to invest in external inputs or off-farm technologies. Where there are good agroecological practices, you see a productive system that is organic and fully functional. It is a system where all the factors of a farm are interpolated.

A close look at plant-soil-animal interactions in an agroecological farm shows how these are fully integrated. Plants speak for themselves when agroecology is practiced. If you visit an agroecological maize field, you notice the many and different insects. These are biological control agents, you know!”

Interview: Georges Félix and Diana Quiroz

“Agroecology has changed our lives for the better”

Bu Siyami, rice farmer in Indonesia

“As a farmers’ daughter, I have always been engaged in farming activities. In 2004 I got married and moved to another city.

There, my husband and I bought a pair of buffaloes and 0.1 ha of paddy field. In 2007 we joined a Farmer Field School organised by a local NGO to train farmers in organic rice production and the System of Rice Intensification.

After switching to organic, our quality of life improved. We increased the size of our paddy field and now own 0.25 ha and rent another 0.25 ha. We could also fix our house and buy more buffaloes. We now have five of them and sell at least one every year.

I no longer need to buy pesticides or chemical fertilizers because we grow insect repelling plants and use buffalo manure on the fields. Many beneficial animals that protect our crops from pests live in our fields and our farm is less prone to infestations from pests. Our soil is also more fertile than our neighbours’.

Agroecology has changed our lives for the better. We do not depend on external inputs anymore. We do not produce waste either because we do not burn rice straw; instead we feed it to our buffaloes and their manure is recycled as biogas and natural fertilizer.”

Interview: Uma Khumairoh and Georges Félix

“Our dinner table conversations revolve around farming”

Anya van der Hoff, farmer in France

“We live for organic farming. Our grandparents and parents were peasants and our son is already contemplating his future as an agroecological farmer. The ultimate indicator of success is whether we can sustain our farm and way of life for generations to come. Thus the dinner table conversations in our family revolve around farming, particularly how to improve the way we manage our farm. Another important way of seeing how well we are farming also relates to the dinner table. The food that an agroecological farming family eats is very telling. We grow what we like to eat and our food is fresh, diverse and seasonal.

When I visit other peoples’farms I listen to the way they talk about farming. And I immediately search for diversity. Which varieties of crops are being used? How many? What other plants and ‘weeds’ are present? Are there natural areas or hedges providing habitats for birds, insects and other animals?”

Interview: Georges Félix

“Eating well, healthy and locally”

Sandra Pagalo, peasant and technical staff for the indigenous women’s organisation Kamachw, Chimborazo, Ecuador

“Today we witness that people are no longer taking care of the Earth’s natural resources. We use too many chemicals, farmers face major debts, we lose our seeds and our food sovereignty, we are sick and malnourished, and people are leaving rural areas.

In response, many of us are creating change. As peasants, we work with nature instead of with chemicals. Consumers also want to eat well – they tell us this when we meet them in our agroecological markets. We are also trying to add value to our products. This allows us to make a little more money, and at the same time create new and healthy products that are attractive to consumers. It is also a way to promote and rescue our traditional crops such as Andean maize varieties. Contrary to so called improved maize, our traditional maize has survived in the Andean mountains for thousands of years.

Agroecology leads to food sovereignty, stronger farmer organisations, a vibrant local economy and protection of the environment. It is synonymous with a life ‘in full’, in which humans and nature interact, agrobiodiversity is enhanced and we can live well, which is what we call Buen Vivir. With agroecology, we see that we have better health and nutrition and also better prices for our products. So agroecology is environmentally, socially and economically viable. In the end, what is life worth- the life of Mother Earth, the producer, the consumer?”

Adapted transcript by Janneke Bruil from a presentation at the ‘Agroecological Journeys’ at the Polytechnical School of Chimborazo in Riobamba, Ecuador (July 2016).

“Converting to agroecology has brought me many benefits”

Madame Togolá, peasant in Mali

“I am a peasant and a member of a rural women’s convergence in Mali. I own a piece of land that allows me to produce for my family and to sell at the market. I didn’t use to own any land, but the peasant organisation that trained me in agroecology first made sure I had some land to work on. With their support, other women and I have obtained collective land rights.

I’ve noticed that applying chemical fertilizers on plants has only a limited effect. But when I use organic compost to fertilize my crops, plants keep on taking up nutrients and I don’t need to reapply as often. Besides saving me work, using this compost is almost a guarantee for higher yields. When you start using chemical fertilizers you will need to keep increasing the amount if you want to sustain the yield. That is unsustainable.

Converting to agroecology has brought me many benefits. Not only do I produce more, but I also have rights. I know my land and my crops so well and everyone in town wants to buy my produce. This is because they know my vegetables are healthy, and so in this way they also benefit from agroecology.”

Interview: Diana Quiroz

The post Voices from the field appeared first on Ileia.

Achocalla is a highland valley situated a few kilometres away from La Paz, Bolivia. There, small scale farmers produce about 20 % of the vegetables consumed by almost two million people in the cities of La Paz and El Alto. In the spring of 2010, Achocalla’s Señor de Mayo Square became the backdrop of the first small producers’ fair, which kick-started a nation-wide cycle of agroecological fairs aimed at fostering exchange between peasants, small producers, and consumers and to promote the consumption of agroecological foods.

Short chains

Bolivia’s political transition of 2006 led to a favourable regulatory and legal framework for promotion and support of agroecological production. This includes a number of laws promoting food sovereignty and a national technical standard for Participatory Guarantee Systems (PGSs). One result has been the development of short chains, with agroecological standards guaranteed through participatory processes. There are municipal PGS, of which the bio-fair in Achocalla is an example. There are also communal PGS, promoting economic solidarity amongst indigenous groups; private PGS suitable for small producer organisations; and organisational PGS suitable for larger producer organisations.

The municipality of Achocalla set up their PGS in 2012, involving 275 families grouped into 13 communities. The agroecological guarantee committee of Achocalla Municipality (CGEMA) is responsible for running the PGS, and is made up of producers, processors, service providers and consumers. The PGS has created direct relationships between producers and consumers, with benefits for both. For the farmers, the PGS has improved their chances of accessing differentiated local markets and raised their profile as agroecological producers. Meanwhile, citizens are no longer reduced to passive consumers.But in spite of these achievements, the effectiveness of agroecological practices remains difficult to prove as indicators differ according to local circumstances and to who makes the assessment. This inconsistency compounds neglect from policy makers the world over, who often regard the idea of meeting future food and nutrition demands through agroecology as nonsense.

Proving impact

Another food system

During Bolivia’s neoliberal period (1985-2005), agricultural production was oriented to providing cash crops for the oil industry and white sugar for export to neighbouring countries. After the political transition of 2006, a new approach based on the BuenVivir (good living) philosophy resulted in a new legal framework based on the principle that to reduce global poverty, it is not enough to simply produce more food but that food should be of high quality, safe for human health, biodiversity friendly, and accessible and available to all.

Bolivia’s political transition not only yielded Law No 3525 for the Promotion of Ecological Agricultural Production and Non-timber Forestry, but also the Food Revolution law, the law for the Promotion of Healthy Food Habits, and recently enacted law on Economic Organisations of Indigenous and Peasant Peoples of Bolivia (OECAs), which addresses fundamental issues such as the importance of family farming, collaboration, food sovereignty and the prioritisation of locally sourced foods. Since the political transition, some 7000 producers have received training in agroecology of which 650 producers are now classed as agroecological farmers and 2700 producers classed as in transition, totalling around 3400 agroecological farmers in the highland, valley and tropical ecoregions.

In 2012, the NGO AVSFBolivia started a project named Mercados Campesinos (peasant markets) to assess the development and functioning of these new markets and to inform policy makers at the National Ecologic Production Council. They assessed three municipal PGS, Achocalla, Batallas (La Paz) and Caracollo (Oruro), and one private PGS, Eco-Feria in Cochabamba.

The assessment approach was based on four dimensions of food security – availability, access, utilisation and stability – and happiness. The happiness dimension, referring to the level of satisfaction of all actors in the chain was the most novel dimension of the assessment. Producers, processers and consumers were all surveyed and asked to score indicators relating to each dimension of food security.

Producers and consumers were asked different questions, reflecting their different roles in the PGS. For instance, for the happiness dimension producers were asked to rate, on a scale from one to five, how happy they are with their production, transformation and commercialisation tasks. While for this same dimension consumers were asked to rate their degree of satisfaction with the agroecological produce. Similarly, for the access dimension producers were asked about their household food expenditure budget and to rate the ratio between own production and expenditure and consumers were asked about their frequency of visits to agroecological fairs.

Happy municipalities

The assessment enabled comparison between the four PGS and helped to explain reasons for different impact. Farmers, consumers and other actors in the Achocalla PGS expressed the most satisfaction. Sergio Quispe, the Vice President of CGEMA explains: “Achocalla is the star agroecologic municipality because all actors in the value chain work together and are supported by the municipal agroecology and social development platform.” The project showed how the short chain impacts farmers and consumers in a number of ways.

“I am very happy because I can feed my sons and sell our surplus production”

For example, Jose Copa, a farmer and handyman in Achocalla enjoys the reduced transportation and transaction costs: “I am very happy because I can feed my sons and sell our surplus production twice a month at the bio-fair.” And Jaime A. Pereira, a regular visitor to the bio-fair exclaims that, “I can find healthy vegetables, honey and cheese that look better, are fresher and cheaper than in supermarkets.” Farmers’ access to valleys and highlands in Achocalla enables diversified production and this also explains their satisfaction with their role as producers.

In general, the three municipality PGS had more positive impacts than the private PGS and this is largely explained by current policy which favours municipal PGS. The actors in municipal PGS have better access to financial support and other initiatives such as public procurement programmes. Moreover, many of the members of Eco-Feria, the private PGS, specialise in value-adding such as preparation of jams, encurtidos (pickles) and vegan foods and are not diversified producers as is the case in the other municipal PGS assessed.

The Mercados Campesinos project was able to prove the importance of short chains for both producers and consumers. The results are useful because they capture a whole agroecological chain, from farm to market, and take into account happiness as well as different dimensions of food security. The project provides insights for further public policies that support family farming and stronger relationships between peasants and consumers.

Eduardo Lopez Rosse (elopez@catie.ac.cr) is a researcher on environmental and social certification schemes. He works at the Department for Consumers’ Affairs of the Autonomous Municipality of Cochabamba, Bolivia (GAMC).

The post Short chains bring long-term gains appeared first on Ileia.

Indonesia
Taste keeps the spirit of food sovereignty alive

Back in 2012, Rumah Kopi Ranin opened a cafe based firmly on food sovereignty principles. The coffee shop is a dedicated place to appreciate the coffee production of smallholder family farmers from across Indonesia. Green coffee beans are sourced directly from small scale coffee producers. Visitors to the cafe experience food sovereignty by tasting it. Through taste they start to understand the important role of farmers in coffee production and also in taking care of agrobiodiversity and water. Taste, the simple indicator of quality, has triggered people to learn more about farming and connect with farmers. For this they facilitate farm visits. The initiative is proving that when people experience the exotic taste of coffee directly from the producers, they are attracted to the food sovereignty movement. After four years of operation, the cafe has become a meeting place for coffee lovers, from academics to scientists, students, artist groups and coffee farmers planning joint activities in the spirit of food sovereignty.

For more information: Tejo Pramono (pram2u@yahoo.com).

Burkina Faso
Smallholders’ livelihoods and agroecology’s potential

In Bilanga, eastern Burkina Faso, the local NGO ARFA (Association pour la Recherche et la Formation en Agro-écologie) introduced agroecologically-based farming techniques through farmer groups and farmer field schools. In this setting, a combination of the Anglo-Saxon Sustainable Livelihoods and the Francophone “Agriculture Comparée” approaches was used to assess agroecology’s impacts. Such a multidisciplinary framework allows for a holistic and nuanced analysis of farmers’ livelihoods and farming systems. Adopting the agricultural techniques proposed by ARFA incorporates the ecological principles of agroecology into the farming systems, increases yields and boosts adaptive capacity desperately needed in the region’s context of degrading soils, loss of vegetation and changing rainfall patterns. Group membership strengthens farmers’ social networks, builds capabilities through skills’ improvement and diversification, provides access to farming tools and inputs, and contributes to smallholders’ socio-political empowerment. However, a closer look at the nuances between farmers reveals discrimination related to social position, group access and position, training quality, material pools and personal physical condition. The strong focus on agricultural techniques at the expense of agroecology’s socio-economic, political and methodological principles leads to a situation where only some farmers enjoy the full potential of livelihood enhancement.

For more information, contact Diane Kapgen (dianekapgen@ulb. ac.be).

Nicaragua
Farmers’ experience with agroecology

In Estelí, northern Nicaragua, 2014 was considered the drought of the century until it rained even less in 2015. The impacts of climate change, particularly ‘too much’ and ‘too little’ rain combined with changing rainfall patterns, have increased smallholders’ interest in adopting agroecological practices. These include agroforestry, companion planting and water harvesting. Some started this transition up to 20 years ago, but for most it was over the past five years. These practices are seen as an opportunity to mitigate the impacts of climate change by strengthening environmental resilience. While many farmers are wary of the additional labour needed to completely transition to agroecology, it is ever more important that they see positive impacts from their efforts. Fortunately, the changes observed are many and varied. Many agroecological farmers have detailed plans of their farms and a stronger focus on natural forest regeneration with a part of their land. Their diversified farms, including kitchen gardens, provide their families with a wide variety of fruits, herbs, medicinal plants, and vegetables. Farmers also mention improvements to their soil quality and as time passes are seeing yields increase for a variety of crops. Moreover, farmers find that their use of agroecological practices contributes to their sovereignty, through increased knowledge of good farming practices, and reduced reliance on chemical inputs.

For more information, contact Katharina Schiller (katharina.schiller@wur.nl).

The Netherlands
Food forests good for people and nature

Concern for the loss of biodiversity is just one reason driving a growing interest in ‘food forests’ as an alternative way of producing food. Food forests, a type of agroforestry, are designed and managed ecosystems. They are rich in biodiversity and unlike monocultures, that are susceptible to pests and other catastrophes, the higher complexity created with different vegetation layers and the presence of many animal species offer resilience. There are benefits for both humans as well as for nature conservation. For example, farmers may plant particular species to attract birds that will regulate insect numbers, to attract other wildlife and to create a beautiful farm. In practice, how beneficial are they really? This question prompted a research project at Ketelbroek, the oldest food forest in the Netherlands. Jeroen Breidenbach and Emma Dijkgraaf have been searching for the most useful bio-indicators. They selected several easy-to-find species of birds, ground beetles and moths to monitor the succession of the food forest over, at least, the next 20 years. Some of the selected species are typical in young forests and some in old forests. This approach to monitoring biodiversity could be useful for measuring impact of other biodiverse food production systems. Of course, different species should be selected for different climate conditions.

For more information about Ketelbroek or this research contact Wouter van Eck (woutervaneck@telfort.nl).

The post Locally rooted: Ideas and initiatives from the field appeared first on Ileia.

Measuring the benefit of industrial agriculture is simple; you just count the crop yield per unit area. This is the basic indicator of conventional farming technology. However, the real world is much more complicated. While industrial farming claims to have raised yields, it has done so at great cost, with extensive soil damage, huge biodiversity loss and negative impacts on nutrition, food sovereignty and natural resources. By contrast, agroecology offers sustainable improvements, not only to yield but also to many other aspects of life. Where conventional agriculture seeks to simplify, agroecology embraces complexity. Where conventional agriculture aims to eliminate biodiversity, agroecology depends on diversity, and builds upon it. Where conventional agriculture pollutes and degrades, agroecology regenerates and restores, working with nature – not against her.

Beyond yield

Simply measuring yield is not enough – we need to establish new ways of measuring the impact of our agricultural systems. Many are grappling with the task of developing more holistic tools, notably FAO and IPES Food (see page 40). Meanwhile, there is a recently established benchmark against which we can gauge our progress: the SDGs (see box). Making the case for agroecol- ogy The Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa (AFSA) is a Pan-African platform made up of farmer organisations and networks, championing small family farming production systems based on agroecological and indigenous approaches that sustain food sovereignty and the livelihoods of communities. Starting in 2013, AFSA and partners collected 50 case studies of agroecology from 22 African countries, with the aim of strengthening the case for agroecology as the bold future of farming in Africa. From adapting Sustainable Rice Intensification (SRI) to Ethiopian staples such as teff, wheat and finger millet to improving upon traditional systems of soil fertility management and setting up a national agroecology association in Togo, the 50 case studies document the experience of a diverse range of agroecological approaches, collectively involving several million farmers. The full collection is freely available online at http://afsafrica.org/case-studies/.

Agroecology contributes positively to ten of the 17 SDGs

To further strengthen the case for agroecology, AFSA member organisation, Tanzania Organic Agriculture Movement (TOAM), recently developed a simple tool to establish how these case studies contribute to the SDGs. Three project officers examined the 50 case studies, using the tool to record positive and negative impacts against the SDG goals and targets. A two-page checklist containing the most relevant ten SDGs and 32 subsidiary targets was developed and used to cross check each case study, ticking off all reported incidences of positive or negative impact. For example if a case study reported that the use of chemical fertilizers was reduced, then a tick would be placed against SDG Target 12.4, ‘Reduce release of chemicals to water and soil and impacts on human health and the environment’.

The Sustainable Development Goals

On 25th September 2015, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, along with a set of 17 SDGs and 126 associated targets. The SDGs are a new, universal set of goals, targets and indicators that UN member states are expected to use to frame their agendas and policies over the next 15 years. The SDGs follow and expand on the millennium development goals (MDGs), which spanned 2001 to 2015. There is broad agreement that, while the MDGs provided a framework around which governments could develop policies, they were too narrow. And unlike when preparing the MDGs, the UN has conducted the largest consultation programme in its history to gauge opinion on what the SDGs should include. Read more: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org

The trends

Agroecology contributes positively in various ways to ten of the 17 SDGs (see table). Notably, every case study showed a positive impact towards the goal, ‘End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture.’ Positive impacts are seen in increased access to safe, nutritious and sufficient food; increased productivity and farmers’ incomes; sustainability of food production systems; and maintenance of genetic diversity. Celestino Ndungu, a farmer from Ndungu, Kenya explains: “Our farm was very poor. We used to gather the crop residues and burn them but now we make compost which we use as fertilizer. For three years now we have never used any chemical fertilizer or sprays. Secondly we used to buy vegetables for our family but today we sell vegetables, fruits and other crops for income.”

Two thirds of case studies reported positive impact towards the goal, ‘responsible production and consumption’, through sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources, reduced post harvest losses, and reduced release of chemicals to water and soil. This is well illustrated by Jones Thomson, farmer in Choma, Zambia: “As organic farmers we have always used local plants for pest control in our family. We encourage many wild plant species to grow on our fallow land and field margins that we can use as pesticides. Many of the plants have other uses too, such as increasing soil fertility or their flowers supporting pollinators that maximise our crop yields.” A similar number of the case studies also showed a positive impact towards the goal related to ‘quality education’. Many of the case studies report families using their increased incomes to send their children to school, as well as farmers learning vocational skills through agroecology schools, and communities gaining knowledge and skills to promote sustainable development.

Lessons learnt

The meta-analysis raised some concerns about duplication or crossover within the SDGs. For example ‘building resilience to climate related extreme events’ occurs as a target within the ‘No poverty’ goal, yet the issue occurs again as a separate goal, ‘Climate action’. Moreover, the collection of case studies shows additional benefits of agroecology that are not well captured in the SDGs. For example, farmers praised the low cost of the technologies used, the use of locally available and locally adapted resources, and the value placed on indigenous knowledge.While more elaborate and precise tools are being developed by FAO to directly compare the impact of conventional versus agroecological methods, and by IPES Food to chart the transition from one to the other in search of a sustainable food system, this exercise was able to draw out some clear impact trends across a huge range of agroecological experiences. Some might call it ‘quick and dirty’, but we argue that this is a perfect example of the concept of ‘appropriate imprecision’.

Kicking goals

These case studies are real life experiences and testimonies of farmers, pastoralists, and other small scale producers in communities across Africa. Mapping the case study findings against the SDGs provides a useful summary of a large body of information on agroecology, showing very clear trends of wide ranging benefits to the social, environmental and economic dimensions of African small scale producers’ lives.

Highlighting the contribution of agroecology to an important policy framework such as the SDGs makes a clear case for cross-cutting policy that supports agroecology. It is now up to policy makers and the agricultural research community to recognise this potential to meet the world’s needs and challenges.

Michael Farrelly (mfarrelly@gmail.com) is Programme Manager at the Tanzania Organic Agriculture Movement (TOAM).

The post Agroecology contributes to the Sustainable Development Goals appeared first on Ileia.

It is undeniable that the current agro-industrial food system plays a major role in creating and deepening the socioeconomic and environmental crisis facing our planet and its people. It is also clear that solutions will not come from reforming such a system, but from transforming it.However, we are not starting from zero. In many parts of the world, industrial agriculture is not the norm and instead there is a great diversity of small scale farming models based on agroecology. These models generate local knowledge, and promote social, economic, environmental and gender justice, as well as the identity and culture of people.

Agroecology is much more than a scientific discipline. It is a way of life for millions of women and men who prioritise the vitality of their territories over profit. It is also a social movement working towards food sovereignty. Agroecology is synonymous with collective rights and access to common goods. It fosters solidarity between rural and urban peoples, and diversity of knowledge and ways of building knowledge, recognising the crucial role of producers in innovation, research and breeding, as well as the central role of women and youth.

Agroecology builds popular control over food systems and addresses the homogenisation of diets by promoting the use of culturally appropriate local varieties. Moreover, it improves the health of rural workers and consumers by avoiding the use of pesticides. It also promotes the development of alternative institutions and mechanisms to support producers and consumers.

But the challenge is to go beyond these empirical and ideological convictions driving the movement for food sovereignty. We need to show that we are right and expand the social and political support for agroecology. For this purpose, it is essential to demonstrate that its benefits go beyond improved productivity, land use and quality of food, but that they can be the engine of social transformation, redefining power relations in the territories.

This requires a dialogue between different actors with their different ways of knowing. Without scientism, and recognising that agroecology is shaped by people on the ground – indigenous, peasants, women and youth. Producers, workers, consumers, environmentalists, and scientists, among others, must work together to build the evidence that allows us to captivate minds and hearts and make transformative change.

Martin Drago (martin.drago@redes.org.uy) is coordinator of the Food Sovereignty Programme of Friends of the Earth International.

The post Opinion: Looking beyond yields and environmental benefits appeared first on Ileia.

Emile A. Frison (Lead coordinating author). 2016. IPES-Food. 96 pages.

The current industrial agricultural system can provide great amounts of food, but at what price? This report, published by the International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems (IPES-Food), argues for a diversification of agricultural practices, as opposed to the industrialised monocultures, in order to reach a more sustainable food system. The authors analyse the main failures related to widespread industrial highly-specialised systems: environmental, economic, and social ones. But, although these drawbacks are real, industrial systems keep thriving and expanding: according to the authors this is because they are strongly tied to a whole industrial food system through feedback loops and ‘lock-ins’, which hinder change. After presenting evidence of the positive sides of diversified agroecological systems compared with the industrial monocultures in terms of production, health issues, and environmental conservation, the authors develop recommendations, turning the ‘lock-ins’ into opportunities for change: for example, developing new indicators for evaluating the success of agroecological agriculture, in contrast to the yield focused indicators related to industrial agriculture.

Health per acre

Vandana Shiva & Vaibhav Singh. 2011. Navdanya/ Research Foundation for Science technology & Ecology, New Delhi, India. 80 pages. http://www.navdanya.org/attachments/Health%20Per%20Acre.pdf

Despite being a fairly aged publication, this book deals with extremely up to date issues. It strongly supports agricultural diversification as a solution to the challenges India is facing: agrarian crisis, rising food prices, hunger and malnutrition. The commonly used ‘yield per acre’ indicator is here contra posed to a ‘nutrition per acre’ one that focuses on the amount of nutrients provided by an agricultural system. Drawing from an introduction on health and nutrition – what are the kind of nutrients that need to be supplied for a healthy body? Where to get them from? – the authors lead us through a variety of Indian case studies that show that the amount of nutrients provided by one acre of organic intercropped farmland is much higher and more various than the amount of nutrients produced by an acre of conventional farmland. The authors thoroughly break down the thesis supporting the green revolution of the past, or the currently debated genetically modified organisms, as solutions to hunger and malnutrition, showing how a nutritious and balanced diet is connected to the food production system much more strongly than we think.

Soil to sky: of agroecology

VS industrial agriculture Infographic published by Christensen Fund http://blogs.worldwatch.org/nourishingtheplanet/infographics/

In this infographic, The Christensen Fund explores the pros and cons of agroecology and industrial agriculture, comparing them at all the different levels in between the ‘soil and sky’. This analysis of distinct agrarian systems does not only involve the environmental dimension, as the title might suggest, but also social, economic and health issues, cleverly put together in this accessible and cartoonlike version of our world. The infographic touches a variety of topics, such as climate strategies, unemployment and migration, local economy, nutrition, wildlife habitats, nutrient cycling and soil erosion. The outcome, as you might have guessed, is a clear endorsement of agroecological strategies as better solutions to the current environmental, economic and social struggles we are facing.

Peasants and the art of farming: A Chayanovian manifesto

Jan Douwe van der Ploeg. 2013. Fernwood Publishing. 168 Pages. ISBN: 9781552665657

In this book, Jan Douwe van der Ploeg offers a reflection of the far reaching and complex transformations of food systems that have occurred at the micro level as a result of liberalisation and globalisation. Focussing on the structure and dynamics of peasant farms and the historically highly variable relations that govern the processes of labour and production within the peasant farms; the author argues that peasant agriculture can play an important, if not central, role in increasing food production sustainably. However, peasants today, as in the past, are materially neglected. By building on the work of Chayanov, this book seeks to address this neglect and to show how important peasants are in the ongoing struggles for food, food sustainability and food sovereignty. The books focuses on the balances entailed in farming and how peasants deal with these, such as the balances between healthy and diverse food for the family, labour quality and drudgery, the farming family’s connection with the past and with the land, soil quality and animal health, linkages with culture and the local economy etc. According to the author, the continuous assessment of the farm’s performance following these criteria is not only what makes peasant farming unique, but also provides guidance for understanding the multiple benefits of farmer-led agroecology.

More on measuring impact

Here are a few more examples of the variety of tools and issues related to assessing the impact of agroecology.

From our own archive, Tracking change (ILEIA Newsletter 12.3, 1996) shows that back in 1996 the search for valid and relevant indicators of sustainable development was already a hot topic. The involvement of grassroots actors in assessing and monitoring their environment is the common thread presented in this issue of the magazine.

Agroecology: the ecology of sustainable food systems (Gliessman, 2014). In this revised version of Gliessman’s book, the ‘Transition to Sustainability’ section specifically focuses on changing from a conventional to an agroecological system, introducing sustainability indicators and the use of an ecosystem framework as evaluation tools.

Didactic Toolkit for the Design, Management and Assessment of Resilient Farming Systems (Third World Network, SOCLA, REDAGRES) (https://foodfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Didactic-Toolkit-TWN-SOCLA.pdf). This manual provides simple and pragmatic tools suitable for farmers and technicians who want to evaluate the resilience of a farming system, convert to an agroecological one, or monitor adaptive responses on a farm.

Farming for the Future: Organic and Agroecological Solutions to Feed the World (Friends of the Earth, 2016) (http://www.foe.org/ projects/food-and-technology/ farming-for-the-future). This report presents an extensive review of research around organic and agroecological farming. While debunking myths about the current food system, the authors provide evidence of agroecology as a solution for feeding our world in the best possible way.

With the Sustainable Development Goals recently approved, several blogs have highlighted the contribution of family farming and agroecology to meeting these goals. Groundswell International has dedicated several blog entries to this topic (http:// www.groundswellinternational.org/agroecology/agroecologyand-the-sustainable-development-goals/). And, the World Rural Forum has brought out a report, Family Farming and the Sustainable Development Agenda(https://www.ruralforum. net/en/news/2016/08/familyfarming-and-the-sustainable-development-agenda), which shows the importance of family farming, specifically for the goal on eradicating hunger.

The post MIND! Books and films appeared first on Ileia.

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

First things first

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

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

A second meeting

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

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

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

Challenges and results

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

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

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

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

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

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