SPECIAL ISSUE ON SCALING AGROECOLOGY

2018 Impact Factor 1.381 Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems Volume 43, Number 7-8, 2019 Editorial Special issue editorial: What do we mean by agroecological scaling? Bruce G Ferguson, Miriam Aldasoro Maya, Omar Giraldo, Mateo Mier y Terán Giménez Cacho, Helda Morales & Peter Rosset Pages: 722-723 Published online: 05 Aug 2019 Articles Scaling out agroecology from the school garden: the importance of culture, food, and place Bruce G. Ferguson, Helda Morales, Kimberly Chung & Ron Nigh Pages: 724-743 Published online: 29 Mar 2019 Agroecology on the periphery: A case from the Maya-Achí territory, Guatemala Nathan Einbinder, Helda Morales, Mateo Mier Y Terán-Giménez Cacho, Miriam Aldasoro, Bruce G. Ferguson & Ronald Nigh Pages: 744-763 Published online: 26 Mar 2019 Territorial resilience the third dimension of agroecological scaling: Approximations from three peasant experiences in the South of Mexico Alejandra Guzmán Luna, Bruce G. Ferguson, Birgit Schmook, Omar Felipe Giraldo & Elda Miriam Aldasoro Maya Pages: 764-784 Published online: 28 May 2019 Can the state take agroecology to scale? Public policy experiences in agroecological territorialization from Latin America Omar Felipe Giraldo & Nils McCune Pages: 785-809 Published online: 01 Apr 2019 Peasant balances and agroecological scaling in Puerto Rican coffee farming Nils McCune, Ivette Perfecto, Katia Avilés-Vázquez, Jesús Vázquez-Negrón& John Vandermeer Pages: 810-826 i Published online: 25 Apr 2019 Seed sovereignty and agroecological scaling: two cases of seed recovery, conservation, and defense in Colombia Valeria García López, Omar Felipe Giraldo, Helda Morales, Peter M. Rosset & José María Duarte Pages: 827-847 Published online: 27 Feb 2019 Zero Budget Natural Farming in India – from inception to institutionalization Ashlesha Khadse & Peter M. Rosset Pages: 848-871 Published online: 30 Apr 2019 Agroecology and La Via Campesina I. The symbolic and material construction of agroecology through the dispositive of “peasant-to-peasant” processes Valentín Val, Peter M. Rosset, Carla Zamora Lomelí, Omar Felipe Giraldo& Dianne Rocheleau Pages: 872-894 Published online: 14 Apr 2019 Agroecology and La Via Campesina II. Peasant agroecology schools and the formation of a sociohistorical and political subject Peter Rosset, Valentín Val, Lia Pinheiro Barbosa & Nils McCune Pages: 895-914 Published online: 15 May 2019 MST’s experience in leveraging agroecology in rural settlements: lessons, achievements, and challenges Ricardo Serra Borsatto & Vanilde F. Souza-Esquerdo Pages: 915-935 Published online: 12 May 2019 Reviews Situated agroecology: massification and reclaiming university programs in Venezuela Olga Domené-Painenao & Francisco F. Herrera Pages: 936-953 Published online: 20 May 2019 ii Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems ISSN: 2168-3565 (Print) 2168-3573 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjsa21 Special issue editorial: What do we mean by agroecological scaling? Bruce G Ferguson, Miriam Aldasoro Maya, Omar Giraldo, Mateo Mier y Terán Giménez Cacho, Helda Morales & Peter Rosset To cite this article: Bruce G Ferguson, Miriam Aldasoro Maya, Omar Giraldo, Mateo Mier y Terán Giménez Cacho, Helda Morales & Peter Rosset (2019) Special issue editorial: What do we mean by agroecological scaling?, Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 43:7-8, 722-723, DOI: 10.1080/21683565.2019.1630908 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2019.1630908 Published online: 05 Aug 2019. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 15 View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wjsa21 AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 2019, VOL. 43, NOS. 7–8, 722–723 https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2019.1630908 EDITORIAL Special issue editorial: What do we mean by agroecological scaling? As support for agroecology grows around the world, an urgent question spanning our field’s scientific, practical, and movement dimensions is how agroecology can “scale” to include more people in more places in fair, sustainable food systems. Our challenge is to seize this opportunity while pushing back against the tendency to strip agroecology of its transformative potential by reducing it to a set of technical solutions for the resource degradation produced by agribusiness (Giraldo and Rosset 2017). Here, we lay out what we mean (and do not mean) by agroecological scaling and explain the scope of this special issue. Agroecologists have not settled on a unified vocabulary for the aspiration we describe above. There are many complementary and competing concepts, including amplification, mainstreaming, territorialization, multiplication, irradiation, reconfiguration, transformation, regime change, and revolution. Our own research group (www.ecosur.mx/ masificacion-agroecologia/) is called Masificación de la Agroecología in Spanish, with the intention of describing both engagement with masses of people and development of a movement that is increasingly dense in terms of the practices and relationships involved in any given territory. However, “massification” in English is rarely used in this way, while the Portuguese massificação (like its Spanish cognate) can connote homogenization (Freire 1970), which is far from our meaning. Here, we refer to “scaling” because it seems to be the most commonly used term in English (Rosset and Altieri 2017). However, that word can cause an almost visceral reaction in our colleagues who are familiar with the literature on international development, perhaps because scaling often refers to the imposition of solutions that have worked well elsewhere, and because those transplanted solutions so often fail or have unintended consequences (Hobbes 2014). Furthermore, the concept of scaling is far from straightforward. Changes can scale up and out, horizontally and vertically, through active processes or as an emergent property (Rosset and Altieri 2017; Wigboldus and Leeuwis 2013). The nuances and pitfalls of scaling are of particular concern for agroecology because agroecological science and practice are rooted in knowledge developed by indigenous and peasant farmers in relation to specific territorial contexts (Brescia 2017; Rosset and Altieri 2017). Although general patterns and principles may emerge from that knowledge, attempts to transplant practices from one place to another are risky. Furthermore, because agroecological movements place a high value on autonomy and food sovereignty, effective agroecological scaling can only occur when local actors – particularly those whose views are often disregarded, including peasants, indigenous people, women, and people of color – are protagonists as well as beneficiaries of scaling (Rosset and Altieri 2017). What emerges from this unresolved discussion around terminology is a consensus that scaling cannot be performed through the cookie-cutter transfer of agroecological practices from one place to another. Instead, scaling is about relationships, processes, policy, power, and practice that nurture social organization, learning, and adaptation. Agroecological movements and academics will need to continue to address the questions and conflicts that arise from diverse terminology, disciplines, and contexts. However, we argue that agroecology is based on a plural epistemology, and thus we should not waste © 2019 Taylor & Francis AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 723 too much energy seeking homogeneity, but rather foster horizontal dialog among multiple currents of thought. Our own initial approach has been to explore cases in which scaling of peasant and family farm agroecology has occurred and to distill from them key drivers of scaling (Mier y Terán Giménez Cacho et al. 2018). This special issue delves more deeply into some of these drivers, particularly teaching/learning processes, effective agroecological practice, crises, and favorable markets and policies. Additionally, several articles emphasize the fundamental role of social movements and collective peasant identity in resilience, expansion, and deepening of agroecological practice. Another emerging theme is the interaction – often mutually reinforcing – among drivers. We expand on one of our initial case studies (Zero Budget Natural Farming in India), and develop several others over a broad range of geographic and organizational scales, from incipient, communitylevel experiences to the international peasant movement. Our hope is to document and contribute to change that is pluralistic, transformative, holistic, revolutionary, even spiritual. Such an agroecological worldview takes economies into account without putting them at the center of our interactions. It embraces the role of science while celebrating other ways of knowing. It focuses not on scarcity, but on our collective knowledge and abilities, and on just relationships among ourselves, and with the land. In theory, and in practice, this means working not toward a single big endeavor, but a multitude of contextualized, articulated agroecologies. We are not talking about small agroecological farms expanding to become latifundios. Rather, we embrace a vision of scaling in which many small farms and many families in many territories produce and eat agroecologically. Thus, scaling means recovery of a sense of solidarity, reciprocity, and healthy proportion in our food systems. This vision of agroecological scaling reinforces autonomy, biocultural diversity, spirituality, and conviviality. It situates agroecology as one key element of broader societal transformations that challenge capitalism, colonialism, standardization, industrialization, patriarchy, and other forms of injustice. References Brescia, S., ed. 2017. Fertile ground. Scaling agroecology from the ground up. Canada: Food First Books. Freire, P. 1970. Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Herder and Herder. Giraldo, O. F., and P. M. Rosset. 2017. Agroecology as a territory in dispute: Between institutionality and social movements. The Journal of Peasant Studies 45:545–64. doi:10.1080/03066150.2017.1353496. Hobbes, M. 2014. Stop trying to save the world. Big ideas are destroying international development. The New Republic. https://newrepublic.com/article/120178/problem-international-development-and-plan-fix-it. Mier y Terán Giménez Cacho, M., O. F. Giraldo, M. Aldasoro, H. Morales, B. G. Ferguson, P. Rosset, A. Khadse, and C. Campos. 2018. Bringing agroecology to scale: Key drivers and emblematic cases. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 42:637–65. doi:10.1080/21683565.2018.1443313. Rosset, P. M., and M. A. Altieri. 2017. Agroecology: Science and politics. Canada and United Kingdom: Fernwood and Practical Action. Wigboldus, S., and C. Leeuwis. 2013. Towards responsible scaling up and out in agricultural development: An exploration of concepts and principles. The Netherlands: Wageningen. Bruce G Ferguson El Colegio de la Frontera Sur (ECOSUR), San Cristóbal de Las Casas, Mexico [email protected] http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3963-2024 El Colegio de la Frontera Sur (ECOSUR), San Cristóbal de Las Casas, Mexico Miriam Aldasoro Maya, Omar Giraldo, Mateo Mier y Terán Giménez Cacho, Helda Morales and Peter Rosset Masificación de la Agroecología research group, El Colegio de la Frontera Sur, Mexico Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems ISSN: 2168-3565 (Print) 2168-3573 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjsa21 Scaling out agroecology from the school garden: the importance of culture, food, and place Bruce G. Ferguson, Helda Morales, Kimberly Chung & Ron Nigh To cite this article: Bruce G. Ferguson, Helda Morales, Kimberly Chung & Ron Nigh (2019): Scaling out agroecology from the school garden: the importance of culture, food, and place, Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, DOI: 10.1080/21683565.2019.1591565 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2019.1591565 Published online: 29 Mar 2019. Submit your article to this journal View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wjsa21 AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2019.1591565 Scaling out agroecology from the school garden: the importance of culture, food, and place Bruce G. Ferguson a , Helda Morales a , Kimberly Chungb, and Ron Nigh c a Departamento de Agricultura, Sociedad y Ambiente, El Colegio de la Frontera Sur, San Cristóbal de Las Casas, Chipas, Mexico; bDepartment of Community Sustainability, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA; cCentro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social, San Cristóbal de Las Casas, Chiapas, México ABSTRACT KEYWORDS We explore potential and limitations for agroecological scaling through formal education, using the LabVida school gardens program in Chiapas, Mexico as a case study. Through LabVida training, educators gained an appreciation of agroecology and learned to apply agroecological practices, although their understanding of agroecological principles and scientific process remained limited. The greatest program impact was on educators’ eating habits, and their perception of the value of local knowledge and its relevance to school work. The case study demonstrates the potential of garden and food-system work to leverage institutional resources in ways that can improve educational outcomes, including agroecological literacy. Increased awareness of agroecology and the value of local knowledge may intersect with other drivers of scaling, including markets, organizational fabric, and policy. Inquiry-based learning; participatory action research; place-based education; science education; teacher training Introduction Food system actors, from the Food and Agriculture Organization to the international peasant movement increasingly embrace agroecology as a key to food system transformation (FAO 2018; Rosset and Martínez-Torres 2013). However, there are relatively few documented instances of agroecological scaling, defined as involving “transformative social processes for the diffusion of agroecological practice; and to broaden access to food grown in healthy, environmentally friendly ways” (Mier y Teran Giménez et al. 2018 and other articles in this issue). Contextualized, integrative teaching-learning processes are one key driver of this social transformation (Mier y Teran Giménez et al. 2018), and some examples of scaling are organized around methodologies for informal education. Yet, embedding agroecology training into formal education systems may amplify scaling efforts by leveraging existing institutions to expose students to agroecological principles and practice beginning at an early age. We use our school garden program in CONTACT Bruce G. Ferguson [email protected] Departament of Agriculture, Society, and the Environment, El Colegio de la Fronter Sur, San Cristóbal de Las Casas, Chipas, Mexico © 2019 Taylor & Francis 2 B. G. FERGUSON ET AL. Chiapas, Mexico, Laboratorios para la Vida (LabVida; redhuertos.org/ Labvida/), as a case study to analyze potential contributions and constraints of agroecological scaling through formal education. The science and practice of agroecology are products of ongoing dialog among farmers, scientists, and others, representing a transdisciplinary body of knowledge that creates unique pedagogical challenges (David and Bell 2018, Code 2017; Rosset et al. 2011; Østergaard et al. 2010). Agroecological pedagogy must embrace the complexity and variability in agroecosystems as well as the role of farmers in knowledge creation and adaptation (David and Bell 2018; Rosset et al. 2011). Farmer organizations and movements have been protagonists in the construction of innovative methodologies for informal education around agroecology and food (Meek et al. 2017). Social movements have also contributed to the institutionalization of agroecology education (e.g. Brem-Wilson and Nicholson 2017, Barbosa 2016) and their methodologies sometimes include school and community garden work (Mariano, Hilário, and Tarlau. 2016, Meek 2015). These efforts are part of an international boom in garden-based learning that embraces a broad range of objectives (e.g. FAO 2010, Gibbs et al. 2013). In Mexico, the history of school gardens dates back at least as far as the postrevolutionary 1920’s, when each rural school was assigned a “parcela escolar” for action learning (Loyo 2006). Recent NGO, academic, and government efforts have revived interest in garden-based learning (Morales 2017, sites. google.com/site/huertosescolaresciceana/el-huerto/heen-mexico, www.colme namx.com/, www.si-kanda.org/, redhuertos.org, rhecredhuertos.wixsite.com/ rhec), motivated in part by challenges in Mexico’s educational and food arenas. Modern education in Mexico, as in other countries (Smith 2002), generally privileges “universal” knowledge and skills that are divorced from local context, thus alienating students from the kinds of knowledge that ground traditional agroecological practice (Gutiérrez Narváez 2011). Schools work largely from a centralized curriculum developed in Mexico City. In places like rural Chiapas, where teachers often commute from cities and generally don’t speak local indigenous languages, the gap between school and community becomes a chasm. Intentionally or not, students are taught that peasant and indigenous life ways are inferior to those represented in the formal curriculum (García Vasquez et al. 2014). Lack of cultural relevance in public education is a long-standing grievance of indigenous chiapanecans. Teachers’ disdain toward indigenous and peasant people and their traditions manifests itself in physical and psychological abuse, and helps explain why autonomous, decolonial, intercultural education has figured among the priorities of the Zapatista uprising (Baronnet 2011). Food is one arena in which this cultural subordination plays out in schools. By secondary school the status quo is to bring a few pesos for soda, chips and candy, AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 3 and students are embarrassed to be seen with traditional foods (Jenatton 2017). Food aid programs, including school breakfasts, are based on unfamiliar, packaged products (García-Parra et al. 2015). Through such mechanisms, schools can steer young people away from traditional foodways and agriculture (Wight 2013). The traditional milpa and home garden-based diet offers a healthy mix of whole grain, legumes, vegetables, fruit, and some animal protein (Solomons 2000). However, food systems in Chiapas, as in the rest of Mexico, have become industrialized at an astounding pace over the last 2–3 decades (Nigh and González Cabañas 2015). Consumption of sweetened soft drinks is high by any standard, and the prevalence of metabolic syndrome is skyrocketing (Lopez and Jacobs 2018). Food system industrialization erodes the bioregional and agroecological knowledge that undergirds traditional foodways (Berry 1996; Wight 2013). This juncture motivated us to found the LabVida program. We hoped that by training teachers, we could help recover and renew agroecological knowledge and biocultural heritage by creating a place for them in schools. LabVida uses school gardens as a venue to link local knowledge with scientific thought and respect for place. Our intention is to promote understanding of agroecology based on scientific process, appreciation for local knowledge and culture, inquiry, and ecological relationships among healthy soils, crops, people, and communities. Our pedagogical strategy rejects linear, technocratic thinking in favor of a more critical and holistic approach. LabVida embraces place-based education (PBE) that blends ecological and social justice concerns (Gruenewald and Smith 2008) to 1) identify, recover, and create spaces that teach us how to reinhabit environments that have been disrupted by exploitation and 2) decolonialize by prioritizing local knowledge. Accordingly, our approach to agroecology education develops ecological literacy through critical, transdisciplinary learning experiences that are situated in culture and community. In this paper we analyze how participants in LabVida training understood the concepts described in the preceding paragraph, and how those concepts influenced their teaching practice. We also explore the challenges encountered by these teachers, most of who had little prior knowledge of agriculture, natural sciences, or scientific research. Our analysis focuses on understanding how school gardens can contribute to scaling out agroecology through formal education. The LabVida case study The findings are based upon our experience with a community of practice that formed around LabVida, our 120-hour continuing education program for teachers in Chiapas, Mexico. LabVida developed a network of educators 4 B. G. FERGUSON ET AL. who use school gardens and experiential education to teach principles of agroecology, food sovereignty and action research. The curriculum included modules on agroecological skills and knowledge; scientific process and thinking; health and nutrition; embracing local agroecological knowledge and foodways; strategies for garden program sustainability; and design and application of garden-based lessons and projects linked to a broad range of subject areas within the official curriculum. Lab Vida provided ongoing support for participants as their practice developed over the course of the school year. We began with a two-week intensive period during summer vacations during which participants were introduced to each module and experimented with ways to use a garden to incorporate these concepts into their teaching. We met for weekend sessions each month over the course of the school year to share experiences and develop collective knowledge as participants experimented with principles and activities in their curricula. We took an experiential constructivist approach (Piaget 1971) and encouraged teachers to do likewise. We used generative questions to explore knowledge that the group already possessed around each new topic and invited community experts to share their agroecological techniques and foodways. We also promoted inquiry-based learning as the foundation for critical, scientific thinking that is situated in local realities. Participants practiced critical reflection on their progress implementing the program with their students. Fifty-five educators in two cohorts participated in our training from July 2012 to March 2013 and July 2013 to July 2014. The majority were middle school (28) and primary teachers (14), but a few taught in preschools (2), high schools (3), and universities (2). Four were officials of the Public Education Secretariat (SEP) and two were university students. Most of the teachers were from public schools, but 5 worked in private schools and 10 in alternative programs or NGOs. Although we concentrated our recruiting efforts in the Chiapas highlands, participants came from 51 schools, spread across 28 municipalities. Thirty-eight were rural schools and thirteen urban schools. Thirty-eight completed enough training hours and submitted enough work to receive a diploma. Of the other 17, some attended but did not complete written work. Others stopped attending because of unforeseen personal or professional commitments, or did not inform us of their reasons. Although the program was accredited by El Colegio de la Frontera Sur, it was not recognized by the SEP. Participants paid a small fee on a sliding scale. Thus this was a self-selected group, committed to their teaching and to the program’s subject areas. This work took place during a tumultuous period, in which teachers and their unions, particularly in Oaxaca and Chiapas, were among the principle opponents to the Peña Nieto administration’s neoliberal reforms. Periodic teachers’ strikes, particularly during 2013–14, occurred during the training sessions and AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 5 the school year. Conflicts and stress around the strike, and time and energy devoted to union actions no doubt affected public school teachers’ participation in our program as well as implementation of garden-based activities in their schools. Methods Participation in LabVida was framed as action research for both the participants and the program facilitators. Data collection was largely qualitative and open-ended, generated from written or verbal prompts for participants as well as established routines and protocols for the facilitators. Participants were asked to record their own learning journey using common tools that encouraged open-ended answers, thus performing firstperson research on their own pedagogy and practice (Reason and Bradbury 2008). In addition, during the workshops they engaged in collective sensemaking from their individual experiences to create new, shared knowledge from these experiences. (second-person research sensu Reason and Bradbury 2008). The sample for this paper includes the 38 participants (17 men and 21 women, 18–60 years old, with an average age of 36) who contributed four or more data artifacts. These include letters of intent (N = 38), pre- and posttraining surveys (N = 35 and 28), written self-evaluations by the first cohort as they began the 2012–13 school year (10), interviews with members of the second cohort as they began the 2013–14 school year (16), reflections written during the last training session (N = 28), post-training interviews (N = 38), and post-training focus groups for both cohorts. Similarly, as leaders and facilitators of this program, we were also observers of the participants’ experiences as well as first person researchers of our own experiences. Our multidisciplinary team, included the four authors as well as three program staff members with expertise in agroecology, human nutrition, indigenous knowledge, constructivist pedagogy, and participatory action research. This team engaged in reflection, individually and collectively, to critically observe our own work in program implementation. We wrote notes on training sessions, conducted daily team debriefings after each workshop, and met regularly to make sense of our experiences as they related to larger issues within the literature. Our notes from these sessions, our school visits, and materials produced by the participants comprise the set of texts that we analyzed to assess the experience of this program from the perspective of both facilitators and participants. Data analysis We used thematic coding to analyze the qualitative data. Through first-cycle coding (Saldaña 2015) we developed an initial codebook that defined codes 6 B. G. FERGUSON ET AL. linked to topical and pedagogical themes related to the goals of the LabVida program. The first three authors (KC, HM, and BGF) then simultaneously read and applied the codes to the data from a subset of participants from the first LabVida cohort. The resulting findings were compared across coders and refinements made to the codebook. We repeated this process for a subset of data from the second cohort. A second cycle of coding led to more specific and analytic definitions of codes (Saldaña 2015). The sample was divided by participant among the coding authors and two additional sessions were used to refine a final set of codes that were applied to the entire sample. Memos were created, by participant, to collect and summarize the extracted evidence for each participant. We then summarized the data by participant and by theme. Checklist and conceptually clustered displays allowed for comparison within and across the cases and allowed identification of patterns across the entire sample of participants (Miles, Huberman, and Saldaña 2014). Results and discussion Program elements emphasizing food and place-based learning captured teachers’ interest and provided natural avenues for creative and transformative processes. Food and place sometimes served as bridges from which to approach other central topics of the training program, such as agroecological production and the scientific process. On the other hand, we were only partially successful in teaching general principles of agroecology and scientific ways of knowing. Below, we present our findings and analysis in detail, organized according to the major objectives of the program and substantiated with examples in the participants’ own words. Agroecological principles and practice Our starting point and central goal for teaching agroecology in LabVida was that participants understand that agroecological management is guided not by “recipes” but by principles that must be adapted to fit local context. These principles were presented in lay language and represented concepts that are essential to the third level of agroecological transition described by Gliessman (2016), the redesign of agroecosystems. Examples included the centrality of biodiversity at the genetic, species, field, and landscape scales for improving productivity directly and by strengthening the agroecosystem’s “immune system,” the key role of soil biota and organic matter in soil fertility, closing nutrient cycling loops and maximizing efficiency in use of materials, water, and energy (Altieri and Nicholls 2012), and taking a preventative rather than a curative approach (Morales 2002). Despite repeated emphasis of these principles, just over half of participants (55%) identified one or more principles when asked to explain something AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 7 important to them about agroecology. Their responses varied, with some representing a more complex understanding of agroecology: The idea that stuck with me is the importance of life in the soil, the importance of microorganisms and organic matter for plant growth, as well as the association among these and with animals. This seems important because it guarantees diversity and coexistence among these beings and elements of the Earth. (Olimpia, university social science professor) Others did not identify a key principle but understood the essence of agroecology as growing food while also caring for the Earth and each other: [The program] has helped me a lot to understand how magnificent it is to care for and conserve our Earth, the people who grown and sell our vegetables, the good that it does our bodies to help us stay healthy (Ximena, rural technical secondary teacher). Eighty-nine percent were able to establish gardens and 97% of those with gardens experimented with agroecological practices such as polycultures and organic fertilization. Some (40%) mentioned starting gardens and compost at their homes: My dream now is to get my neighbors to grow some of the foods they consume most, and to take advantage of spaces that aren’t used. (Narea, garden coordinator, urban private school) I’ve learned about vegetable growing and its functions, and I’ve planted a garden at home with my family. I have a worm compost at home. I’m looking for lots of information to begin to transform my home to make it as ecological as possible. (Lucas, rural telesecondary teacher) For garden management, we encouraged participants to think in terms of preventative, agroecosystem design approaches (Gliessman 2016). We invited them to use challenges that arose in their gardens as opportunities for inquirybased learning through bibliographic or online research, observation and experimentation, or interviews with community experts. Nonetheless, participants were particularly attentive whenever guest speakers or group members offered simple recipes for controlling pests or pathogens and other input-substitution strategies (Gliessman 2016). One of their most frequent suggestions for improving our program was to include more “practical” activities and information for garden work. It is understandable that teachers with little agricultural (or science) experience want simple solutions for keeping their gardens productive, particularly since most were accustomed to a pedagogical style in which a teachers offer answers rather than promoting inquiry. We worry, however, that proferring such solutions may perpetuate the simple, linear thinking that characterizes Green-Revolution agronomy and can constitute a barrier for adoption of agroecology (Piasentin and Ruivenkamp 2015). Developing engaging, effective 8 B. G. FERGUSON ET AL. strategies promoting integrative thinking is a central challenge of agroecological education (David and Bell 2018). Scientific process and inquiry-based learning Developing an appreciation for the scientific process was another central theme of the LabVida program. Many participants were motivated by their desire to be better teachers, particularly with regard to science. We were motivated by low levels of scientific literacy in our region, and by the belief that critical thinking skills are necessary for making good decisions regarding farming and food. For agroecology to spread effectively, people must have the scientific tools for “intellectual self defense” from both the magic-bullet solutions proffered by agroindustry and from pseudoscience using agroecological language (Vandermeer and Perfecto 2017). Action research (AR) promoting interplay between scientific theory and local practice (Méndez, Bacon, and Cohen 2013) has been central to the development of agroecology and was our core methodology for approaching scientific thought. We presented AR as a systematic approach to everyday problem solving. In addition, we taught methods of formal scientific inquiry that can be integrated into the AR process, and applied such tools in conjunction with inquiry-based learning in the classroom, the garden, and farmer visits. Participants learned ethnographic research principles and interviewing techniques and practiced with each other and with farmers. They practiced formulating researchable questions and hypotheses. We also presented and applied the basics of experimental design, including concepts such as replicates, controls, and randomization. To complete the training, participants were asked to design and teach activities with their students that involved interviews and experiments, and do action research by observing their own teaching practice. Despite our intentions, only half of the participants attempted to use garden and/or kitchen experiments in their teaching. Of these, only 26% succesfully applied concepts of controls, replicates and/or randomization. For those few, it was a great opportunity to teach topics including biology, Spanish and math: [My students’] hypothesis was that dark soil would give better results because it’s more humid and retains more water that the beans need in order to grow. Their experiment was to plant beans in three very different types of soil to see where they would grow better. They measured the height and number of seedlings in each container. Each team took results to compare where the best growth occurred. (Flora, rural technical secondary teacher and principal) However, most did not attempt experiments in their schools, stating that they did not have time, did not understand them, or did not see their relevance for their teaching. Most participants (79%) also had difficulties understanding AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 9 and applying the AR process, despite our efforts to explain it in down-toearth ways: I had lots of doubts about action research. We’re not researchers so it’s difficult for us. (Olivia, rural telesecondary teacher) Despite these challenges related to scientific thinking, most participants (74%) successfully carried out inquiry work with their students. Much of this work engaged students in observing phenomena in local gardens and kitchens, thus rooting new questions and discoveries to their own world: [My students] observed the sun’s route to see what part got more sun. They made sundials and saw where the sun shines at given times…and that’s how they chose where to put the garden. We worked on this over the four seasons of the year, taking note of how nature changes. (Pedro, private urban preschool teacher) We planted potatoes, harvested them, and brought them to the kitchen. We investigated the flavor of the potatoes and compared them with potatoes from the market. (Pedro) I asked them to bring organic waste collected over three days to make compost. With that material, we analyzed how much fruit and vegetables they eat. I promoted inquiry, research methods, reflections, and strategies for improving their diets. (Prudencia, rural university professor) Others promoted scientific inquiry practices that had been modeled in LabVida, for example, how to ask questions, develop hypotheses and record their observations faithfully. We’re working on the types of questions, “what,” “who,” “how,”…and we did it starting from the garden. One girl asked “which fertilizer is better?” and I asked her “how could you answer that question?” and she said “planting vegetables in different fertilizers.”(Jacinto, periurban primary teacher) Some of the questions that came up were “Why do peaches turn black after they’re cut?,” “How can we stop the oxidation or blackening?” They had questions about why they oxidize and what might work best, onion, lemon… And they came up with answers themselves, that it has to do with humidity, that it’s because of the weather… They had just been looking at the topic of food preservation and we related the experiment directly to that topic. (Nicolas, telesecondary teacher) Participants picked up on inquiry-based learning and the basics of ethnography more readily and applied them in their teaching practice. For example, many asked students to interview their relatives to learn about agriculture or food traditions. This is a significant step toward teaching scientific thought, particularly for teachers working within the context of a public education system that has traditionally put students in the role of passive recipients of knowledge (Gutiérrez Narváez 2011). Jacinto (a periurban primary teacher) exclaimed: 10 B. G. FERGUSON ET AL. Science and experimentation are on the loose! They’ve even gotten into the kitchen, and shattered the idea that only men in white coats with microscopes do experiments. These were satisfying experiences for teachers, and may help overcome their fear of undertaking scientific inquiry with their groups. Firsthand experiences and inquiry are key elements of place-based education for environmental stewardship (Great Lakes Water Studies Institute 2005) and seem equally significant for agroecological literacy. Food and nutrition Another central topic in LabVida training, “conscientious eating,” addressed the interplay between food choices and culture, politics, economics, ecology, and health. We placed particular emphasis on traditional milpa polycultures and homegardens, and associated foodways, as biocultural heritage and sources of abundant, diverse, nutritionally balanced diets (Ford and Nigh 2015; Zizumbo-Villareal, Flores-Silva, and Colunga-García Marín 2012). We talked about relationships between well managed soils, healthy crops, and healthy people (Jones et al. 2013), and about the influence of food system industrialization on diets and health (Pollan 2008). In workshops, we studied our own diets and reflected on changes related to our family and work lives, traditions, culture, feelings and politics. In keeping with the experiential nature of the program, we served healthy, agroecologically produced food and had caterers discuss the significance of these dishes. Many represented local or regional traditions and often the ingredients and their presentation were novel, even challenging for some. Both familiar and unexpected foods were subjects of lively conversation and reflection. As a result, we saw important and unexpected changes in teachers perceptions and habits around food. Many reflected on industrialization and relocalization: I saw the importance of harvesting and eating what we plant. We were used to eating what we buy at the market or supermarket without thinking about the whole process that brings these products to us. When we did the exercise with the labels we realized how industrialized our food is. (César, telesecondary principal) Even though we did not specifically ask about food habits, 63% reported some change because of the program. Sixteen percent now buy at farmers markets, 8% mentioned the importance of organic food, and 5% mentioned becoming more conscientious consumers: I try to have fewer brands in my kitchen and more local and natural products. I drink water or juice instead of sweetened drinks. I don’t consume products that generate a lot of pollution. I shop more at the market than at the supermarket. (Emilio, rural telesecondary teacher) AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 11 Lucas (a rural telesecondary school teacher) commented that his habit was to buy a box of supermarket food in San Cristóbal [the city] for his week in the isolated community where he taught. Reflections spurred by LabVida training prompted him to explore the more traditional foods available in that community. Most started eating more vegetables: Now I can cook more vegetables and I don’t see them as boring anymore. Even my brother eats more vegetables now….I’m more confident inventing new ways to prepare vegetables. One day I made cabbage with egg and my brother liked it even though he’s purely carnivorous. Now we both feel that necessity and we find ways to cook even when we don’t have much time. (Helena, rural primary teacher) Personal changes were not an explicit goal of the training, and they were a surprise to us because influencing adults’ dietary habits is difficult (Lappalainen et al. 1997). We interpret them as evidence that trainees, literally, internalized what they learned. This may be a significant step toward changes in what and how they teach, and in the example they set: In the end, being a teacher means redefining myself, constantly learning, but above all it implies acting in congruence with what I want to instill in and with the people I work with. That means transforming my eating habits, taking care of the environment at home and in my daily actions. (Elisa, rural telesecondary teacher) Some participants reported changes in their students’ diets and thinking as a result of food-related activities: When we talked about healthy eating, [my students] understood that how food is grown has an impact (Leandro, urban secondary science teacher) I managed…to demonstrate the inequity in the distribution of food in the world. (Olaya, private urban secondary science teacher) Both food and farming can be “boundary objects” around which people with different perspectives converge and organize (Favilli, Rossi, and Brunori 2015). However, for these educators, many of whom had little prior experience with farming or gardening, food consumption was a more comfortable and universal conversation starter than food growing. Personal changes may contribute to agroecological scaling directly and, perhaps more importantly, teachers eating local agroecological produced food can influence students’ perceptions and preferences (Francis et al. 2003). This may be particularly significant in rural contexts, where, by consuming healthy, traditional foods, teachers may help revert the “intercultural asymmetry” between teachers and students described by Gutiérrez Narváez (2011). 12 B. G. FERGUSON ET AL. Fostering a dialog of knowledges through place-based learning Horizontal, intercultural “dialog of knowledges” (“diálogo de saberes”) has been essential to building movements for agroecology and territorial and food sovereignty (Martínez-Torres and Rosset 2014). Dialog of knowledges is based on the premise that valuable knowledge is generated from horizontal dialog among diverse ways of knowing, particularly indigenous, feminist, and others that are often marginalized. In this vein, LabVida fostered dialog of knowledges between school and community through learning activities in school gardens and local food systems. This was particularly urgent and challenging within the context of an educational system that discriminates against indigenous people (and, to a lesser extent, rural people in general) through diverse mechanisms of cultural hegemony. These include decontextualized methodologies and contents as well as “a model of thinking, personal construction, social existence, cultural pattern, and values that are foreign, and, perhaps, opposed to those that characterize their culture” (García Vasquez et al. 2014, our translation). We invited teachers to use garden and food lessons and constructivist methodology to bridge the gap between local and academic knowledge. In particular, we encouraged teachers to incorporate content related to traditional agriculture and foodways, invite local food and farming experts to visit schools or take their groups on farm and garden visits, and to use ethnographic techniques to learn about local knowledge. Engagement with different ways of knowing was a particularly successful aspect of LabVida training. At the end of the program 95% of teachers demonstrated some appreciation for local knowledge, and for at least 53%, this increased appreciation was a result of the program (our baseline data is insufficient for the rest). Seventy-one percent integrated local knowledge and the community in their teaching after starting the program: … I also learned, together with the other teachers, how to work with indigenous and academic knowledge in the same garden. (Lucas, rural autonomous teacher) The certificate program also served to work with my students…to value things about them, to tell them that what they have and what they know is important. (Flora, technical secondary principal and teacher) Participants’ reflections about what they and their students learned from intercultural dialog underscored an increased appreciation for local knowledge and practices: When my students saw that in 40–50 days we were harvesting radishes but for beets it took six months, they thought about peasants’ work, that it’s not fair to haggle over the prices. Many reflected on that. (Nicolas, urban secondary science teacher) AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 13 [My students] decided to work with medicinal plants. They got all the information from their parents. One girl even brought a homemade antiparasitic. Some of the parents can’t read or write, but they feel good when their kids ask them things and they can contribute to their education. (Xavier, periurban primary teacher) For many children, part of the value of garden-based learning, was that it provided a familiar setting from which to start learning other things: We started with the kids’ preexisting knowledge… That reinforced teachings of their parents, and they participated much more and without apprehension, because it wasn’t something foreign for them, but something familiar. The program helped me a lot because it motivated us to recover local knowledge, the kids participated more because it’s something they know about. (Flora, rural primary teacher) Working with something tangible and familiar like plants can even help overcome language barriers between teachers and indigenous students: The kids help with everything even though they don’t fully understand Spanish. The plants helped. The students would explain to me how they do things.. (Olga, technical secondary teacher) Our findings are consistent with research on critical, experiential place-based education (PBE) that contributes to social justice and decolonization (Gruenewald 2003; Gruenewald and Smith 2008) and builds environmental stewardship and collaborative relationships with community partners (Great Lakes Water Studies Institute 2005). By connecting to the territories, communities, and cultures that students inhabit, PBE can help decolonize knowledge. PBE meshes with agroecology in its emphasis on “reinhabitation” of places that have been exploited, and decolonization to foster more socially just and ecologically sustainable ways of being in the world (Giraldo 2018; Gruenewald 2003). Developing continuity and a community of practice A key concern for LabVida was to promote continuity and spread of gardenbased agroecology programs beyond the constraints of our own funding cycles. To this end, we created structured and unstructured opportunities for exchanges among participants within the training sessions, presented strategies for engaging their educational communities in garden programs, and promoted participation in the school garden network we founded in 2010, the Red Internacional de Huertos Escolares (redhuertos.org). To promote garden program continuity, we encouraged trainees to engage in participatory planning with their educational communities. For the first cohort, we used a conventional strategic planning approach, but this did not resonate with teachers and few got beyond cursory vision and mission statements. For the second we used actor mapping or “sociograms” (Martín 14 B. G. FERGUSON ET AL. Gutiérrez 2001) in which teachers drew networks of individuals and groups with potential to influence the success and continuity of garden-based learning activities. This approach seemed more useful to teachers because it focused on identifying the diversity of actors – particularly potential allies – and the relationships among them. Nonetheless, few participants (21%) were able to build alliances with their colleagues at school and they were only moderately successful at engaging with the local community (42%). For those that did create successful alliances, both kinds of relationships were significant: We saw [Olivia’s] enthusiasm and she infected us with it. We formed a team and we saw the results. (A colleague of Olivia’s during our visit to her rural telesecondary) We are promoting school gardens with our colleagues. …We’re starting now to incorporate them in our annual plan for the school and they will be a strong action hub for our school year. We’re promoting them within the school and with the families. We’re looking to do something similar to the certificate program with the teachers so that they take ownership of the methodology. (César, rural telesecondary teacher and principal) One stumbling block for creating alliances with colleagues and community members was the frequent shuffling of teachers among schools, particularly in rural areas (Gutiérrez Narváez 2011). Carolina (a rural preschool teacher), for example, identified teacher mobility as a challenge for program continuity. At the time of her interview, she knew that she would be at a different school the next year but she was optimistic that garden work would continue: The parents’ association likes the work we did a lot…It’s very gratifying to see that the parents are satisfied with the garden work. They said they wouldn’t let the new teacher abandon it, that they would explain this new way of working to her. We don’t know if the parents were able to keep the garden going with the new teacher, but Carolina established a garden at her new school and recruited another colleague to collaborate with her. School gardens motivated some children and their families to garden at home: I was able to generate more relationships with parents through activities in the garden with their children. Others helped by giving advice and traditional farming techniques. Now, each parent is planting his/her own garden. (Gilberto, auntonomous rural teacher) As the program advanced, we saw a different kind of alliance arising. Many participants (63%) recognized the significance of the community of practice that formed within LabVida training, and of what they learned from with fellow program participants (74%): AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 15 The group is very interesting and diverse. Now I have people to ask about these different ways of doing things. (Leandro, urban secondary science teacher) I learned a great deal from my companions in the program…the warm environment…allowed us to experience a climate of trust and friendliness. I felt like part of a family. (Tadeo, rural technical secondary teacher) For several of the participants, the international school garden network became a key strategy for continuing to learn and build community around school gardens and food. As the network broadened its geographic reach, in 2014 LabVida alumni created a state-level network, the Red Chiapaneca de Huertos Educativos (RCHE), that meets more frequently. As Jacinto, a periurban primary teacher and one of the RCHE organizers explained: I’m betting on the Network. It would be good to continue, to look for ways to keep meeting and learing. We need to continue with this kind of orientation. I’d like to work with this idea of food sovereignty. (Jacinto, periurban primary teacher) These teachers have helped coordinate the RCHE and its committees, hosted Saturday-morning network gatherings at their schools, and recruited new members. In sum, building alliances through collaborative learning about food and agroecology was among the most important outcomes of the Lab Vida experience. This was facilitated by our action research approach (Greenwood and Levin 2007). LabVida encouraged participants to create their own learning journey and to share these experiences and create new knowledge with fellow participants. By centering the curriculum in their experiences, LabVida represented a means for this experience to scale out organically. Scaling mechanisms included participants recruiting, and in some cases, training their colleagues; continued contact and collaboration among participants through informal networks and other means; participants building relationships with families that contribute to program continuity; and children and parents trying out ideas from the school garden at home. Our experience mirrors that of other processes in which formal and informal organizational structures provide the culture medium for agroecological scaling (Mier y Teran Giménez et al. 2018). In this case study, we worked principally with teachers who are deeply embedded in strong organizations, including schools, the public education system, and unions. Through these structures, reflective individual learning, known as first person research in the action research literature (Reason and Bradbury 2008) provides experiential knowledge and collective learning among participants. This collective learning, known as second person research (Reason and Bradbury 2008) generates new knowledge and practices. This knowledge, in turn, can be parlayed into learning among those who have not been directly involved through “third person research,” the development of lessons for the literature. 16 B. G. FERGUSON ET AL. LabVida relies to a large extent on these pre-existing, formal structures to facilitate the spread of our pedagogical strategy. However, these same structures create a host of barriers to scaling of a proposal like ours, including teacher mobility, a rigid curriculum that is fragmented by discipline and blocks of time, structural racism (Gutiérrez Narváez 2011), and conflicts between unions and the government and among union factions. Relationships developed through LabVida training and the school garden networks acquire particular significance against the backdrop of this tumultuous professional environment. Each of these avenues merits support and further research, as do the structural barriers that may limit their effectiveness. Conclusions Our case study of the LabVida school gardens program demonstrates the constraints and potential for scaling agroecology through existing structures of formal education. Among the most consistent changes we saw were those related to participants’ eating habits and their consciousness around food. The connections to place, culture and knowledge formed through interviews with elders, constructivist and inquiry-based pedagogy, and relationships established around gardens and food were also significant for many. From an action research perspective, this kind of knowledge, embedded in firstperson experience, represents a foundation for further individual and collective meaning making. This in turn may have a decades-long influence on teaching practices and on the example a teacher sets for hundreds or thousands of children over many years. In the spirit of action research, knowledge and change start from within. The community of practice formed around food and gardens interpenetrates pre-existing formal education structures. These both facilitate and limit growth and continuity of LabVida’s pedagogical model. We recognize that the educators who have trained with us are extraordinarily committed and talented, and that reaching a broader set of teachers will present new and greater challenges. The state and international school garden networks seem a promising avenue for continuing this community of practice, and incorporating new actors and ideas, while maintaining some autonomy from formal institutions. We were less successful at teaching agroecological principles or scientific process. These formal concepts did not resonate with most educators as something they could incorporate into their daily personal and professional lives. Many were intimidated by these concepts despite our efforts to present them with down-to-earth language and examples. However we remain committed to a society that is more scientifically literate and well versed in the science of agroecology. We are convinced that the way to accomplish this is to start with what is most immediately meaningful to participants and to add formal AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 17 concepts in ways that emphasize their application in place. In our context, this means focusing initially on food and place, and working inductively (Nigh and Bertely 2018) toward more general principals and processes of agroecology (Lieblein et al. 2012; Østergaard et al. 2010). We hypothesize that for many people without much previous experience with farming or science, food can be a fruitful starting point for teaching and learning agroecology. Our central objective was to contribute to scaling through pedagogies for constructing agroecological literacy, but we identify outcomes pertinent to several other drivers of scaling (Mier y Teran Giménez et al. 2018). First, our program influenced educators to choose more fresh, local and agroecologically produced food. Expansion of programs like ours could encourage this significant segment of the population to support agroecological markets, both directly, and through the example they set for their students. Linking school garden and food system education to school food acquisition could be a next step in this process. Second, new awareness of agroecology may lead teachers and their learning communities to become external allies of agroecological movements, and even to join the ranks of organizations themselves, as we have seen with the school garden networks. Finally, although our work has taken place in an indifferent policy environment, garden-based learning mobilizes public institutions to further agroecological scaling. Favorable policies that emphasize intercultural, horizontal learning and strengthen school-community relationships could accelerate this process. Each of of these phenomena merit further action research. Acknowledgments We are grateful to LabVida participants and staff, principally Mercedes Cristóbal, Nancy Serrano, and Isabel Reyes, for their collaboration, to the W.K. Kellogg Foundation for grant P3020700 to HM, and to Alejandra Guzmán and Miriam Aldasoro for comments on an earlier draft. Funding This work was supported by the W. K. Kellogg Foundation [P3020700]. ORCID Bruce G. Ferguson http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3963-2024 Helda Morales http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7583-2125 Ron Nigh http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2853-4111 References Altieri, M. A., and C. I. Nicholls. 2012. Agroecology scaling up for food sovereignty and resiliency. Sustainable Agriculture Reviews, ed Lichtfouse, vol. 11, 1–29. Dordrecht: Springer. 18 B. G. FERGUSON ET AL. Barbosa, L. P. 2016. Educação do Campo [education for and by the countryside] as a political project in the context of the struggle for land in Brazil. Journal of Peasant Studies 6150:1– 26. Taylor & Francis. doi:10.1080/03066150.2015.1119120. Baronnet, B. 2011. Entre el encargo comunitario y el compromiso zapatista: Los promotores de educación autónoma en la zona Selva Tseltal. In Luchas “muy otras”: Zaptismo y autonomía en las comunidades indígenas de Chiapas, ed. B. Baronnet, M. Mora Bayo, and R. Stahler-Sholk, 195–235. Mexico City: Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana. Berry, W. 1996. The unsettling of America: Culture and agriculture. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books. Brem-Wilson, J., and P. Nicholson. 2017. La Vía Campesina and academia: A snapshot. In Everyday experts: How people’s knowledge can transform the food system, ed. C. Anderson, C. Buchanan, M. Chang, J. S. Rodriguez, and T. Wakeford, 139–51. Coventry: Coventry University. Code, J. M. 2017. Innovations in agroecology education. From Bicycles to Blended Learning. Journal of Education 197:34–45. doi:10.1177/0022057418782353. David, C., and M. M. Bell. 2018. New challenges for education in agroecology. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 42:612–19. doi:10.1080/21683565.2018.1426670. FAO. 2010. A new deal for school gardens. Rome: FAO. FAO. 2018. FAO´s work on agroecology: A pathway to achieving the SDGs. Rome: FAO. Favilli, E., A. Rossi, and G. Brunori. 2015. Food networks: Collective action and local development. The role of organic farming as boundary object. Organic Agriculture 5:235–43. doi:10.1007/s13165-015-0118-2. Ford, A., and R. Nigh. 2015. The Maya forest garden: Eight millenia of sustainable cultivation of the tropical woodlands. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press. Francis, C., G. Lieblein, S. Gliessman, T. Breland, N. Creamer, R. Harwood, L. Salomonsson, J. Helenius, D. Rickerl, R. Salvador, et al. 2003. Agroecology: The ecology of food systems. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 22 (3):99–118. doi:10.1300/J064v22n03_10. García Vasquez, E., M. G. Klein, B. Hernández Zavaleta, S. I. Navarro Martínez, and N. E. Santos Baca. 2014. Discriminación institucional en la educación: Consideraciones generales. In Desenmascarar la discriminación: La violencia del sistema educativo mexicano hacia los pueblos originarios y las personas con discapacidad, ed. P. T. Baltazar, 3–8. San Cristóbal de Las Casas: Incidencia Civil en la Educación. García-Parra, E., H. Ochoa-Díaz, R. García-Miranda, L. Moreno-Altamirano, H. Morales, E. Estrada-Lugo, and R. Solís-Hérnández. 2015. Nutritional status of two generations of brothers and sisters <5 years of age beneficiaries from opportunities living in marginalized rural communities in Chiapas, Mexico. Nutrición Hospitalaria 31 (6):2685–91. doi:10.3305/ nh.2015.31.6.9020. Gibbs, L., P. K. Staiger, B. Johnson, K. Block, S. Macfarlane, L. Gold, J. Kulas, M. Townsend, C. Long, and O. Ukoumunne. 2013. Expanding children’s food experiences: The impact of a school-based kitchen garden program. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior 45:137–46. doi:10.1016/j.jneb.2012.09.004. Giraldo, O. F. 2018. Ecología política de la agricultura: Agroecología y posdesarrollo. San Cristóbal de Las Casas: El Colegio de la Frontera Sur. Gliessman, S. 2016. Transforming food systems with agroecology. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 40:187–89. doi:10.1080/21683565.2015.1130765. Great Lakes Water Studies Institute. 2005. Findings and recommendations to the great lakes fishery trust about integrating place-based education, professional development and schoolcommunity partnerships. Traverse City: Northwestern Michigan College. Greenwood, D., and M. Levin. 2007. Introduction to action research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 19 Gruenewald, D. A. 2003. The best of both worlds: A critical pedagogy of place. Educational Researcher 32 (4):3–12. doi:10.3102/0013189X032004003. Gruenewald, D. A., and G. A. Smith. 2008. Introduction: Making room for the local. In Placebased education in the global age: Local diversity, ed. D. A. Gruenewald and G. A. Smith, xiii–xxiii. Mahwah: Routledge. Gutiérrez Narváez, R. 2011. Dos proyectos de sociedad en Los Altos de Chiapas: Escuelas secundarias oficial y autónoma entre los tsotsiles de San Andrés. In Luchas “muy otras”: Zaptismo y autonomía en las comunidades indígenas de Chiapas, ed. B. Barronet, M. Mora Bayo, and R. Stahler-Sholk, 237–66. Mexico City: Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana. Jenatton, M. 2017. “Tiene fuerza el maíz”: The traditional beverage pozol in the lives of peasant and urban middle school students of Chiapas, Mexico. Master’s thesis, AgroParisTech. Jones, D. L., P. Cross, P. J. A. Withers, T. H. Deluca, D. A. Robinson, R. S. Quilliam, I. M. Harris, D. R. Chadwick, and G. Edwards-Jones. 2013. Nutrient stripping: The global disparity between food security and soil nutrient stocks. Journal of Applied Ecology 50:851–62. doi:10.1111/1365-2664.12089. Lappalainen, R., A. Saba, L. Holm, H. Mykkanen, and M. J. Gibney. 1997. Difficulties in trying to eat healthier: Descriptive analysis of perceived barriers for healthy eating. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition 51 (2):S36–S40. Lieblein, G., T. A. Breland, C. Francis, and E. Østergaard. 2012. Agroecology education: Action-oriented learning and research. Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 18:27–40. doi:10.1080/1389224X.2012.638781. Lopez, O., and A. Jacobs. 2018. In town with little water, Coca-Cola is everywhere. So is diabetes. New York Times, July 14. Loyo, B. E. 2006. En el aula y la parcela: Vida escolar en el medio rural (1921–1940). In Historia de la vida cotidiana en México. Siglo XX. Campo y Ciudad, tomo V, ed. A. de Los Reyes, Vol. 1, 273–312. Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Económica. Mariano, A., E. Hilário, and R. Tarlau. 2016. Pedagogies of struggle and collective organization: The educational practices of the Brazilian landless workers movement. Interface 8 (2):211–42. Martín Gutiérrez, P. 2001. Mapas sociales: Método y ejemplos prácticos. In Prácticas locales de creatividad social, ed. M. Montañés Serrano, T. Rodríguez-Villasante Prieto, and P. Martín-Gutiérrez, 91–113. Barcelona: El Viejo Topo. Martínez-Torres, M. E., and P. M. Rosset. 2014. Diálogo de saberes in La Vía Campesina: Food sovereignty and agroecology. Journal of Peasant Studies 41 (6):979–97. doi:10.1080/ 03066150.2013.872632. Meek, D. 2015. Taking research with its roots: Restructuring schools in the Brazilian landless workers’ movement upon the principles of a political ecology of education. Journal of Political Ecology 22 (1):410–28. doi:10.2458/v22i1.21116. Meek, D., K. Bradley, B. Ferguson, L. Hoey, H. Morales, P. Rosset, and R. Tarlau. 2017. Food sovereignty education in the Americas: Multiple origins, converging movements. Agriculture and Human Values. doi:10.1007/s10460-017-9780-1. Méndez, V. E., C. M. Bacon, and R. Cohen. 2013. Agroecology as a transdisciplinary, participatory, and action-oriented approach. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 37:3–18. doi:10.1080/10440046.2012.736926. Mier y Teran Giménez, C. M. O., F. Giraldo, M. Aldasoro, H. Morales, B. G. Ferguson, P. Rosset, A. Khadse, and C. Campos. 2018. Bringing agroecology to scale: Key drivers and emblematic cases. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 42 (6):637–65. doi:10.1080/ 21683565.2018.1443313. 20 B. G. FERGUSON ET AL. Miles, M. B., A. M. Huberman, and J. Saldaña. 2014. Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Morales, H. 2002. Pest management in traditional tropical agroecosystems: Lessons for pest prevention research and extension. Integrated Pest Management Reviews 7 (3):145–63. doi:10.1023/B:IPMR.0000027502.91079.01. Morales, H. 2017. Editorial. Ecofronteras 21 (61):1. Nigh, R., and A. A. González Cabañas. 2015. Reflexive consumer markets as opportunities for new peasant farmers in Mexico and France: Constructing food sovereignty through alternative food networks. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 39:317–41. doi:10.1080/ 21683565.2014.973545. Nigh, R., and M. Bertely. 2018. Conocimiento y educación indígena en Chiapas, México: Un método intercultural. Diálogos sobre Educación 16 (9):1–22. Østergaard, E., G. Lieblein, T. A. Breland, and C. Francis. 2010. Students learning agroecology: Phenomenon-based education for responsible action. Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 16:23–37. doi:10.1080/13892240903533053. Piaget, J. 1971. Epistemología y Psicología de la Identidad. Buenos Aires: Paidós. Piasentin, F. B., and G. Ruivenkamp. 2015. The strategies supporting agroecology in settlements managed by the landless rural workers’ movement (MST) in Rio Grande dol Sul state, Brazil. Ciência & Tecnologia Social 2:85–105. http://periodicos.unb.br/index.php/cts/ article/view/7748/6383. Pollan, M. 2008. In defense of food: An eater’s manifesto. New York, NY: Penguin Press. Reason, P., and H. Bradbury. 2008. Introduction. In The Sage handbook of action research, ed. P. Reason and H. Bradbury, 1–10. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Rosset, P. M., B. Machín Sosa, A. M. Roque Jaime, and D. R. Ávila Lozano. 2011. The Campesino-to-Campesino agroecology movement of ANAP in Cuba: Social process methodology in the construction of sustainable peasant agriculture and food sovereignty. Journal of Peasant Studies 38:161–91. doi:10.1080/03066150.2010.538584. Rosset, P. M., and M. E. Martínez-Torres. 2013. La Via Campesina and agroecology. In La Via Campesina´s open book: Celebrating 20 years of struggle and hope. www.viacampesina.org. Saldaña, J. 2015. The Coding manual for qualitative researchers. 3nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Smith, G. 2002. Place-based education: Learning to be where we are. Phi Delta Kappan 83 (8):584–94. doi:10.1177/003172170208300806. Solomons, N. W. 2000. Plant-based diets are traditional in developing countries: 21st century challenges for better nutrition and health. Asia Pacific Journal of Nutrition 9 (S1):S41–S54. doi:10.1046/j.1440-6047.2000.00165.x. Vandermeer, J., and I. Perfecto. 2017. Ecological complexity and agroecology. Abingdon: Routledge/Earthscan. Wight, R. A. 2013. The agroecological-educator: Food-based community development. Community Development Journal 49 (2):198–213. doi:10.1093/cdj/bst038. Zizumbo-Villareal, D., A. Flores-Silva, and P. Colunga-García Marín. 2012. The archaic diet in Mesoamerica: Incentive for milpa development and species domestication. Economic Botany 66 (4):328–43. doi:10.1007/s12231-012-9212-5. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems ISSN: 2168-3565 (Print) 2168-3573 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjsa21 Agroecology on the periphery: A case from the Maya-Achí territory, Guatemala Nathan Einbinder, Helda Morales, Mateo Mier Y Terán-Giménez Cacho, Miriam Aldasoro, Bruce G. Ferguson & Ronald Nigh To cite this article: Nathan Einbinder, Helda Morales, Mateo Mier Y Terán-Giménez Cacho, Miriam Aldasoro, Bruce G. Ferguson & Ronald Nigh (2019): Agroecology on the periphery: A case from the Maya-Achí territory, Guatemala, Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, DOI: 10.1080/21683565.2019.1585401 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2019.1585401 Published online: 26 Mar 2019. Submit your article to this journal View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wjsa21 AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2019.1585401 Agroecology on the periphery: A case from the Maya-Achí territory, Guatemala Nathan Einbinder a, Helda Morales a, Mateo Mier Y Terán-Giménez Cacho Miriam Aldasoro b, Bruce G. Ferguson a, and Ronald Nigh c a , a Departamento de Agricultura Sociedad y Ambiente, El Colegio de la Frontera Sur, San Cristobal de las Casas, Chiapas, Mexico; bDepartamento de Agricultura Sociedad y Ambiente, El Colegio de la Frontera Sur, Villahermosa, Tabasco, Mexico; cCentro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Anthropologia Social, Unidad Regional Sureste, San Cristobal de las Casas, Chiapas, Mexico ABSTRACT KEYWORDS In this paper we examine processes of scaling agroecological practices in the Maya-Achí territory of Guatemala. We compare the Achí case to other examples documented in the literature and the key factors, or “drivers,” reported as important if not essential for scaling to occur. We find that the Achí scase is complex with regard to these drivers. Factors such as constructivist learning/teaching methods, favorable public policies, and strong social fabric appear to be weak, absent, or even negative. This is due in part to the violence and repression of the 1980s, which resulted in the assassination of 20 percent of the population by the military and paramilitaries, leaving the territory socially fragmented. Projects incorporating agroecology (revalorization of ancestral practices, seed saving, elimination of external inputs, strengthening soil health, increasing/guarding agrobiodiversity) are viewed as a potential strategy to aid in community recovery, and are promoted by local associations as well as by international institutions and NGOs. While social and cultural recuperation were initially hypothesized as primary causes for the adoption of practices, we encounter a range of additional and complex factors, such as the expectation of economic benefits and the presence of aid and development organizations. By analyzing these drivers and barriers we contribute to the ongoing debate over how agroecological practices may be scaled-out, particularly in regions exhibiting less than ideal conditions. Agroecology; Maya-Achí; Guatemala; nongovernmental organizations; development Introduction Guatemala, along with much of the Mesoamerican region, has strong present and historical ties to the use of agroecological practices (Morales and Perfecto 2000; Wilken 1987). Without question a key contribution to our knowledge of sustainable and diversified agriculture is the traditional milpa (Isakson 2009). Developed over centuries, this polyculture agroecosystem, comprised of local varieties of CONTACT Helda Morales [email protected] El Colegio de la Frontera Sur, Carretera Panamericana y Periférico Sur S-N, C.P. 29290, San Cristóbal de Las Casas, Chiapas, Mexico © 2019 Taylor & Francis 2 N. EINBINDER ET AL. Figure 1. Map of the region, Nathan Einbinder maize, beans, squash, and native greens, continues to form the basis of the Mesoamerican diet, culture, and rural economy (IDEAR 2010; Steinberg 1999). Similarly, the region is noted for its deep connections to the agroecological “movement” – that is, the social and political actions propelling the spread of sustainable/ancestral agricultural practices and principles, often connected to larger territorial struggles (McCune and Sánchez 2018; Rosset and MartinezTorres 2012). As illustrated by Holt-Giménez (2006), throughout the 1970s and 80s thousands of peasant farmers, or campesinos, reclaimed autonomy at the family and community level through the horizontal exchange of agroecological knowledge and practices; a methodological process of learning and doing now commonly referred to as Campesino a Campesino (CaC). The results were impressive, not only in regard to the number of participants but also in the transformation and long-term improvement of their fields, through the use of green manures and other easily appropriable techniques (Wettasinha et al. 2014). Yet as part of a larger trend involving the elimination of social movements by right wing governments, the budding agroecological transformation was cut short. In Guatemala, presently at the apex of its 36-year long armed conflict, the quest for independence and self-sufficiency by campesinos was viewed by the military as tantamount to that of the “subversives,” and equal to their policy of eradication, a campaign was set to dismantle the leadership and its base by all means necessary (CEH 1999; Jonas 1991). Indeed a wealth of research follows this exemplary case, from its influence in neighboring territories (Rosset 2014; Sosa et al. 2013) to the documentation of AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 3 other examples in the world where CaC is being utilized and built upon (Khadse et al. 2017). Recently, a number of investigations seek to characterize effective agroecological movements worldwide, with the aim to address concerns over why sustainable practices and principles have not spread to a greater degree, despite widespread international support and scientific evidence (Brescia 2017; Khadse et al. 2017; Parmentier 2014). Mier y Terán et al (2018), contribute to the debate by analyzing emblematic case studies where agroecological practices have been brought to scale (CaC case included), generating a list of shared factors, or “drivers.” These include: 1) Recognition of a crisis that motivates the search for alternatives, 2) Social organization, 3) Constructivist learning processes, 4) Effective agroecological practices, 5) Mobilizing discourses, 6) External allies, 7) Favorable markets, and 8) Favorable policies. In this article we examine a specific case of agroecological scaling in the MayaAchí territory in Guatemala. While a number of characteristics unite our case with the CaC movement, particularly in regard to the shared cultural and colonial history, we recognize a complex situation. Of utmost concern is what we identify as the lingering consequences from the armed conflict. One of four locations where state-sponsored genocide was confirmed (Comisión para el Esclarecimiento Histórico (CEH) 1999), the Achí are still in recovery from the loss of over 20 percent of the population, not to mention the disappearance of leaders and a complete rupture of social relations (Einbinder 2017; Stewart 2006). In addition we recognize a set of distinctly contemporary factors, such as recurring drought due to climate change, along with rapidly changing consumption patterns and values. By comparing our case to the broader theories and debates surrounding agroecological scaling we also find a number of inconsistencies. Specifically we refer to the absence of a strong social fabric, political support, and constructivist learning/teaching methods. As noted, all of these factors have been reported as important if not essential drivers for the adoption of practices. In addition we detect a much more complex set of impacts resulting from the presence of external organizations and alliances than reflected on in the literature. Based on these observations, along with what we confirm in the territory as significant activity in agroecological scaling, with hundreds of families involved and a wealth of participating organizations and interest, we identify the Achí case as unique in comparison to other examples. It is our objective in this essay to demonstrate how agroecological scaling may occur in the absence of key drivers as indicated in the literature, as well as expand the discussion regarding the positive and negative impacts of external allies. We do this by presenting the social and historical context, followed by the identification of the barriers, drivers, and actors unique to the case. In our analysis, we intend to open up new points of discussion and debate, with the aim to make critical contributions to the developing theory. 4 N. EINBINDER ET AL. Research methods Fieldwork for this research was carried out between February 2017 and July 2018, yet is built upon a much more extensive process of accompaniment and research.1 During this timeframe the lead author spent a total of eight months collecting qualitative data through semi-structured interviews and accompaniments with fourteen agroecological producers, the majority of them members of the farmer’s association Qachuu Aloom, as well as through Participant Observation (DeWalt and DeWalt 2011; Dunn 2005). Interviewees were selected as part of a participatory/collaborative process with local promotores (Guzmán and Alonso 2007), who in turn aided in the development of questions, translation, and logistics. In addition, we interviewed directors and employees of organizations working in the region, many of them also agroecological producers. Finally, we carried out an extensive literature review, as well as analysis of project reports, effectively developing a “triangulation” of methods to ensure rigor (Baxter and Eyles 1997). Theoretical considerations This research is grounded in the critical framework of agroecology, in which technical aspects interface with inquiry into the role of society and its transition towards sustainability through the utilization of agroecological practices and principles (Gliessman 2015; Perfecto and Vandemeer 2015, Pretty 2002). A fusion between indigenous/traditional knowledges and techniques (Deneven 1995; Morales and Perfecto 2000), and that of more contemporary science (Altieri 1987; Hainzelen 2014), agroecological practices are rooted in diversity and economy. More specifically, we allude to the economic and innovative use of space and resources, for example, soil, water, nutrients, trees and other plants, genetic material, and labor (Nichols et al. 2016). Under these guidelines, agroecological practices seek to eliminate external inputs through the use of organic matter and animal waste for soil improvement, utilize biodiversity for pest management, reduce dependency and increase adaptability by guarding heritage seeds, and recuperate household/community nutrition and food security by diversifying modes of production (Sarandón and Flores 2014). As a theoretical approach, agroecology challenges the logic and mechanisms behind the Green Revolution (Kremen, Iles, and Bacon 2012), along with the narratives surrounding the need for increased production (Perfecto, Vandermeer, and Wright 2009). It confronts the unsustainability of the global food system (Weis 2007) while demonstrating the potential for resilience and adaptability in agroecological systems, particularly among the small-scale and/or family farmers most apt to use and develop them (Holt-Gimenez 2002). As AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 5 summarized by Gliessman (2010), agroecology responds to local needs, often beginning with the producer redesigning his or her parcel, redesigning based on micro-conditions, resource availability, and cultural relevance but also aspires to transform relationships among food system actors from the local to the global level. Thus, agroecology moves beyond the pillars of organic and diversified production and into the realm of social processes, markets, education, ecological restoration, and development (Altieri and Toledo 2011; Wezel et al. 2009). Within this integrated framework, our research is informed by theoretical concerns regarding agroecological scaling. Also referred to as “massification,” agroecological “transformation” or “reconfiguration” (González 2012), we define scaling as the horizontal spread and adoption of agroecological practices and principles across geographic space.2 In our analysis of this literature we are particularly drawn to the emphasis on social organization, the socalled “culture medium for which agroecology grows” (Mier y Terán et al. 2018, 19). Additionally we take into account the discourses surrounding the high level of incidence and importance of constructivist learning and teaching methods, support from external allies, along with favorable public policies. Our interest in these specific drivers is related precisely to the fact that, in our case, they are either partially and/or wholly absent, or with respect to external allies, generate many more questions than depicted in the literature. In the following sections we illustrate the agroecological movement occurring in the Achí territory in order to add to the theoretical debate. Geographic context The Maya-Achí territory is located within the rural highland department of Baja Verapaz, approximately 90 miles north of Guatemala City. With approximately 100,000 indigenous Achí-speaking inhabitants (SEGEPLAN 2010), the territory encompasses three principal municipalities, the largest being Rabinal, whose capital city serves as the political and economic center. Local industry is centered on artisanry and agriculture, the latter focused on subsistence and infra-subsistence, principally in milpa but also small-scale vegetable production, peanuts and coffee. Known as the folkloric “cradle” of the nation, the Achí are renowned for the preservation of pre-Hispanic ceremonies and rituals (Tedlock 2003). They are also noted for their continuous use of traditional dress and language, as well as attachment to the land and a distinct gastronomy based on hot maize beverages (atol), local squash (ayote), and semi-wild vegetables (Aceveda and Sariah 2004; LunaGonzáles and Sørenson 2018). While extraordinary with respect to the preservation of cultural practices, a deeper inquiry reveals a people marked by domination, violence, and exclusion. Specifically, we refer to the latest cycle of “conquest” (see Lovell 1988), in which the population was subject to a government-sponsored 6 N. EINBINDER ET AL. elimination campaign (CIIDH 1999). While much could be written about the Guatemalan armed conflict, and its impact on contemporary society, we leave the details to other resources (Ball, Kobrack, and Sprirer 1999; Benson, Fischer, and Thomas 2008; Carmack 1988; CIIDH 1999; CEH 1999; Jonas 1991). For those entirely unfamiliar, it should be noted that over 200,000, mostly indigenous civilians were killed over the 36-year period (1960–96), a large percentage of that occurring in the early 1980s under U.S. sanctioned military dictatorships. Its root causes were related to the country’s entrenched patterns of social exclusion, ethnic racism, and a development policy aimed at benefitting a select minority elite. The promise of democratic reform, offered by President Jocobo Arbenz Guzmán, and his overthrow by the CIA in 1954, is widely cited as an additional instigator, and to this day remains a symbol of lost hope. In the Achí territory, the army took preventative measures against a population deemed vulnerable for indoctrination by so-called subversives, utilizing the full potential of the Civilian Armed Patrols, or PAC’s (CEH 1999). The PAC’s occupied a strategic tactic, effectively pitting neighbor against neighbor and ripping the social fabric. As indicated by the UN Truth Commission (CEH 1999), the government’s “scorched earth” campaign resulted, in just the municipality of Rabinal, in over 4,400 deaths – roughly 20% of the population. In one emblematic case, that of Río Negro, a series of four massacres took the lives of over 440 men, women, and children – more than half the population (Colajocomo 1999). A classic example of the relationship between violence and “development” (Alonso-Fradejas 2012), the residents of Río Negro were attacked for their peaceful opposition against displacement from the World Bank-funded Chixoy Hydroelectric Dam (Colajacomo 1999). Those who survived eventually ended up in the relocation “model village” of Pacux, located on the outskirts of Rabinal (Johnston 2005). Without land to farm, nor any of the services initially promised by the government – precisely why they resisted leaving – survivors lived and continue to live in precarious and ultimately dependent conditions (Aceveda 2004; Einbinder 2017). While extreme, this case exemplifies the attitude of the state, perceiving non-conforming, or “unproductive” indigenous peoples as disposable, if not a threat to the progress of the nation (Kurtenbach 2008). It also illustrates the kind of divisions, impoverishment, and desperation the violence provoked in a number of Achí communities (CIIDH 1999). While the 1996 signing of the Peace Accords generated high hopes, recuperation is stalled by government corruption and neoliberal development approaches that prioritize the extraction/exportation model, offering little as far as structural improvement in rural areas (Granovsky-Larsen 2018; Robinson 2000) Extreme disparities, particularly regarding income and AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 7 land ownership, along with high levels of crime, continue without an end in sight (Benson, Fischer, and Thomas 2008; Smith and Offit 2010). Despite thriving macroeconomic indicators (Cabrera et al. 2015), poverty, not only in terms of accumulated wealth, but also illiteracy, food security and access to services, is reported as high as 80% (CIDH 2003). In a recent study (Orozco and Muñoz 2016), UN researchers found that nearly half the population is at risk of having insufficient resources to buy (or grow) adequate food, with one quarter already reaching that limit. In the Achí territory the situation is equally challenging, if not more so given the fragmentation as a result of the conflict, and high vulnerability regarding climate change (Acevedo 2004; SEGEPLAN 2010; Stewart 2006). As pointed out by leaders, the conflict ruptured all aspects of local production and social relations, and these have yet to be reconstructed. A combination of increasingly difficult economic and farming conditions, not to mention a process of modernization that devalues small-scale production (Isakson 2009), sends masses of smallholders to the plantations for work, the fringes of Guatemala City, or the U.S. In communities such as Pacux, conditions reach their absolute limit in terms of food insecurity, and desperation, propelled by the lack of economic opportunity and lingering psychological trauma (Einbinder 2017; Johnston 2005). Agroecology in the Maya-Achí territory “We have lost the essence of our identity” Agroecological promotor Similar to what has been documented in other parts of the country (see Fundebase 2012; Reynolds 2013) agroecology-centered development programs are initiated in the territory by both local and externally based organizations as a means to confront the aforementioned food security/ cultural crises, as well as foster community recuperation. As indicated in the quote above, the acknowledgement of immense cultural loss has resulted in the formation of local associations, with the specific objective to recuperate sustainable ancestral practices, such as diversified milpa practices, empower victims (particularly widows), and motivate the next generation of land stewards. One of the more significant groups is the campesino association Qachuu Aloom (“Mother Earth” in Achí). Founded in 2002 by massacre survivors, with the assistance of a U.S. citizen then living in Rabinal, Qachuu Aloom (QA) began with the intent to rescue native food crops and medicines through the establishment of diversified, organic home gardens and seed banks, while offering members economic incentives by selling their products. Since then they have expanded to 25 Achí communities and 600+members, 8 N. EINBINDER ET AL. and a high level of interest for new membership. With a continued focus on the collection and sale of heirloom seeds, as well as addressing the issue of food security at the family level, QA utilizes what they call an “integrated approach,” offering technical assistance3 and also addressing issues such as gender inequality, nutrition, and the recovery of certain traditional practices and plants through workshops and consciousness-raising activities. As mentioned, QA, along with a handful of other local associations, are not alone in promoting agroecology in the region. Since the mid 1990s a number of outside organizations, such as the FAO, CARITAS, the German development institution GIZ, World Neighbor’s, the Guatemalan Minister of Agriculture (MAGA), and many others have arrived to the territory with the intent to teach and encourage smallholders in agroecological practices, namely in soil conservation and the fabrication of organic compost, vegetable production, diversification strategies and animal husbandry. In recent years, studies confirming the ever-expanding nature of the “Dry Corridor,” presently absorbing the lowland districts of the territory, sends even more groups and institutions to the region, with a specific focus on adaption to drought and water management (FAO 2015). We note successes among both local and external groups in motivating farmers to adopt new practices and crops, as well as recuperate those considered ancestral. At the same time, we acknowledge major differences between the two in terms of ideologies and subsequent methodologies, thus affecting potential collaboration and divisions, not to mention the effectiveness of individual projects. In the following section we detail how these distinctions play out on the ground. Results and discussion The aim of this section is to illustrate the processes of agroecological scaling in the Achí territory. We do this by analyzing emergent themes from our fieldwork analysis. These themes include: the influence of organizations, both local and external; cultural/environmental change and recuperation; the search for alternatives; and economic benefits. Organizations Here we discuss the impacts of organizations on processes of agroecological scaling, with a focus on external groups and how they are perceived in the territory. As part of the larger neoliberal project, foreign NGOs and institutions arrived to Guatemala following the conflict in order to fill gaps left by an increasingly absent state, while attempting to inject their own vision of poverty alleviation, social equality and environmental protection (Sundberg 1998). In Rabinal, groups focusing on sustainable AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 9 agriculture arrived to the territory in order to work with individuals and communities based on their willingness to collaborate, relationship to the conflict (those more directly affected generally receive extra attention), and resource availability. Based on our investigations, most projects center their work on issues related to food security, resiliency, and the transition to organic methods. This translates to a range of agricultural activities, such as the fabrication of organic composts, development of home gardens and seed banks, and experimentation with new varieties of vegetables. Recently programs focusing on the recovery of highly nutritious native crops, such as amaranth (Amaranthus), chipilín (Crotalaria longirostrata), and chaya (Cnidoscolus aconitifolius), are also noted. As a result of this work, nearly every farmer we interviewed acknowledged participating at one time or another with external organizations. Once involved, individuals typically receive assistance by technicians, which include both university-trained agronomists and local indigenous promotores, as well as attend workshops. Participants also report to have received aid, for instance basic food staples, tools, and cash payments. Additionally some advanced farmers are delegated community promotores, and while typically a voluntary task, we are aware of at least one case in which participants were financially compensated. It would be difficult to quantify how many residents are planting agroecologically as a direct result of their involvement with outside organizations, in part because of the similar work local associations do with many of the same people. However, we believe it to be substantial. We base this assumption on local narratives as well as a few key observations. First, as far as we know non-native vegetable and herb production (mainly onions, mustard greens, chard, beets, radishes, cabbage, parsley, and basil, among others) did not exist in the territory before the arrival of outside groups in the 1970s, or was limited to very few communities. The same goes for the fabrication of organic compost and other soil conservation measures.4 Both of these techniques, natural soil enhancement and vegetable production for subsistence and market-oriented strategies, are observed as widespread and well integrated into family production and the local economy. In addition, we recognize the existence of several coffee growing initiatives (organic, diversified, small-scale) that would not exist without the assistance of outside institutions. Despite these seemingly positive impacts, however, local narratives surrounding the presence of outside groups are generally pessimistic, particularly by local leaders advocating food sovereignty. Coinciding with other criticism for governmental and non-governmental programs for subsistence/infra-subsistence agriculture (Caballeros 2013), local advocates claim that projects initiated by outside institutions reinforce paternalistic relationships and dependency. Some go as far as stating that the presence of outside 10 N. EINBINDER ET AL. groups and their projects “keeps us inside the conflict” by maintaining longstanding power imbalances and issuing new forms of neocolonialism. A key problem points to a methodology that includes food handouts and/or other gifts for willing participants. This is viewed as highly demotivating, for the most part,5 as farmers become hesitant to voluntarily transition towards agroecology and self-sufficiency “or do anything,” as one resident put it, unless duly compensated. Just as producers become accustomed to the ease of agrochemicals, we were told, they become similarly dependent on the next “proyecto,” in which poverty and abandonment by the state may be leveraged for maximum economic benefit. Other criticisms include the short duration (usually one to two years) and impersonality of outside programs, top-down or “extensionista” teaching methods, as well as unreasonable expectations. According to one leader, “Organizations arrive and think that because they buy you a hose, everything will change overnight… They come and go, spend money on their project and leave. You become nothing more than a number. That’s not how nature works…” Additionally, as another leader pointed out, a number of these groups work with what he calls, “one foot in the organic, the other in the conventional.” What he means by this, as we were to learn, is that while some projects might work with women on organic vegetable beds, theysimultaneously distribute “improved” corn seeds to their male counterparts, along with the technological packets that go along with them. This is contentious, given the assumptions regarding the adaptability of hybrid seeds, as well as the strong cultural ties to local varieties and fears over genetic contamination. Not to mention the laborious work local groups undertake in educating the public about the risks associated with herbicides, both in terms of health effects and their threat to native crops (Luna-Gonzalez and Sørensen 2018). While Achí-based associations work with similar objectives (encourage farmers to adopt sustainable practices for increased autonomy and better livelihoods, safeguard natural resources and cultural practices/varieties), their methodologies are distinct. Knowledge transfer is fused with long-term accompaniment and some horizontal methodologies, such as farmer exchanges. While realistic about the need for economic incentives through the adoption of practices, their work is often fused with an explicitly spiritual/cultural component, centered on connection with nature, and God, and the revalorization of ancestral practices.6 Despite noted successes in motivating residents to adopt agroecological practices and participate in their integrated programs, their work is complicated by outside groups as they feel they “cannot compete” with such “asistencialista” or aid–based methodologies. Similarly, they complain of laziness and dependency among members accustomed to handouts: attitudes that do not correspond well with the hard work associated with AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 11 agroecological production, let alone unpaid farmer to farmer knowledge exchanges. Furthermore, local leaders speak of a constant battle with politicians, along with corporations (often working hand in hand), who hook campesinos on agrochemicals; namely synthetic fertilizers, but also herbicides. In conclusion, we identify a complicated environment in which local and external groups attempt to carry out similar work under distinct ideological backgrounds. While it appears that the methods employed by non-local groups thwart the efforts of Achí associations, we suspect that barriers are also influenced by the long-lasting consequences of the conflict, which include community divisions, domestic problems, knowledge loss, and dependency on politically driven restitution programs. Finally, it may be important to comment on the additional role of international groups in financing local grassroots initiatives, which, based on our observations, also cause a number of complications with respect to the direction of certain programs and competition between participating groups. Cultural/environmental change and recuperation We find that in the Achí territory community/cultural recovery processes are often interwoven with agroecology initiatives. Organizations, both local and external, capitalize on the aspiration by certain sectors of the population to recuperate ancestral practices in order to propel their agroecological agenda, while similarly attempting to mend the torn social fabric. The seed program initiated by QA is a case in point. Alongside other traditional agricultural societies, the importance of seeds among the Achí is noteworthy, resonating with questions of identity and local autonomy (Isakson 2009). This program is strategic by offering participants (mainly women) expert local assistance in recovering knowledge and varieties, while also providing an economic incentive by purchasing excess seeds, then resold to the community. The result is likely the most successful agroecological program in the territory, with respect to the number of participants (250+families), as well as the overall direct and indirect impacts, which include the safeguarding of genetic material, generating household income, bringing neighbors together over common goals, and most importantly, from our perspective, getting residents involved at an increasingly deeper level of planting, harvesting, and consuming healthy products. That said, we also identify cultural change, compounded by changes in environmental conditions, as key barriers to the spread and adoption of agroecology. More specifically we refer to changing values, particularly among youth, as well as issues such as migration, climate change and recurring drought, along with what many refer to as the increasing 12 N. EINBINDER ET AL. “impracticality of being a campesino.” This final point stems from both increasingly difficult economic and growing conditions, as well the consistent and degrading narrative pointing to the work of small-scale farmers as backwards and anti-progress (see Loker 1996). As far as the question of local youth, leaders express great urgency in attracting and forming the next generation of agroecological producers, as many practitioners are reaching an age where they will soon retire. While methodologies are presently being developed by organizations, including school programs and weekend activities, most admit that convincing youth to “fall in love with the work” is extremely difficult.7 This is due, in part, to the observable shift in priorities, focused on making money and consumerism, as well as the “false hope of [public] education,” which, aside from being notably poor, adopts the neoliberal strategy by preparing students for becoming “professionals,” e.g. menial wage laborers for jobs that do not exist outside Guatemala City (Poppema 2009). The legacy of the conflict brings in a whole new set of culturally related barriers. Individuals comment on how the conflict resulted in a “circle of changes,” in which people “cease to plant, [and therefore] lose regional food, purchasing what is cheap and processed…” It is worth noting that loss of knowledge, due to the rupture of habits and customs, along with increasing dependency on restitution and aid programs, is evident in nearly all Achí communities, some worse than others. While acknowledging these barriers, we recognize that many of the negative attributes that encompass the Achí context may also be turned around as instigators for adoption. In the following subsection we demonstrate how the identification of problems and the collective search for solutions may act as a critical determinant for participation in agroecological programs, as well as incorporate the principles into aspects of their daily lives. Search for alternatives As pointed out by Mier y Terán et al. (2018), the collective identification of a crisis is fundamental in generating widespread interest in agroecological adoption. In the Achí territory, awareness and concerns over a variety of environmental and social issues, due in part to the educational and motivational work of organizations, has sparked interest in agroecological principles. In our interviews participants express fears over the increasing contamination of water, deforestation, as well as the use of plastics and agrochemicals. They speak of diseases, such as cancer, as a result of changes in diet and the way their vegetables are grown, and would therefore choose to grow their own instead of buying in the market. Obesity is widely believed to be a result of processed food, whose consumption at the national level has increased dramatically in recent years (FAO 2017). As a result, the AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 13 reintroduction of nutritionally rich plants such as amaranth and chipilin, among others, are reportedly on the rise, as are popular education programs that teach nutrition. Positive feedbacks are also observed, as decreased herbicide use stimulates the natural growth of many of these plants in their milpas, ready to be consumed and/or sold. Also, with increased interest in green plants agroecological producers encounter more buyers, who, as explained in the following section, seek out neighbors instead of buying in the market. Finally we touch on the issue of climate change, which, for some producers living in the drier regions of the territory, has signaled an end to milpa production as they know it. As a result, the belief of a “permanent drought” has pushed potential collaborators away, while also attracting others convinced by the innovativeness of agroecological farming. In one participant’s farm we observed a multiyear transition in the making, from what was once milpa (what he describes as out of place, in the changing conditions) to what is now a “permanent garden,” with fruit trees, pacaya (an edible palm), coffee in the understory, and a host of semi-wild edible plants that come up beneath. This example, we feel, exemplifies how agroecology may be adopted and promoted as part of a greater acknowledgement that “crisis” is imminent, and that those striving for greater autonomy, much like their parents and grandparents had, will be best prepared, not to mention the most content. Economic benefits With respect to economic benefits, the impacts cannot be overstated. “We plant to survive,” is one phrase heard over and again, particularly by those disenfranchised and food insecure, with few options to make ends meet. While agroecological practices may require more work (weeding with hand tools, building soil through compost, tending perennials) participants acknowledge the possibility to eliminate costly inputs while still providing a bountiful harvest. Resource-poor farmers are also quick to adopt diversification strategies, as it allows for a continual cycle of harvesting. While selling small amounts of excess crops or seeds may bring relatively little income, “it is something,” we were affirmed, among a dearth of economic opportunity. Some agroecological producers speak of their ability to send a child to school with extra money earned and saved, and in the best of case scenarios, avoid seasonal work at industrial farms in other regions. Informants speak about farming “with nature” in very practical terms. They learn to make compost out of yard and animal waste, or practice crop rotation “out of necessity,” in contrast to more nuanced cultural and/or environmental motives. By incorporating agroecological 14 N. EINBINDER ET AL. practices into their household activities individuals “may not have money, but always something to eat,” and even better, “food that doesn’t damage the body.” A select number of our informants turn agroecological production into relatively profitable enterprises, selling at regional markets and to neighbors who “buy because they know we don’t use poison.” While myriad factors contribute to the success of these entrepreneurs, we note the importance of available resources and strong personal will, often related to the desire to continue the work of their parents and grandparents (both a cultural and economic motive, as their past relatives are consistently noted as “more independent”). In two communities with noted exceptional interest in QA activities and agroecological practices, sources indicate an unusually supportive local leadership, resulting in community development workshops, reforestation and watershed protection programs. While promising, this is also said to attract interest by outside groups, as well as the municipal government, who are noted to provoke competition, corruption, and dependency among residents. In one specific community – often recognized as the “crown jewel” of regional organic production for its diverse gardens and water/forest protection – opinions over residents “highly individualistic” and “capitalistic” motives, as well as reliance on outside support and lack of integration of the more social principles, are expressed by leaders and observed firsthand. Again, this touches on the critical role of organizations, along with the thorny question of what may and may not be determined “agroecology” (Giraldo and Rosset 2017; Wezel and Soldat 2009). In summary, we observe an exceedingly complex situation with numerous contradictions and factors to be explored. Certain characteristics appear compatible with what is found in the literature, such as the identification of a crisis and effective practices. Others, specifically those having to do with a lack of strong social fabric and public policies, go against expectations and deserve greater examination, which we attempt here. Of specific importance is the influence of both local and external organizations, which we find to have an array of impacts, both positive and negative. Conclusion Our aim here is to highlight the processes and potential for agroecological scaling under challenging and suboptimal conditions. More specifically, we intend to open up new points of discussion and debate with respect to the key factors or “drivers” identified in the literature, many of which are absent or minimally represented in the Achí case. To conclude, we pose the question: Can agroecological scaling occur on the “periphery,” as exemplified in the Achí territory? According to our analysis, we believe it to be possible. This is largely due to what we identify AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 15 as a common pursuit of greater independence or autonomy (see Van der Ploeg 2008) by Achí residents, along with the resolve by certain sectors of the population to recuperate cultural attributes damaged or lost during the conflict, particularly those relating to agricultural practices and local varieties. While emphasizing the critical importance of organizations, along with the need for more nuanced discussions of their impacts, we also recognize that the spread of agroecology in this region may equally be determined by individual personal will, spiritual belief, background, and position with respect to opportunities. Something remarkable we observe in the Achí case relates to its seemingly insurmountable barriers, and how they are met with continued determination, interest, and optimism. As pointed out by one leader, it is not so important whether individuals are planting grand agroecological extensions, rather that more and more people get involved, at whatever level they can afford in that moment. If this is what measures success, then we too feel optimistic for present activity and future possibilities. With respect to future investigations, we identify a range of possibilities, specifically concerning deeper inquiries into the impacts of external organizations and dependency, and whether certain forms of assistance may propel initial scaling movements. Similarly, we hope for further research on methodological approaches, particularly those that take into account specific social/political conditions and limitations. Of additional interest would be the development of clear links between culture/cultural change and scaling processes, which also appears incomplete in relevant literature. Notes 1. Since 2008, the lead author has been visiting the Achí territory, as a human rights observer, consultant on local projects, and researcher. This inevitably informed the questions and hypothesis of this research, and facilitated long-term trusting relationships with organizations. 2. Under Rosset and Alieri’s (2017) much more detailed explanation of scaling, our definition would be considered “scaling-out,” in contrast to that of “scaling-up” which deals with vertical processes of grassroots/local moving into political/institutional realms. 3. While recognizing the potentially loaded connotation of the term “technical assistance” or “technician,” we acknowledge that the methodologies employed by this group, as well as most others in the territory, are indeed influenced by more conventional methods of teaching, often comprising a sort of hybrid between it and more horizontal forms. 4. While many farmers claim that there was no need for soil enhancement techniques before the 1970s, due to the natural fertility, a number of them also speak about the ancestral use of applying zompopo (leaf cutter ant) litter, and ashes, to their fields to improve fertility. We also acknowledge the role and importance of traditional 16 N. EINBINDER ET AL. management of organic matter, through the mulching of plant residues, as well as the use of polycultures, rotations, and agroforestry. 5. In one particular community we document the widespread use of agroecological practices alongside a constant turnover of development projects that use financial payments as a means to motivate residents, with a noted high level of success. 6. We recognize that not all ancestral practices are or should be deemed agroecological. Certain customs, such as the burning of fields (leftover organic material that would better be composted for soil fertility) and forests, to create pasture, are looked down upon by all organizations, and conform part of their sensibilización (consciousnessraising) program, with the goal to teach about their ineffectiveness and damaging consequences, as well as propose other options. 7. Clearly there are examples that speak otherwise. In our experience with one particular program that works with the children of massacre survivors, we find great interest in linking historical memory and cultural recuperation with that of ancestral practices and knowledge. Acknowledgments We are deeply indebted and grateful to the promotores and promotoras of Qachuu Aloom, the participants, as well as the numerous community leaders who helped us carry out this work. Without your patience and assistance none of this would have been possible. We also give many thanks to Marc Edelman and Peter Rosset for their valuable comments and input. ORCID Nathan Einbinder http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3616-2952 Helda Morales http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7583-2125 Mateo Mier Y Terán-Giménez Cacho http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6512-7238 Miriam Aldasoro http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5411-7499 Bruce G. Ferguson http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3963-2024 Ronald Nigh http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2853-4111 References Acevedo, S. 2004. Las viudas del conflicto armado en Rabinal: Estrategias de sobrevivencia en el contexto de la pobreza. Tesis de maestría. FLACSO, Guatemala. Acevedo, Sariah (2004). Las viudas del conflicto armado enRabinal. Guatemala.: Estrategias de sobrevivencia en el contexto de la pobreza.Tesis de maestría, FLACSO. Alonso-Fradejas, A. 2012. Land control-grabbing in Guatemala: The political economy of contemporary agrarian change. Canadian Journal of Development Studies 33 (4):509–28. doi:10.1080/02255189.2012.743455. Altieri, M. A. 1987. Agroecology: The scientific basis of alternative agriculture. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Altieri, M. A., and V. M. Toledo. 2011. The agroecological revolution in Latin America: Rescuing nature, ensuing food sovereignty and empowering peasants. The Journal of Peasant Studies 38 (3). doi:10.1080/03066150.2011.582947. AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 17 Ball, P., P. Kobrack, and H. F. Sprirer. 1999. STate violence in Guatemala, 1960-1996: A quantitative reflection. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). Baxter, J., and J. Eyles. 1997. Evaluating qualitative research in social geography: Establishing ‘rigour’ in interview analysis. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 22:505–25. doi:10.1111/tran.1997.22.issue-4. Benson, P., E. F. Fischer, and K. Thomas. 2008. Resocializing suffering: Neoliberalism, accusation, and the sociopolitical context of Guatemala’s new violence. Latin American Perspectives 35 (5):35–58. doi:10.1177/0094582X08321955. Brescia, S., Ed. 2017. Fertile Ground: Scaling agroecology from the ground up. Oakland, CA: Food First Books. Caballeros, Á. 2013. Agricultura familiar, soberanía alimentaria y buen vivir: Alternativos y desafíos en Guatemala. Guatemala: Magna Terra Editores. Serie Cuadernos Populares No. 2. Cabrera, M., L. Nora, and M. Hilcías.(2015). Fiscal policy, inequality, and the ethnic divide inGuatemala. World Development, 76: 263–279. Carmack, R. M., Ed. 1988. Harvest of violence: The Maya Indians and the Guatemala crisis. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. CIIDH (International Center for Human Rights Research). 1999. Draining the Sea: An analysis of terror in three rural communities in Guatemala (1980–1984). American Association of the Advancement of Sciences. Guatemala city, Guatemala. Colajacomo, J. 1999. The Chixoy Dam: The Maya Achi’ Genocide. The story of forced resettlement. Contributing Paper. World Commission on Dams. Cape Town, Sudáfrica. Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos (CIDH) 2003. justice inclusion social: Los desafios de la democraciaen Guatemala. Capitulo 4: Guatemala. La situación de losPueblos Indígenas. http://www.cidh.oas.org/pdf%20files/GUATEMALA.2003.pdf Comisión para el Esclarecimiento Histórico (CEH). 1999. Guatemala: Memoria del silencio. Report of the Commission for Historical Clarification Conclusions and Recommendations. Denevan, W. M. 1995. 2 Prehistoric agricultural methods as models for sustainability. Advantage of Plant Pathology 11:21–43. DeWalt, K. M., and B. R. DeWalt. 2011. Participant observation: A guide for fieldworkers. Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield. Dunn, K. 2005. Interviewing. In Qualitative research methods in human geography, ed. I. Hay, 50–82. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Einbinder, N. 2017. Dams, development, and displacement: Perceptions from Río Negro, Guatemala. New York, NY: Springer-Palgrove. Springer Briefs in Latin American Studies. FAO. 2015. El cambio climatico en el corridor seco de. Guatemala: Experiencias en Baja Verapaz. FAO 2017. El consumo de productos ultraprocesadas aumenta en Guatemala. Noticias. http:// www.fao.org/guatemala/noticias/detail-events/en/c/854050/ Fundebase. 2012. Políticas agrarias, agrícolas y de desarrollo rural en guatemala: Del despojo histórico, la descampesinización actual y grandes luchas sociales desde el poder indigenacampesino por la tierra, el territorio y la vida. Guatemala: Aliansa por la agroecologia. Giraldo, O. F., and P. M. Rosset. 2017. Agroecology as a territory in dispute: Between institutionality and social movements. Journal of Peasant Studies. 45: 1–20. Gliessman, S. R. 2015. Agroecology: The ecology of sustainable food systems. 3rd ed. Boca Raton, USA: CRC Press. Gliessman, S. R., and M. Rosemeyer. 2010. The conversion to sustainable agriculture: Principles, processes, and practices. Boca Raton, USA: Taylor and Francis Group, LLC. 18 N. EINBINDER ET AL. González, H. 2012. Agroecological reconfiguration: Local alternatives to environmental degradation in Mexico. Journal of Agrarian Change 12 (4):484–502. doi:10.1111/ joac.2012.12.issue-4. Granovsky-Larson, S. 2018. Land and reconfiguration of power in post-conflict Guatemala. In Dominant elites in Latin America. Latin America political economy series, ed. L. L. North and T. D. Clark, 181–204. Switzerland: Palgrove Macmillan. Guzmán, C. G. I., and M. A. M. Alonso. 2007. La investigación participativa en agroecología: Una herramienta para el desarrollo sustentable. Ecosistemas 16 (1): 24–36. Hainzelen, E. 2014. Enhancing the function and provisioning of ecosystem services in agriculture: Agroecological principles. In Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (2014) Agroecology for food security and nutrition, Rome: Proceedings of the FAO international symposium. Holt-Giménez, E. 2002. Measuring farmers’ agroecological resistance after Hurricane Mitch in Nicaragua: A case study in participatory, sustainable land management impact monitoring. Agriculture ecosystems & environment (93):87–105. doi:10.1016/S01678809(02)00006-3. Holt-Giménez, E. 2006. Campesino a campesino. Oakland, CA: Food First Books. IDEAR (Institutos de Estudios Agrarios y Rurales). 2010. NUESTRO MAÍZ, NUESTRO FUTURO Estudios para la reactivación de la producción nacional de maíz en Guatemala. Guatemala City, Guatemala: Magna Terra Editores.. Isakson, R. S. 2009. No hay ganancia en la milpa: The agrarian question, food sovereignty, and the on-farm conversation of agrobiodiversity in the Guatemalan Highlands. Journal of Peasant Studies 36 (4):725–59. doi:10.1080/03066150903353876. Johnston, B. R. 2005. Chixoy dam legacy issues study. executive summary: Consequential damages and reparation: Recommendations for remedy. Santa Cruz, California: Center for Political Ecology. Jonas, S. 1991. The battle for Guatemala: Rebels, death squads and U.S. power. Nueva York: Westview Press. Khadse, A., P. M. Rosset, H. Morales, and B. G. Ferguson. 2017. Taking agroecology to scale: The zero budget natural farming peasant movement in Karnataka, India. The Journal of Peasant Studies. 24: 1–28. Kremen, C., A. Iles, and C. Bacon. 2012. Diversified farming systems: An agroecological, systems-based alternative to modern industrial agriculture. Ecology and Society 17 (4):44. doi:10.5751/ES-05103-170444. Kurtenbach, S. 2008. Guatemala’s post-war development: The structural failure of low intensity peace. Project working paper no. 3. Institute for Development and Peace (INEF). Germany: University of Duisburg-Essen. Loker, W. M. 1996. “Campesinos” and the crisis of modernization in Latin America. Journal of Political Ecology 3:69–88. doi:10.2458/v3i1.21774. Lovell, W. G. 1988. Surviving conquest: The Maya of Guatemala in historical perspective. Latin American Research Review 23 (2):25–57. Luna-Gonzalez, D., and M. Sørensen. 2018. Higher agrobiodiversity is associated with improved dietary diversity, but not child anthropometric status, of Mayan Achí people of Guatemala. Public Health Nutrition 11: 2128–41. McCune, N., and M. Sánchez. 2018. Teaching the territory: Agroecological pedagogy and popular movements. Agriculture and Human Values 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460018-9853-9 Mier Y Terán Giménez Cacho, M., O. F. Girlado, M. Aldasoro, H. Morales, B. G. Ferguson, P. Rosset, A. Khadse, and C. Campos. 2018. Bringing agroecology to scale: Key drivers and AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 19 emblematic cases. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems. doi:10.1080/ 21683565.2018.1443313. Morales, H., and I. Perfecto. 2000. Traditional knowledge and pest management in the Guatemalan highlands. Agriculture and Human Values 17: doi: 10.1023/A:1007680726231. Nicholls, C. I., M. A. Altieri, and L. Vasquez. 2016. Agroecology: Principles for the conversión and redesign of farming systems. Journal of Ecosystem and Ecography 5 (S5):10. Orozco, Andrea, and Geldi Muñoz (2016). Bajos ingresos agobianal 82 por ciento de la población. Prensa Libre, Guatemala City,Guatemala. Oct. 6, 2016. https://www.prensali bre.com/guatemala/comunitario/bajos-ingresos-agobian-al-82-por-ciento-de-lapoblacion/ Parmentier, S. 2014. Scaling-up agroecological approaches: What, why and how? Belgium: Oxfam Solidarity. Perfecto, I., and J. Vandermeer. 2015. Coffee agroecology. New York, NY: Routledge. Perfecto, I., J. H. Vandermeer, and A. L. Wright. 2009. Nature’s matrix: Linking agriculture, conservation and food sovereignty. London: Earthscan. Poppema, M. 2009. Guatemala, the peace accords and education: A post-conflict struggle for equal opportunities, cultural recognition and participation in education. Globalisation, Societies and Education 7 (4):383–408. doi:10.1080/14767720903412218. Pretty, J. 2002. Agri-culture: reconnecting people, land and nature. London: Earthscan. Reynolds, L. 2013. The long battle to preserve ancestral farming practices. Agroecology: A contribution to food sovereignty. Latinamerica Press. Lapress.org. Robinson, W. I. 2000. Neoliberalism, the global elite, and the Guatemalan transition: A critical macrosocial analysis. Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs 42 (4):89–107. doi:10.2307/166343. Rosset, P. 2014. Social organization and process in bringing agroecology to scale. Agroecology for food security and nutrition: Proceedings of the FAO International Symposium, 298–307. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. Rosset, P., and M. Altieri. 2017. Agroecology: Science and politics. Nova Scotia. Canada: Fernwood publishing. Rosset, P. M., and M. E. Martínez-Torres. 2012. Rural social movements and agroecology: Context, theory, and process. Ecology and Society 17 (3):17. doi:10.5751/ES-05000-170317. Sarandón, Santiago Javier and Flores, Claudia Cecilia (Eds.) (2014). Agroecologia: bases teóricas para el diseño y manejo de agroecosistemas sustentables. La Plata, Argentina: Editorial de la Universidad de la Plata. Segeplan (Secretaria de Planificación y Programación de la Presidencia, Guatemala). 2010. Plan de Desarrollo Municipal-PDM de Rabinal, Baja Verapaz, Guatemala 2011 – 2025, 132. Guatemala: Government Report. Smith, T. J., and T. A. Offit. 2010. Confronting violence in postwar Guatemala: An introduction. The Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Anthropology 15:1. doi:10.1111/j.1935-4940.2010.01060.x. Sosa, B. M., A. M. R. Jaime, D. R. Á. Lozano, and P. M. Rosset. 2013. Agroecological revolution: The farmer-to-farmer movement of the ANAP in Cuba. Asociación Nacional de Agricultores Pequeños (ANAP) and La Via Campesina. Havana: ANAP and La Via Campesina https://viacampesina.org/downloads/pdf/en/Agroecological-revolutionENGLISH.pdf Steinberg, M. 1999. Maize diversity and cultural change in a Maya agroecological landscape. Journal of Ethnobiology 19 (1):127–39. Stewart, J. 2006. When local troubles become transnational: The transformation of a Guatemalan indigenous rights movement. In Latin American social movements: Globalization, democratization, and transnational networks, ed. H. Johnston and P. Alemida, 259–278. Maryland, USA: Rowman and Littlefield. 20 N. EINBINDER ET AL. Sundberg, J. 1998. NGO landscapes: Conservationand communities in the Maya Biosphere Reserve, Peten, Guatemala. Geographical Review 88:388–412. doi:10.2307/216016. Tedlock, D. 2003. Rabinal Achi: A Mayan drama of war and sacrifice. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. van der Ploeg, J. D. 2008. The new peasantries: Struggles for autonomy and sustainability in an era of empire and globalization. Earthscan: London UK. Weis, T. 2007. The global food economy: The battle for the future of farming. Zed books: London. Wettasinha, C., A. Waters-Bayer, L. van Veldhuizen, G. Quiroga, and K. Swaans. 2014. Study on impacts of farmer-led research supported by civil society organizations. Penangy, Malaysia: CIGAR Research Programo on Aquatic Agricultural Systems. Working Paper: AAS. Wezel, A., S. Bellon, T. Doré, C. Francis, D. Vallod, and C. David. 2009. Agroecology as a science, a movement, and a practice. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 29:503. doi:10.1051/agro/2009004. Wezel, A., and V. Soldat. 2009. A quantitative and qualitative historical analysis of the scientific discipline of agroecology. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 7 (1):3–18. doi:10.3763/ijas.2009.0400. Wilken, G. C. 1987. Good farmers: Traditional agricultural resource management in Mexico and Guatemala. Berkeley: University of California Press. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems ISSN: 2168-3565 (Print) 2168-3573 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjsa21 Territorial resilience the third dimension of agroecological scaling: Approximations from three peasant experiences in the South of Mexico Alejandra Guzmán Luna, Bruce G. Ferguson, Birgit Schmook, Omar Felipe Giraldo & Elda Miriam Aldasoro Maya To cite this article: Alejandra Guzmán Luna, Bruce G. Ferguson, Birgit Schmook, Omar Felipe Giraldo & Elda Miriam Aldasoro Maya (2019) Territorial resilience the third dimension of agroecological scaling: Approximations from three peasant experiences in the South of Mexico, Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 43:7-8, 764-784, DOI: 10.1080/21683565.2019.1622619 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2019.1622619 Published online: 28 May 2019. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 69 View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wjsa21 AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 2019, VOL. 43, NOS. 7–8, 764–784 https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2019.1622619 Territorial resilience the third dimension of agroecological scaling: Approximations from three peasant experiences in the South of Mexico Alejandra Guzmán Lunaa, Bruce. G. Ferguson a, Birgit Schmook Omar Felipe Giraldo a, and Elda Miriam Aldasoro Maya c b , a Departamento de Agricultura, Sociedad y Ambiente, El Colegio de la Frontera Sur (ECOSUR), San Cristóbal de Las Casas, Mexico; bDepartamento de Conservación de la Biodiversidad, El Colegio de la Frontera Sur (ECOSUR), Chetumal, Mexico; cDepartamento de Agricultura, Sociedad y Ambiente, El Colegio de la Frontera Sur (ECOSUR), Villahermosa, Mexico ABSTRACT KEYWORDS In this paper we explore the depth dimension of agroecological scaling. Through interviews, focus groups and participant observation, we explore the link between agroecology and the recovery and maintenance of ecosystem functions through three case studies in peasant communities in southern Mexico. These communities have contrasting ecological, social and historical contexts, but all engage in autonomous initiatives for agroecology and nature protection. We found that agroecology deepens when rooted in a cultural matrix of peasant identity, spiritual values, and local institutions. Territorial resilience; depth agroecology scaling; cultural values; recovery and maintenance of ecosystem functions Introduction Agroecology contributes to the construction of an alternative society that aspires to justice, equity, diversity, as well as the recovery and conservation of nature (AGRUCO-MAELA 2000). The scaling of agroecology has been considered mostly in its horizontal (increase in the number of people and communities), and vertical (institutional integration) dimensions (Mier et al. 2018). García López et al. (2019) explains that agroecological deepening “takes place as peasant farmers continually (re)affirm their identity as they defend their means and ways of life, which are embedded in a local cultural matrix”. In this vein, we argue that agroecological deepening can emerge from mutual reinforcement between peasant cultural identity and culturally grounded agroecological practice. This dialectical relationship manifests itself through continuous innovations that enhance family well-being, one central element of Brescia (2017) definition of agroecological depth. We aim to enrich the conceptual framework for agroecological depth by exploring its relationship to territorial resilience. CONTACT Alejandra Guzmán Luna Cristóbal de Las Casas, Mexico © 2019 Taylor & Francis [email protected] El Colegio de la Frontera Sur (ECOSUR), San AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 765 Agroecology commonly aspires to emulate the functions of unmanaged ecosystems (Altieri and Nicholls 2005). The recovery and maintenance of ecosystem functions is characteristic of many peasant territories where work plots and surrounding areas are conceived as interconnected ecological and symbolic units (Gerritsen 2018). In these territories, food production is agroecological and linked to ecological, social and cultural conditions (León-Sicard and Vargas 2018). We recognize a broad range of agroecological practices that include those that have been carried out for centuries as well as recent innovations. These practices are not always explicitly labeled as agroecological but they contribute to territorial resilience by reinforcing positive feedbacks between peasant identity and ecological functions. Territorial resilience Territory is a biophysical unit (Sosa Velásquez 2012) that has been appropriated to incarnate a specific life project (Escobar 1999), where subjects exercise their culture and identity (Sosa Velásquez 2012). In this vein, a territory is a socio-ecological system in which humans and nature are integrated rather than artificially and arbitrarily separated (Berkes and Folke 1998). The process by which a physical area becomes a social stage dominated by a given actor is called territorialization (Entrena-Durán 2012). However, territorialization is never definitive; rural territories, for example, are in a constant dispute between the peasantry and diverse actors, such as agribusiness (Rosset and Martínez-Torres 2016). We will approach the study of this dynamic through the lens of territorial resilience, defined as the “collective capacity of the actors to contribute to facilitate the development of territorial responses to external disturbances” (Gilly, Kechidi, and Talbot 2014). Socioecological resilience is the ability to absorb disturbances before modifying the functions or form of the system (Berkes and Seixas 2005; Folke 2006). The connection between social and ecological resilience is higher where people depend directly on nature for their livelihoods (Adger 2000), as occurs in peasant communities. Through a broad literature review of studies evaluating resilience and territorialization we identified six elements of territorial resilience that resonate with agroecological deepening and also are pertinent for the specific peasant context where our research took place. The first is the maintenance of agrobiodiversity – the total biota inhabiting an agroecosystem (Jackson, Pascual, and Hodgkin 2007). The second is food sovereignty as the right of communities to decide on the production, distribution and consumption of food in accordance with their culture (Sevilla Guzmán 2015). The third is the protection of surrounding multifunctional landscapes with their patchworks of land use, ecosystems and related biodiversity (Bergamini et al. 2013; Berkes and Seixas 2005), and respect for community and external environmental norms. 766 A. GUZMÁN LUNA ET AL. The fourth element is the combination of different types of knowledge, learning, and innovation manifested in the incorporation of new management practices and knowledge aiming at sustainability (Bergamini et al. 2013; Carpenter et al. 2001). Fifth, we identify the resistance to processes of depeasantization (Prada 2014). Sixth is territorialization in its three dimensions: a) the symbolic-cultural dimension (Sosa Velásquez 2012); b) the socio-economic dimension (Entrena-Durán 2012) and; c) the political-institutional dimension (Entrena-Durán 2012). Peasants maintain the strength and effectiveness of these elements of territorial resilience through strategies of resistance to external pressures (Da Silva 2014). Over 500 years of struggle for their territories (Fernandes 2007), the remaining indigenous peoples and peasants of Latin America have achieved a high level of resilience that has made their permanence possible. In the case of Mexico, since the beginning of the 20th century and in the face of capitalist hegemony, resistance movements have led peasants to consolidate as a political subject (Fernandes 2004). In this work, we include indigenous people within the peasantry, in recognition of the colonial historical background in common between the two groups (Bartra 2010). Nowadays, characteristic peasant strategies are movements rooted in their territories, aspiration to autonomy, revaluations of culture and identity, as well as protection of nature (Bartra and Otero 2008; Zibechi 2007). Ecosystem functions Territorial resilience is intimately linked with stewardship of nature because ecosystem functions are essential for the material and immaterial aspects of any life project. Ecosystem functions are an ensemble of physical, biological and biochemical processes that occur as a result of interactions between living beings and the physical and chemical conditions of an ecosystem (GEO Bon 2018). Functions include regulation, support, provision (including food production), and non-material cultural benefits (Martínez-Harms and Balvanera 2012; MEA 2005). Ecosystem functions´ contributions to territorial resilience include medicinal and food resources (Ceccon and Pérez 2017), and also materials (Chazdon et al. 2009; Moreno-Calles, Toledo, and Casas 2013) specific to local cultures and environments. Furthermore, because nature is an essential part of the cosmovisions of many rural and indigenous communities (Leff 2001), conservation favors the mysticism and spirituality of these human groups (Santiago Lemgruber et al. 2017). Maintenance and recovery of ecosystem functions can arise from agroecological deepening and contribute to territorial resilience. AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 767 Agroecology in territorial resilience Social agroecological principles contribute to territorial resilience by breaking the relations of oppression that peasants and nature have historically suffered within capitalism (Giraldo 2018). Agroecology is a tool for appropriation of peasant territories (Rosset and Martínez-Torres 2016), construction of gender equity (Uyttewaal 2016; La Vía Campesina 2018), formation of alternative economies (Toledo 2016), and the recovery and maintenance of ecosystem functions. Like much of Latin America, the South of Mexico has a history of resistance against forces that constantly try to incorporate peasant territories into the logic of industrialization, mercantilization and modernization (Sevilla-Guzmán and Soler Montiel 2009). For this reason, it is important to document and analyze common strategies for deepening agroecology and its contribution to territorial resilience in opposition to domination of peasant territoriality under neo-productivist logic. Here, through three case studies from Southern Mexico, we explore the relationship between agroecology, ecosystem function, and peasant territoriality. We analyze each case using the six elements of territorial resilience described above, and then identify which of those aspects of resilience emerge most clearly across the cases. Our findings contribute to the emerging discussion of “deep agroecology” (Botelho, Vieira, and Otsuki 2016). Study sites For the choice of the three communities where we evaluated territorial resilience (Figure 1), we considered the presence of agroecological practices of the community and the history of maintaining ecosystem functions, either through conservation practices or ecological rehabilitation. The first author had established relationships in these communities through related research (unpublished data). Santa María, Chiapas This is a community of 40 families, located within the Natural Protected Area (ANP) El Triunfo and the Ejido1 Capitán Luis A. Vidal (RAN 1994), at an altitude of 1,500 masl in the Sierra Madre del Sur. Mesophilous montane forest is the dominant vegetation. Traditional agricultural (milpa2 and home gardens) and organic coffee growing are the main productive activities. All the families are associated with peasant organizations that commercialize coffee – mainly for export – including 17 members of the Campesinos Ecológicos de la Sierra Madre de Chiapas S. C. (CESMACH) cooperative. The organization was created in 768 A. GUZMÁN LUNA ET AL. Figure 1. Location of the three study communities and state capitals (map elaborated by Montserrat García Rivera). 1994 to overcome the disadvantage of producers against intermediaries (CESMACH 2018), and was sponsored by the Natural History Institute of the State of Chiapas and the World Wildlife Fund (CESMACH 2018). CESMACH has organic and Fair Trade certification (InterAmerican Coffee 2019), which offers a price guaranty to producers with strong positive effects on quality of life of families. CESMACH receives financing for various kinds of projects from Mexican (e. g. Gaia) and international organizations (e. g. Heifer, Food 4 Farmers). Santa María exemplifies the integration of nature conservation with agroecological production. San Miguel Chicahua, Oaxaca Inhabitants are part of the Mixtec ethnic group, the fourth largest indigenous group in Mexico (Royero Benavides 2015). Chicachua is one of the three towns that make up the agrarian community3 and municipality with the same name (RAN 1998), and is inhabited by 300 families (Comisariado ejidal 2017, personal communication). The main population center is located at 2,300 masl. Due to its ecological characteristics, we could expect oak (Quercus spp.) or mixed forests with pine (Pinus spp.), but native vegetation is limited. The upper Mixteca is one of the most desertified zones worldwide due to overexploitation of forest resources and the introduction of goats AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 769 during colonial times (Santiago-Mejía et al. 2018), which has led to a radical decrease in productivity (CEDICAM 2017). The main agroecological practice and one important economic activity in the community is the traditional milpa. There are two kinds of milpas mixtecas; cajete and tapapié. Both use native maize seeds and organic fertilizers produced by the family. Manual labor, often organized though tequios (communitarian work), predominates. Some families also herd goats. The area records a 5% annual migration rate (Boege and Carranza 2009) and high levels of alcoholism. The Centro de Desarrollo Integral Campesino de la Mixteca ”Hita Nuni” A. C. (CEDICAM) is an organization with a strong presence in the region. In Chicahua it collaborates with 70 families. CEDICAM has its roots the 1980s when Guatemalan Kaqchikel Mayan migrants arrived in the Mixteca, teaching techniques of “ecological agriculture” (Royero Benavides 2015) with an eye to recovering ecosystem functions. In collaboration with the Diocese of Nochixtlán, using “Campesino a Campesino” (Peasant to Peasant) methodology, the Guatemalans and Mixtecans developed syncretic knowledge (CEDICAM 2017) based in the mysticism of Buen Vivir4 and Liberation Theology5 (Royero Benavides 2015). In 1997 CEDICAM was founded, continuing the tradition of Campesino a Campesino, but disassociating itself from the Church, and opening the door to government support (Royero Benavides 2015). CEDICAM work earned the 2010 Goldman Prize, awarded to its leader Jesús León Santos. CEDICAM started to develop projects with some families in Chicahua in 2003. At the time this research was developed, CEDICAM was receiving funds from the Bread for the World Foundation and had received resources from the Secretaría de Agricultura y Desarrollo Rural (Secretariat of Agriculture and Rural Development, SAGARPA) for a new project monitoring soil conditions on naturally fertilized milpa plots. Chicahua has received support from several other institutions: in 2010 the Comisión Nacional para el Desarrollo de los Pueblos Indígenas (National Commission for the Development of Indigenous Peoples, CDI) sponsored greenhouses for tomato monocrops -now abandoned- and sheds for sheep; SAGARPA’s Programa Especial para la Seguridad Alimentaria (Strategic Food Security Program) provided henhouses, fruit trees, drinking systems for animals, and FAO donated water containers. We chose the Chicahua community as an example of ecological restoration through agroecology. Río playa, tabasco The ejido Río Playa is made up of 48 members, most of who live in the community Zapotal 2da section. The ejido’s land is at sea level, in areas that were previously seasonally flooded with fresh water, which made them particularly fertile for farming, cattle ranching and subsistence hunting. In 2000, the state-owned company Petróleos Mexicanos (PEMEX) opened 770 A. GUZMÁN LUNA ET AL. a canal close to the ejido’s lands, which led to a permanent flooding of 90% of the ejido’s surface with seawater. The affected families have not received any compensation for the damages caused. Conventional cacao plantations and livestock are widespread on land not affected by salinization. However, there is an incipient agroecological movement focused on cacao and vegetable production. Additionally, after years of destabilization, a group of five ejidatarios linked to the local Catholic Church’s Social Ministry began to experiment with mangrove planting by trial and error. Once the technique was perfected, in 2006 they managed a project with financing from the Comisión National Forestal (National Forestry Commission, CONAFOR) for the afforestation of 30 ha with white (Laguncularia racemosa) and red (Rhizophora mangle) mangroves (Ramírez Echenique 2017, personal communication) in the flooded areas. The forestation was successful and in 2015 they were recognized as an Unidad de Manejo Ambiental (Environmental Management Unit), which is a legal entity for timber production and ecotourism which, at the time this work was developed, had some economic support from the Secretaría de Desarrollo Económico y Turismo (Secretariat of Economic Development and Tourism) of the State of Tabasco. The new ecosystem is a habitat for marine species, which makes fishing possible. For the past 13 years, the Social Ministry, guided by Liberation Theology and with the economic and technical support of personal from the CONAFOR, has fostered reflection on local living conditions and concrete actions to improve them (Priest Gerardo Gordillo, personal communication, 2017). In addition, the Social Ministry, through the civil and lay organization Horizontes Creativos (Creative Horizons) promotes good practices in cacao to prevent pests, the transition to organic production, as well as market integration under favorable terms (Vargas Simón 2014). All of the above contribute to the community’s territorial resilience and provide an example of nature rehabilitation undertaken in conjunction with agroecology. Methodology Data collection Throughout four weeks in San Miguel Chicahua, four more in Río Playa, and two in Santa María during 2017, we characterized territorial resilience by means of semi-directed interviews (Taylor and Bogdan 1994), participant observation (Kawulich 2005) and focus groups (Hollander 2004). The first two activities were developed based on a list of observations and key questions designed to characterize each of the six variables of territorial resilience. For the semi-directed interviews, we followed the snowball method to identify and establish relationships with key participants (Atkinson and Flint 2001). In Santa María, we worked AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 771 with the seventeen CESMACH members; we conducted nine interviews, seven of them during visits to their plots. In Chicahua we conducted sixteen interviews. We also collaborated with two farmers in planting their traditional milpa. Finally, in Rio Playa we conducted 22 interviews and six formal visits to their plots. In addition, we interviewed priest Gerardo Gordillo who has worked for thirteen years in the Diocese of Comalcalco and the Social Ministry in Rio Playa. We characterized territorialization (Entrena-Durán 2012) by means of two focus groups (Hollander 2004) in each community. During the first focus group, thirteen participants in Santa María, fourteen in Chicahua and seventeen in Río Playa were divided into teams to draw their community as they remembered it in their childhood, in the present, and how they would like it to be in ten years. The socio-economic and political-institutional dimensions of the territory were developed in the second focus group with ten participants in Santa María, twenty-three in Chicahua and twelve in Río Playa. For socioeconomic territoriality, we identified all income sources and food resources, listed them in order of priority and determined whether their origin or management is internal or external to the community. We used the same methodology to visualize the roles of organizations in political-institutional territoriality. Data analysis All the information collected in observations, interviews or focus groups was transcribed to enable content analysis (Krippendorff 1997). Subsequently, we used triangulation (Bacon, Méndez, and Brown 2005) and synthesis for each of the six territorial resilience elements evaluated by community. The quantitative data – e.g. agro or biodiversity, were recorded in Excel sheets for analysis with descriptive statistics. Results Below we describe each of the elements of resilience for each community. We use testimonies from the interviews, modifying the names of the peasants to protect their privacy. Agrobiodiversity Planned and associated biodiversity varied greatly among the three communities, and was related to current management, land use history, and landscape context. Santa María has monocrops of beans or maize, traditional milpas, diversified backyards and coffee plantations. In all these systems people reported 36 varieties of fruit trees, and 30 varieties of vegetables, in addition to twelve wild food plants. The community values native varieties, maintaining eight races of native maize and four varieties of beans: 772 A. GUZMÁN LUNA ET AL. “We don’t want to lose the blue seed variety, so when we are going to thresh it, we separate only the blue seed. That way, we say, we are going to thresh the seed, and we already know that we are going to separate the pure blue seed, setting it aside.” Don Daniel, 66 years old. In the coffee plantations, people reported between two and eight species of shade trees. Due to its proximity to the ANP and a conserved forest, there is a great diversity of fauna including raccoons (Procyon spp.), tepezcuintles (Cuniculus paca), red brocket deer (Mazama temama), and even quetzals (Pharomachrus mocinno). In Chicahua, the traditional milpa is the main agroecosystem. They also have monocrops of wheat and a third variety of native beans. All families have backyard gardens, but five families have only one species of fruit tree, while the other three tend up to five species. It is rich in native species with three corn seeds (cajete, and rain-fed blue and white), two native bean species and up to six other accompanying crops. Milpa is the center of Chicahua productive activities: “There’s nothing else to do here, here we’re all peasants and we all have a milpa.” Don Germán, 44 years old. In 2015, CEDICAM contributed with 54 microtunnels and worm composting plants and technical training. Currently, of the fourteen beneficiaries interviewed, only six continue to produce between three and four of the initial fourteen species. People attribute this to water scarcity and of pests, despite the training they received to deal with these challenges. Participants mentioned no wildlife visitors to the agroecosystems. Insufficient access to land, resulting from the salt-water incursion, is a strong limiting factor for agrobiodiversity in Rio Playa. We did not find native corn or bean seeds, only a local variety of cacao. Five of sixteen families interviewed have milpa with hybrid corn; another ten plant corn in monocrops with the use of agrochemicals. The agroecosystems with the greatest potential for agrobiodiversity are cacao plantations. Five of the sixteen families plant cacao monocrops but ejidatarios linked to Social Ministry have four to 17 species of shade and produce organically or are in organic transition: “Most people go against life, against creation. And we must be care for life, for creation. In creation there are many animals, insects. Pests are also creation. Insects that take care of the plant also settle on the plant, such as the spider or the mirasol cricket, the wasps of different kinds.” Don Lauro, 76 years old A more extensive study found that Zapotal backyards contain a total of 69 species of fruit trees, 22 other edible species, 6 varieties of cacao, 12 of bananas/guineos and 16 of mangos, to name a few (Áviles, unpublished data). This suggests that our data could underestimate the community’s real agrobiodiversity and food sovereignty. AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 773 Food sovereignty Traditional agroecosystems in Santa María and Chicahua produce a significant fraction of farmers’ diets, but Río Playa is much more dependent on purchased food. A few families in Santa María produce and collect practically all of their food. Eight of the nine people interviewed there grow milpa that provides 7.7 months of corn supply on average, but they have to buy the rest. Their beans production is sufficient to last the whole year. They all have hens for eggs and meat, and seven families completely satisfy their demands for these products. Eight interviewees produce vegetables, but only four completely satisfy their diets with that production. All the families go to the forest to extract wild mushrooms in season. Two families produce enough food to completely cover their needs directly and through bartering. One affirmed: “I still have some corn left, bless God. I also have beans. I have 450 kg from last year. I tell my family we’re going to plant the bean, it’s hard to work, but then we can trade it for shrimp or fish fillet. So yes, it´s good.” Don Alfredo, 66 years old Chicahua’s food sovereignty is fragile because it is sustained only by milpa. All sixteen interviewees have traditional milpa, which provides enough corn and beans to last nine months. We interviewed one CEDICAM beneficiary, a woman who currently lives alone with her daughter because her two older sons and husband migrated to the United States. She had just spent more than two hours collecting wild nopales to mix with beans when she has no more vegetables, and explained: “Here we sometimes eat just tortilla with salt” Doña Araceli, 46 In addition to milpa, ten families raise sheep and poultry. However, thirteen have to buy eggs and vegetables. Ten families collect wild resources (mushrooms, plants and animals – rabbits, hares and grasshoppers) to supplement their diet, but in very low volumes as natural forests are very scarce. In terms of food sovereignty, Rio Playa faces several challenges. Fifteen of the 22 interviewees plant maize and six plant beans, but they do not cover the needs of their families. For example, Don Lucio (75 years old) goes every day to care for his corn plot, but his harvest is consumed in three weeks. Pozol made from cacao is a staple of the local diet, and fourteen of the ejidatarios interviewed produce cacao for self-consumption and sale. Ten families have livestock for consumption at celebrations or for sale; eighteen families have poultry and have no need to buy eggs. All have to buy vegetables for consumption. The lack of land and the low productivity of available land are the main obstacles that we identify to exercising their peasant identity: “They are taking the life of the soil; we are seeing it in what we sow, it no longer gives life. You have to apply a lot of fertilizer to help it give a little bit, because PEMEX has 774 A. GUZMÁN LUNA ET AL. been destroying everything, the scarcity is a matter of PEMEX.” Don Ramón, 58 years old. Ecosystem and biodiversity protection The three communities share an ethic of environmental protection that manifests itself in different ways and degrees. Those we interviewed in Santa María, generally agreed with the norms imposed in 1990 when the ANP was decreed (CONANP 2018), including the regulation of land use change within the reserve, and of burning, timber extraction, and hunting. In addition to coffee, most agroecosystems are organic. In addition, the community is part of the Payment for Environmental Services program of the CONAFOR, for which the members of the ejido receive an economic retribution for conserving the forest. Beyond the rules they are obliged to respect, people are very much aware of their role in caring for forests and related ecosystem functions. “Well, there in Santa Maria is the whole forest area. Beware whoever works there! Beware! We’ll bring him in tied up because no one is allowed to work there. That’s where the water is born, and we have to take care of it. We are the guardians” Don Roberto, 64 years old Since 1974, Chicahua has tried to revert degradation of its communal lands by prohibiting cutting of oaks or junipers (traditional material for houses and yokes), and by organizing tequios for reforestation and soil conservation. A total of 3,050 Ha have been reforested, initially with casuarinas (Casuarina spp.) or eucalyptus (Eucalyptus spp.), and later with pines (Pinus oaxacana). However, these species are not native to the area, and do not offer good habitat for native species. The culture of nature protection in Rio Playa is expressed in the 30 hectares of mangrove reforestation that, together with natural regeneration, constitute habitat of 70 species of birds. Outside the flooded area, there are cacao plantations managed using organic techniques informed by ecological and cultural reflection. Some women explain that their cacao plantations connect them to their absent or deceased husbands or fathers (Gerardo Gordillo, personal communication, 2017). However, their achievements are at risk in the face of illegal logging and overfishing by outsiders. In addition, there is a reduction in native vegetation cover due to land-use change for the introduction of livestock. Knowledge, learning and innovation The three communities differed in their openness to new ideas and their learning strategies. After the rust fungus that hit coffee plantations between AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 775 2012–2014 in Santa Maria, peasants reported a greater openness to new practices, such as beekeeping. CESMACH is the main source of training, which is often offered by members who have attended certificate courses offered by government organizations or NGOs. In addition, growers exchange knowledge with Guatemalan laborers through occasional talks or shared work. “I learned between school and some day laborers who come from Guatemala because they work on the farm and know coffee very well, because they have spent their whole life working with coffee.” Don Brian, 27 years old Chicahua farmers, on the other hand, tend to be skeptical of new practices and outsiders. As Doña Rosalía (52 years old) explained, “We’re only used to the milpa”. Microtunnels provided by CEDICAM were underutilized. Interviewees attributed this to lack of water and to pests, even though CEDICAM training and their own experience offer them alternatives. Doña Josefina (46 years old) challenged her neighbors, asking: “And why don’t you grab your donkey and go for a water to the river? We used to do that in the past.” Rio Playa’s ejidatarios are divergent in their openness to innovation In reference to abandonment of the land by their children, most participants in an assembly agreed that “Rio Playa is going to disappear in 20 years” so it may not make much sense to promote ecotourism in the region. In contrast, the group linked to the Ministry a few months earlier built a pier and two canoes, and is also managing projects with the tourism secretariat of the municipality. This is the same group that learned on their own to plant the mangroves, and promoted the organic transition of the cacao plantations, along with a small peasant school. “I grew my pasture in Rio Playa, and even rented it. But then everything began to die with the salinity, and only land remained. Then came the water, and I thought ¨where there is water, there is life¨. And that’s where the idea of the mangrove came from. And you can see now, it looks like a paradise” Don Salvador, 50 years old. Resistance to depeasantization Expectations regarding peasant livelihoods manifest themselves in the choices made by young people and in migration and its influences. In Santa María, the families interviewed rely completely on agricultural activities (coffee, milpa, livestock and beekeeping). Two families invested remittances from migrants to the United in their coffee plantations. New generations continue reproducing peasant practices; of the thirty children of the nine farmers interviewed, fifteen are adults and all are dedicated to farming (coffee, agriculture or livestock). Underlying the community is pride in its peasant identity. “Peter is my grandson so I gave him two hectares in a place we call Las Flores. Peter and my son have land there. There I gave him land. And they are growing coffee, very beautiful! But Peter and his siblings don’t want to study, they told their father 776 A. GUZMÁN LUNA ET AL. that. My youngest grandchild, Manuel, is his name, he is really destined to be a peasant! One leaves him cajeteando and he completes everything. Oh! Who knows! It’s destiny” Don Daniel, 66 years old. Although Mixtec institutions in Chicahua maintain peasant traditions, they are challenged by migration and limited economic opportunities. Ninetythree percent of households have a member who has migrated for periods of several years, mainly to the United States or Mexico City. People who left the community return to participate in tequios and to fulfill obligatory leadership positions, or they pay someone to replace them. However, only four of the ten children of interviewees who are of working age participate in farm activities. In Rio Playa the processes of depeasantization are predominant. Only nine ejidatarios have land to plant, and only seventeen of 70 adult children and grandchildren are peasants: “Nowadays one no longer has the pleasure of planting (…) Perhaps ecotourism is a good way to earn a daily salary, and not to neglect the ejido. You can’t be without a day’s work because there is scarcity”. Don Ramón, 58 years old. Social, economic and political dimensions of territory The ways that focus group participants depicted the past, present, and future of the landscapes they inhabit illustrate distinctions in the ways they inhabit their territories. Santa María residents incorporated the mesophilic forest and coffee plantations as central cultural symbols in the past, present and future, and identified themselves as stewards of the landscape. “This beauty (the landscape integrated by coffee plantation, forest and other productive plots) is pure work of our lungs” Don Roberto, 44 years old. In Chicahua, focus group participants identified native wildlife and traditional wooden houses as symbols of the community. However, their representation of the current situation excluded the natural environment and farm plots, and they visualized their future as urbanization with multi-story buildings and electrification. Only families involved in the Social Ministry attended the focus groups in Rio Playa. This likely introduced bias in our findings and reflects polarization within the ejido. Their representations of the past emphasized the splendor of the ejido before the flood. The present was represented as a biodiverse and living territory thanks to the mangrove. They feel slighted by the government, but see a future in which they will be appreciated for the ecosystem functions they help maintain: AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 777 “We have had to transform the places. That’s why we no longer depend on the government; now we’re going to sell oxygen and water to the government, because they see us from above, looking down on us” Don Salvador, 50 years old. Santa María residents highlight income from coffee plantations in the socioeconomic dimension of their territory. As for food, producers agreed that what they eat is also “in their hands,” whether they grow it themselves, collect it from the forest or sell it in their stores. In Chicahua, remittances and milpa are the most important economic activities. Remittances are recognized as external to the community, while milpa is internal. Finally, from participants’ perspective, Rio Playa’s economic territorialization is based on cacao and livestock that depends on both internal and external factors. Political-institutional territorialization of Santa María is primarily internal to the community thanks to the importance of the ejido. In Chicahua, the participants identified as equally important the municipality, schools, church and the commons, institutions whose management is shared between the community and the exterior. In contrast, for Rio Playa, Catholic and nonCatholic churches were the most important institutions contributing to a strong social fabric. These churches are, from the perception of the ejidatarios, internal to the community. Churches collaborate for the good of the community, as Don Federico (53 years old) mentioned in regard to his experience seeking support for the construction of a Catholic temple: “In the community there are Presbyterians and Pentecostals, but they have fewer people. A Pentecostal man even supported us with gravel and sand. He told me that he supported us because, although we are from another congregation, we are from the same community” Priest Gerardo Gordillo said that the Liberation Theology promoted in the region seeks to build community from a practical faith in which we are all connected (personal communication, 2013). This solidarity has been the driver of actions that increase territorial resilience. Discussion Agroecological practice has persisted and developed in each of the three communities to the extent that it resonates with peasant identity and spirituality. The six variables of territorial resilience that structured our research – agrobiodiversity maintenance; food sovereignty; learning and innovation; resistance to depeasantization; and social, economic and political aspects of territoriality – manifested themselves in differing ways and magnitudes. In Santa María and Rio Playa, agroecological deepening is rooted in the cultural matrix of the communities, and linked to the recovery and maintenance of ecosystem functions. In the case of Santa María, a strong peasant identity reinforces other elements of resilience. For some Rio Playa ejidatarios, Liberation Theology has 778 A. GUZMÁN LUNA ET AL. contributed to all the elements of territorial resilience, despite the loss of agrobiodiversity and food sovereignty related to salinization caused by PEMEX. Their unity and capacity for innovation has helped those associated with the Social Ministry to maintain and adopt some agroecological practices and to recover biodiversity, ecosystem functions, and their ties to the landscape. Other Río Playa residents are more pessimistic regarding the viability of peasant livelihoods. In Chicahua, agroecology consists of traditional milpa and local institutions that reinforce it through indigenous identity. CEDICAM and other organizations have had limited success in reverting land degradation and migration, promoting agroecological innovation, and strengthening food sovereignty. Mier et al. (2018) identified “mobilizing discourse” that defines a problem, adversaries, identity or common principles (Touraine 1994) – as a driver of agroecological scaling. Our case studies suggest that, for depth scaling, it is necessary that the discourse be culturally rooted. Priest Gerardo Gordillo summarized this process as follows: “The religious matrix of community, the revolutionary matrix and the indigenous matrix have a lot of identity, and when … social processes … are based on a cultural matrix of this type, the processes are maintained more. And when they aren’t, they become diluted, they become very pragmatic” (Personal communication 2017). Our case studies confirm that technological innovations without cultural resonance are unlikely to persist (Royero Benavides 2015). As observed in other communities (Boyer 2003), the strength of Santa María’s territorial resilience originates from residents’ peasant identity. CEDICAM’s most notable successes originated during its early years when its practice was spiritually rooted. Slow progress in Chicahua contrasts with CEDICAM’s impact in San Isidro Yucuyoco, another Mixtec community where agroecological and ecological restoration efforts began in collaboration with the Diocese. San Isidro has achieved the recovery of springs, arable land, and food security, and, more recently, established a community savings bank, and popular grocery stores, practically ending emigration (Eduardo León, personal communication, 2017). The role of the cultural matrix is even more evident in Río Playa, where, based on reflections arising from Liberation Theology, ejidatarios perceive that “everyone and everything is connected” (Gerardo Gordillo, personal communication, 2017). These reflections from a theological perspective have led the ejidatarios to care for nature and each other by planting mangroves, establishing a peasant school and popular grocery stores, and adopting organic practices in their cacao plantations. This spiritually guided agroecological praxis echoes the “Deep Ecology” movement in its celebration of the intrinsic value of non-human life, recognition that humans exist within a complex web of ecological relationships, and rejection of political and economic structures that disregard these values (Naess 1973). Additionally, Francis (2015) emphasizes the role of humans as AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 779 stewards, and that care for the Earth and for our fellow humans – particularly the poor – go hand in hand. The Pope conceives of nature as an oppressed “sister” to be liberated (Pope Francis 2015), a vision consistent with a current of Latin American Liberation Theology (Verdugo 2015) known as Theology of the Earth, or Ecologist Theology (Barranco 2016). These spiritualties have been a cultural basis for agroecological depth scaling and territorial resilience in other places as well. For example, in the 1970s in the Zona da Mata of Brazil, Liberation Theology inspired actions for agroecology, local development, health, education, and nature conservation, among others (Botelho, Vieira, and Otsuki 2016). In the agroecological deepening described by Botelho, Vieira, and Otsuki (2016) Liberation Theology is an element of spiritual reconfiguration of farmers’ relationships with nature. Zero Budget Natural Farming (ZBNF) in India is another movement in which agroecology resonates with religion. Also known as “spiritual farming”, ZBNF emerged in 2002 “rooted in ancient Indian knowledge systems, where cow is holy, invoking notions of the Goddess Annapurna and mother earth”, while opposing Western economics models and lifestyles that have been devastating to Hindu culture (Bhattacharya 2017). Indigenous Hawaiian spirituality recognizes that each person has “genealogical (not necessarily genetic) and biogeographical relationships with places or processes”, so that ways of producing food, management of natural resources and nature conservation are framed within this “enormously complex” network (Kurashima, N. et al. 2018). Spirituality has been a cultural matrix for deepening agroecology in these cases, but we recognize that religion can exacerbate gender or intergenerational divides (Botelho, Vieira, and Otsuki 2016) and exclude those with different beliefs. And although Liberation Theology recognizes the value of other spiritual traditions, in Río Playa, ejidatarios not connected to the social ministry, engaged in actions to strengthen territorial resilience only when those imply the possibility of economic incomes. Therefore, in spiritually diverse communities, other cultural references many be key to deepening agroecology. This is the case of Santa Maria whose actions arise from a shared peasant identity. Another case is the Union of Cooperatives Tosepan, which developed around the Nahuatl, Maseual and Tutunaku indigenous identity. The organization emerged in the 1970s and is a producer of coffee, honey and organic pepper with high agrobiodiversity (see Toledo 2005), and carry out multiple actions to reproduce the conditions for Good Living (Ramírez Echenique 2017). These initiatives strengthen all the elements of territorial resilience that we have identified. Conclusions Our analysis suggests that agroecological practice must be culturally rooted in order to deepen territorial resilience for long-lasting impact. Some of the A. GUZMÁN LUNA ET AL. 780 cases we cite have persisted, but have matured and adapted over almost half a century. Depth scaling is linked with the recovery and integral maintenance of ecosystem functions. It goes beyond agroecological farming to include other elements of peasant territorial resilience, such as ecological restoration and solidarity economies. We therefore invite promoters of agroecology to engage with cultural institutions, traditions, and identities in order to contribute to deep, lasting transformations. We also consider that it is necessary to understand how agroecology drives and is driven by political and cultural processes of peasant territorial resilience and resistance. Acknowledgments In first place we thank the peasants, their family and organization involved in this work. We also thank Valeria García López, Helda Morales, the research group on “Masificación de la Agroecología para los sistemas alimentarios sustentables” El Colegio de la Frontera Sur (ECOSUR), anonymous reviewers for helpful comments, and Haley Davis by her revision in the translation of this paper. This work was supported by the National Council of Science and Technology of Mexico (CONACyT) provided a scholarship to the first author. We also receive support from the project Assessment of Diversification Strategies in Smallholder Coffee Systems of Mesoamerica leaded by the University of Vermont and “Adaptabilidad en los Mosaicos Rurales al Cambio Climático” leaded by Johannes Van del Wal, El Colegio de la Frontera Sur. Funding This researchwas partially funded by the project “Assessment of DiversificationStrategies in Smallholder Coffee Systems of Mesoamerica” (NoAF 1507-086: No FDNC Engt 00063479) is supported under thePage 2 of 4"Thought for Food" Initiative of the Agropolis Foundation (through the "Investissements d'avenir" programme with reference numberANR10-LABX0001-01), Fondazione Cariplo and Daniel & NinaCarasso. This research was also partially funded by the project“Adaptabilidad en los Mosaicos Rurales al Cambio Climático”CONACyT PDCPN 2015-690. Notes 1. After the agrarian reform begun in 1934, the ejidos emerged as an assignation of state lands to a group of peasants who demanded them (Morett Sánchez and Cosío Ruiz 2017). 2. The Mesoamerican milpa system is a basic association of corn, beans and pumpkins with strong nutritional and ecological value. 3. As a result of the same agrarian reform (see footnote 1), agrarian communities are another type of social property resulting from the allocation of land to villages with colonial occupation antecedents, i.e. indigenous peoples (Morett Sánchez and Cosío Ruiz 2017). 4. An indigenous philosophy that includes equilibrium between nature and other human beings (Altmann 2013) . AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 781 5. Liberation Theology is a current of the Catholic Church that was born in the 1970s (Gutiérrez 1975) with strong Marxist influences. Its objective is to generate a liberating praxis (Carballo López and Salcedo Vereda 2008), to combat poverty and contribute to “the integral liberation of all men” (Concha 1997). ORCID Bruce. G. Ferguson http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3963-2024 Birgit Schmook http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5775-0310 Omar Felipe Giraldo http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3485-5694 Elda Miriam Aldasoro Maya http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5411-7499 References Adger, W. N. 2000. Social and ecological resilience: Are they related? Progress in Human Geography 24 (3):347–64. http://phg.sagepub.com/content/24/3/347.abstract. AGRUCO-MAELA. 2000. Perspectivas Del Movimiento Agroecológico Latinoamericano. Cochabamba, Bolivia: Agroecología Universidad Cochabamba. Altieri, M. A., and C. I. Nicholls. 2005. Agroecology and the search for a truly sustainable agriculture. Primera. México, D. F.: University of California, Berkeley. Altmann, P. 2013. El Sumak Kawsay en el Discurso del Movimiento Indígena Ecuatoriano. Indiana 30:283–99. Atkinson, R., and J. Flint. 2001. Accessing hidden and hard-to-reach populations: Snowball research strategies. Social Research Update 33 (1):1–4. doi:10.1017/ CBO9781107415324.004. Bacon, C., E. Méndez, and M. Brown. 2005. Participatory action research and support for community development and conservation: Examples from shade coffee landscapes in Nicaragua and El Salvador. Center for Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 6:12. Barranco, V. B. 2016. Francisco ante la Teología de la Liberación. La Jornada, 2016. Bartra, A., and G. Otero. 2008. Movimientos Indígenas Campesinos en México: La Lucha por la Tierra, la Autonomía y la Democracia. In Recuperando La Tierra. El Resurgimiento de Movimientos Rurales en África, Asia y América Latina, ed. S. Moyo and P. Yeros, 432. Buenos Aires: CLACSO Consejo Latinoamericano de Ciencias Sociales. Bartra, A. June, 2010. Campesindios de América, Uníos. In La Jornada Del Campo. Bergamini, N., R. Blasiak, P. Eyzaguirre, K. Ichikawa, D. Mijatovic, N. Fumiko, and S. M. Subramanian. 2013. Indicators of Resilience in Socio-Ecological Production Landscapes (SEPLs). Yokohama, Japan: United Nations University. Edited by UNU-IAS. Berkes, F., and C. Folke. 1998. Linking social and ecological systems: Management practices and social mechanisms for building resilience. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. Berkes, F., and C. S. Seixas. 2005. Building resilience in lagoon social-ecological systems: A local-level perspective. Ecosystems 8 (8):967–74. doi:10.1007/s10021-005-0140-4. Bhattacharya, N. 2017. Food sovereignty and agro-ecology in Karnataka: Interplay of discourses, identities, and practices. Development in Practice 27(4):544–54. Taylor & Francis. doi:10.1080/09614524.2017.1305328. Boege, E., and T. Carranza. 2009. Agricultura Sostenible Campesino-Indígena, Soberanía Alimentaria Y Equidad de Género. Seis Experiencias de Organizaciones Indígenas 782 A. GUZMÁN LUNA ET AL. Y Campesinas En México. Mexico, DF: Programa de Intercambio, Diálogo y Asesoría en Agricultura Sostenible y Soberanía Alimentaria, PIDAASSA. Bon, G. E. O. 2018. Ecosystem Function. Botelho, M. I., I. M. C. Vieira, and K. Otsuki. 2016. ‘I made a pact with god, with nature, and with myself’: Exploring deep agroecology. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 40 (2):116–31. Taylor & Francis. doi:10.1080/21683565.2015.1115798. Boyer, C. R. 2003. Becoming Campesinos: Politics, Identity, and Agrarian Struggle in Postrevolutionary Michoacán, 1920-1935. Stanford: Stanford University. Brescia, S. 2017. Introduction: Pathways from the Crisis to Solutions. In Fertile Ground: Scaling Agroecology from the Ground up2, 233. Oakland, CA: Food First Books. Campesina, L. V. 2018. Sin Feminismo No Hay Agroecología. Carballo López, M., and C. Salcedo Vereda. 2008. La Teología de La Liberación. Interrogantes Sobre Lo Religioso y los Procesos de Cambio. Perifèria. Revista D’investigació I Formació En Antropologia 8 (8):1–15. doi:10.5565/rev/periferia.183. Carpenter, S., B. Walker, J. Marty Anderies, and N. Abel. 2001. From Metaphor to measurement: Resilience of what to what? Ecosystems 4 (8):765–81. doi:10.1007/s10021-001-0045-9. Ceccon, E., and D. R. Pérez. 2017. Beyond restoration ecology: Social Perspectives and the Caribbean, In Edited by, E. Ceccon and D. R. Pérez, 1a ed. Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires: Vázquez Mazzini Editores. CEDICAM. 2017. CEDICAM Centro de Desarrollo Integral Campesino de La Mixteca. CESMACH. 2018. Historia. Chazdon, R. L., C. A. Harvey, O. Komar, D. M. Griffith, B. G. Ferguson, M. Martínez-Ramos, H. Morales, R. Nigh, L. Soto Pinto, M. van Breugel, S. M. Philpott. 2009. Beyond reserves: A research agenda for conserving biodiversity in human-modified tropical landscapes. Biotropica 41(2):142–53. doi:10.1111/j.1744-7429.2008.00471.x. CONANP. 2018. El Triunfo’ a la Vanguardia. Concha, M. 1997. Teología de la Liberación, Diccionario de Política, In Edited by, B. Norberto and M. Nicola, 872. Mexico: Siglo Veintiuno. Entrena-Durán, F. 2012. Migraciones Globales y Reterritorialización de los Espacios Locales: Una Aproximación Tridimensional. Papeles De Poblacion 18 (72):9–38. Escobar, A. 1999. El Final Del Salvaje. Naturaleza, Cultura Y Política En La Antropología Contemporanea. Bogotá: Instituto Colombiano de Antropología e Historia/Centro de Estudios de la Realidad Colombiana. Fernandes, B. M. 2004. Cuestión Agraria: Conflictualidad y Desarrollo Territorial. In Seminario Lincoln Center Institute. Fernandes, B. M. 2007. Los dos campos de la Cuestión Agraria: Campesinado y Agronegocio. In Hacia Dónde Vamos: Conflictividad Agraria E Laboral., 1–3. Guatemala: Pastoral de la Tierra Interdiocesana. Folke, C. 2006. Resilience: The Emergence of a Perspective for Social-Ecological Systems Analyses. Global Environmental Change 16 (3):253–67. doi:10.1016/j. gloenvcha.2006.04.002. Francis. 2015. Encyclical Letter Laudato Si’ of the Holy Father Francis on Care for Our Common Home. Vatican City. García López, V. G., O. F. Giraldo, H. Morales, and P. M. Rosset. 2019. “Seed Sovereignty and Agroecological Scaling: Two cases of seed recovery, conservation, and defense in colombia seed recovery, conservation, and defense in colombia.” Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 0 (0):1–21. doi:10.1080/21683565.2019.1578720. Gerritsen, P. R. W. 2018. Manejo Campesino de Paisajes Rurales: Estudio de Caso en el Occidente de México. Cuadernos Geográficos 57 (2):304–25. doi:10.30827/cuadgeo. v57i2.6029. AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 783 Gilly, J. P., M. Kechidi, and D. Talbot. 2014. Resilience of Organisations and Territories: The Role of Pivot Firms. European Management Journal 32 (4):596–602. doi:10.1016/j. emj.2013.09.004. Giraldo, O. F. 2018. Ecología Política de la Agricultura. Agroecología y Posdesarrollo. San Cristóbal de Las Casas: El Colegio de la Frontera Sur. Gutiérrez, G. 1975. Teología de la Liberación: Perspectivas. Salamanca: Sígueme. Hollander, J. A. 2004. The social contexts of focus groups. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 33. doi:10.1177/0891241604266988. InterAmerican Coffee. 2019. Mexico CESMACH Fairtrade Coffee. Jackson, L. E., U. Pascual, and T. Hodgkin. 2007. Utilizing and conserving agrobiodiversity in agricultural landscapes. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 121 (3):196–210. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2006.12.017. Kawulich, B. B. 2005. La Observación Participante como Método de Recolección de Datos. Forum:QualitativeSocial Research 6 (2):Art.43. doi:10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004. Kealiikanakaoleohaililani, K. Kurashima, N., F. S. Kainana, G. P. Christian, L. Renee Pualani, H. McMillen, C. Kala, K. Asing, et al. 2018. Ritual + sustainability science? A portal into the science of Aloha. Sustainability 10 (3478):1–17. doi:10.3390/su10103478. Krippendorff, K. 1997. Metodología de Análisis de Contenido. Teoría Y Práctica. Barcelona: Ediciones Paidós Ibérica. Leff, E. 2001. Justicia Ambiental: Construcción Y Defensa Delos Nuevos Derechos Ambientales Culturales Y Colectivos En América Latina. 1st ed. Distrito Federal: Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Medio Ambiente Red de Formación Ambiental para América Latina y el Caribe Boulevard. León-Sicard, T. E., and O. Vargas. May, 2018. "Agroecología Y Restauración Ecológica: Dos Disciplinas Que Se Encuentran En El Paisaje". Flora Capital (14): 14–22. Martínez-Harms, M. J., and P. Balvanera. 2012. Methods for mapping ecosystem service supply: A review. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services and Management 8 (1–2):17–25. doi:10.1080/21513732.2012.663792. MEA. 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Millennium ecosystem assessment. Washington, DC: Island Press. doi:10.1196/annals.1439.003. Mier, Y. T., M. O. Giménez Cacho, M. Giraldo, H. Aldasoro, B. G. Morales, P. Ferguson, A. Rosset, Khadse, and C. Campos. 2018. Bringing agroecology to scale: Key drivers and emblematic cases. Agroecology and sustainable food systems 42 (6): 637–665. doi:10.1080/ 21683565.2018.1443313. Moreno-Calles, A. I., V. M. Toledo, and A. Casas. 2013. Los Sistemas Agroforestales Tradicionales de México: Una Aproximación Biocultural. Botanical Sciences 91 (4):375–98. doi:10.17129/botsci.419. Morett Sánchez, J. C., and C. Cosío Ruiz. 2017. Panorama de los Ejidos y Comunidades Agrarias en México. Agricultura, Sociedad Y Desarrollo 14 (1):125–52. http://www.redalyc. org/articulo.oa?id=360550545007. Naess, A. 1973. The Shallow and the deep, long-range ecology movement: A summary. Inquiry (United Kingdom) 16 (1–4):95–100. doi:10.1080/00201747308601682. Prada, R. 2014. Horizontes de los Mundos Posibles. Oikonomías Campesinas. In Alternativa. Revista de Estudios Rurales, 1. Córdoba: UNC-CONICET. Ramírez Echenique, A. 2017. Timosempaleuia Uan Timoskaltia Ika Se Kuali Yeknemilis. Unión de Cooperativas Tosepan: Estrategias de Cooperativismo Integral para la Descolonización, Autogestión y Buen Vivir. El Colegio de la Frontera Sur. RAN. 1994. “Ficha Del Núcleo Agrario Capitán Luis A. Vidal.” http://www.ran.gob.mx/ran/ index.php/sistemas-de-consulta/phina 784 A. GUZMÁN LUNA ET AL. RAN. 1998. Ficha del Núcleo Agrario San Miguel Chicahua. Registro Agrario Nacional. PHINA. Padrón e Historial de Núcleos Agrarios. Rosset, P. M., and M. E. Martínez-Torres. 2016. Agroecología, Territorio, Recampesinización y Movimientos Sociales. Estudios Sociales 25 (47):273–300. Royero Benavides, B. P. 2015. Desarrollo y Buena Vida En La Mixteca Alta. Colegio de Postgraduados. Santiago Lemgruber, L., A. C. Jerônimo, B. B. Sansevero, H. N. Alves-Pinto, A. Latawiec, B. Strassburg, P. Brancalion, R. R. Rodrigues, S. R. Pinto, and L. F. Duarte de Moraes. 2017. Beyond Forests: Socio-Economic Impacts of Ecological Restoration Projects in the Atlantic Forest of Brazil. In Beyond Restoration Ecology: Social Perspectives and the Caribbean, ed. E. Ceccon and D. R. Pérez, 384. 1a ed. Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires: Vázquez Mazzini Editores. Santiago-Mejía, B. E., M. R. Martínez-Menez, E. Rubio-Granados, H. Vaquera-Huerta, and J. Sánchez-Escudero. Abril-Junio, 2018. Variabilidad Espacial de Propiedades Físicas y Químicas del Suelo en un Sistema Lama-Bordo En La Mixteca Alta de Oaxaca, México. Agricultura, Sociedad Y Desarrollo 275–88. doi:10.22231/asyd.v15i2.796. Sevilla Guzmán, E. 2015. La Participación en la Construcción Histórica Latinoamericana de la Agroecología y sus Niveles de Territorialidad. Política Y Sociedad 52 (2):351–70. doi:10.5209/rev_POSO.2015.v52.n2.45205. Sevilla-Guzmán, E., and M. Soler Montiel. 2009. Del Desarrollo Rural a La Agroecología. Hacia Un Cambio de Paradigma. Documentación Social 155:23–39. https://seminariodlae. files.wordpress.com/2012/10/c2-eduardo-sevilla-y-marta-soler.pdf. Silva, W. I. D. 2014. Clase Campesina. Modo de Ser, de Vivir y de Producir. 1st ed. Porto Alegre: Instituto Cultural Padre Josimo. Siva Rivera, E. 2006. Efectos Locales de la Producción de Café Alternativo y Sustentabilidad en Chiapas, México. Revista Iberoamericana De Economía Ecológica 3:49–62. Sosa Velásquez, M. 2012. ¿Cómo Entender el Territorio? In Edited by, B. R. Muñoz, 1st ed. Guatemala: Editorial Cara Parens. Taylor, S. J., and R. Bogdan. 1994. Introducción a los Métodos Cualitativos de Investigación. Barcelona: Paidós Básica. Toledo, V. M. 2005. Potencial Económico de la Flora Útil de los Cafetales de la Sierra Norte de Puebla. México, D. F. Toledo, V. M. 2016. ¡Salir Del Capitalismo! La Revolución Agroecológica y la Economía Social y Solidaria en América Latina. In Economía Social Y Solidaria En Movimiento, J. L. Coraggio ed., 1st ed., 143–58. Los Polvorines: Universidad Nacional de General Sarmiento. http://base.socioeco.org/docs/706_economia_social_y_solidaria_en_movi miento_para_web.pdf. Touraine, A. 1994. Qu´est-Ce Que La Démocratie? France: Fayard. Uyttewaal, K. 2016. Feminismos y Agroecología. Un entrelazamiento Esencial. LEISA Revista De Agroecología 31:4. Vargas Simón, C. 2014. Surge Asociación Civil Horizontes Creativos. In La Verdad Del Sureste, 2014. Verdugo, F. 2015. “Perspectivas Teológicas de la Encíclica Laudato Si´: Contribución a La IV Semana Teológica En La UCN. Cuadernos De Teología VII 2:136–57. doi:10.22199/ S07198175.2015.0002.00001. Zibechi, R. 2007. Autonomías y emancipaciones América Latina en movimiento. Lima, Peru: UniversidadNacional Mayor de San Marcos. Fondo Editorial de la Facultad deCiencias Sociales. Programa Democracia y Transformación Global. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems ISSN: 2168-3565 (Print) 2168-3573 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjsa21 Can the state take agroecology to scale? Public policy experiences in agroecological territorialization from Latin American Omar Felipe Giraldo & Nils McCune To cite this article: Omar Felipe Giraldo & Nils McCune (2019): Can the state take agroecology to scale? Public policy experiences in agroecological territorialization from Latin American, Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, DOI: 10.1080/21683565.2019.1585402 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2019.1585402 Published online: 01 Apr 2019. Submit your article to this journal View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wjsa21 AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2019.1585402 Can the state take agroecology to scale? Public policy experiences in agroecological territorialization from Latin American Omar Felipe Giraldo a and Nils McCune b a Agricultura, Sociedad y Ambiente, El Colegio de la Frontera Sur (ECOSUR), San Cristobal de las Casas, Mexico; bSchool for Environment and Sustainability, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA ABSTRACT KEYWORDS In this article we use a food sovereignty frame to analyze the role of the State in favoring agroecological scaling, particularly in Cuba and in the Latin American countries that elected leftist governments in the first years of the 21st century and currently face an upsurge of right-wing political forces. As with social movement participation in international governance structures, at the national level social movements face risks when they allow themselves to become absorbed in collaborations with the State in order to build public policy for taking agroecology to scale. By participating in the institutionalization of agroecology, movements become part of the established rules of the game, having to move within limits defined by a system that exists to preserve the interests of the dominant class. On the other hand, by boycotting the arena of governance, agroecological movements allow resurgent political and economic elites to grab land, territories and resources needed for agroecological food systems to ever become a global substitute for industrial agriculture. At the heart of the matter is the political character of agroecology: shall we continue betting on reform, in times of (counter) revolution? Scaling-up agroecology; political agroecology; the state; social movements; the right Introduction The rapid ascent of the right-wing in Brazilian politics is emblematic of a regional phenomenon: none of the institutional reforms of Latin American center-left governments since 1999, nor the social organizations and populations that benefit from these policies, are safe from revisionist, neocon and protofascist assault. This particularly disturbing historical situation is unfolding even as some of the most important international efforts to institutionalize agroecology and peasants’ rights are yielding fruit. FAO’s second international symposium entitled Scaling Up Agroecology to Achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) was carried out in April 2018, and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and other Working Persons in Rural Areas, was adopted CONTACT Omar Felipe Giraldo [email protected] El Colegio de la Frontera Sur, Agricultura, Sociedad y Ambiente, Carretera Panamericana y Periférico Sur s/n, Barrio María Auxiliadora, San Cristobal de las Casas 2929, Mexico © 2019 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC 2 O. F. GIRALDO AND N. MCCUNE by the General Assembly as international law in the same year (Gliessman 2018; LVC (La via Campesina) 2018). These contradictory tendencies invoke us to discuss which strategies should be used to broaden and accelerate transitions toward agroecological food systems. This article contributes to the documentation and analysis of how public policy can help take agroecology to scale, while qualifying this debate by recognizing the evolution of thinking about state power in Latin America and the politics of rural people’s movements that aspire to build food sovereignty.1 Our story begins with the end of history; that is, the 1990s. From the very zenith of triumphalist neoliberalism, a volcanic series of challenges to transnational capitalism and US hegemony erupted, especially across Latin America. These progressive political projects have often found their core source of strength in peasant and indigenous movements that rejected privatization projects, and instead elaborated visions for a revitalized and democratized State. Popular movements have been the key to mobilizing support for successful electoral campaigns, and governments, that declare decolonization of institutions, national control over key resources, and food sovereignty to be State priorities (McKay, Nehring, and Walsh-Dilley 2014). Several of these governments have attempted, to varying degrees, to institutionalize agroecology,2 and in some cases, the rights of nature have become enshrined in law (McCune 2017; Sabourin et al. 2017). Since 2009, however, the phenomenon of “progressive regimes” in Latin America has shown increasing vulnerability. We argue that this is due to three main factors: (1) the impasse they have shown with respect to transitioning from extractive to regenerative economic models; (2) a related incapacity of leftist forces to permanently mobilize society in a transformational, bottom-up democratization of cultural, economic and social structures; and (3) the successful application in Latin America of US strategies known as unconventional, fourth generation or hybrid warfare, soft coups, or color revolutions in order to control or dispose of undesired governments and restore conventional neoliberal regimes or achieve “outsider” far-right political victories that enthusiastically repress migrants, religious and sexual minorities, as well as land defenders. These factors, together, comprise the apparent “end of the progressive cycle” and call into question the strategy of institutional reforms for taking agroecology to scale. People’s movements almost always enter into negotiations with the State from a position of weakness – particularly to the extent that they represent organized communities engaged in complex reproduction strategies and everyday resistance, rather than a unified class project seeking hegemony (Veltmeyer 2018). These asymmetrical negotiations are often justified in the interests of establishing rights-based frameworks within existing political regimes, in order to gain leverage in resource and territorial disputes (IPC (International Planning Committee for Food Sovereignty) 2018). The current context, however, in which regime change against progressive or wavering AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 3 governments has become the order of the day (Bello 2017), begs a new question for agroecological movements: what is to be gained from negotiating with governments that are likely to be replaced by aggressive neoliberal or protofascist regimes? This article takes on the question of the State, from the perspective of a search for political and social methods for taking agroecology to scale (Mier Y Terán et al. 2018; Nicholls and Altieri 2018; Parmentier 2014). We situate our discussion in the growing institutional recognition of agroecology as a key tool for solving the problems confronting the planet, as well as the evolving thinking of popular movements with regard to State power. Our purpose is to provide analysis for guiding how, why, and under what circumstances, agroecological movements should engage with the State to design or implement public policy. At the same time, we feel that this article is part of an urgent and global question that, we hope, unites the city and the countrysise: how shall we defend social rights – and cool Mother Earth (LVC 2009) – in the face of a rising politics of hate? In the first section, we describe the cycle of progressive regimes in Latin American political systems. It has been a process with vast dimensions and possibilities, filled with euphoric defenders and disappointed critics, major US destabilization efforts and an extraordinary quantity of elections. The lingering debates about the genuinity of these processes and their place in a global emancipatory project have been sidelined by the crushing advance of rightwing politics in the continent (Scoones et al. 2018), in direct relation to evolving international military and political strategies taken advantage of by transnational corporations and traditional elites. Next, we delineate three interlocking domains that we use to analyze public policy from the lenses of agroecology: territory, knowledge and sovereignty. Rather than simply looking at single policies or budgetary line items meant to encourage agroecological farming, we focus on these three system-level principles of sociopolitical regimes that can support the scaling of agroecological food systems (Vandermeer et al. 2018). We use these overlapping principles to examine political aspects of agroecological scaling in Latin America. We look at the way that territory, knowledge and sovereignty have been employed by the State and by non-State actors to make possible, encourage or block the scaling of agroecological food production. We find that the fundamental necessity of political change for agroecological transformation is policy that disrupts landlord power and prevents or undoes the consolidation of agribusiness empires. In the absence of these regressive and predatory power structures, agroecology flourishes. In the last part, we discuss our understanding of the State and people’s movements in this historical moment of global capitalism, led by speculative, financial capitalism, in a global resource scramble. We argue that the State is nothing if not contradictory: its popular and democratic control is a condition, 4 O. F. GIRALDO AND N. MCCUNE sine quo non, for organized people to use legal means to stop capitalist ecocide; at the same time, the negotiations around State power tend to create permanent routes for the continuity and return of economic power to be exercised as political power. Nothing can replace committed, territorial, grassroots agroecological movements as a means to autonomous self-determination. As such, we commit the audacity of calling upon readers to engage in the historical task of “painstaking organizing” to defend land, nature and the future. Section 1: the doing and undoing of “friendly” governments in Latin America To the question of what political and institutional context favors agroecological scaling, the agricultural and food transformations taking place in Cuba since 1991 are instructive (Machín et al. 2010). With the collapse of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) in 1991, Cuba lost its major trading partner just as the United States (US) government tightened a decades-old commercial blockade on the island. In the year between invading Panama and invading Iraq, the US president, George H.W. Bush, announced a “new world order” based on the idea that Western liberal democracy would be the final form of human government. In reality, the new world order or “full spectrum dominance” (Chomsky 2003) would mean the complete and irreversible institutionalization of the kind of experimental neoliberal shock therapy (Klein 2007) and structural adjustment programs that were already contributing to Latin America’s “lost decade,” as foreign debt payments, privatizations and market shocks vastly expanded the levels of extreme poverty across the continent. As has been widely documented, Cuba’s government reacted entirely differently to the new circumstances and agroecological farming became both a form of resistance and a national policy during the 1990s. Food self-sufficiency policy, based on local peasant knowledge combined with reoriented technological programs to produce biological inputs, decentralized urban gardens and a peasant-to-peasant agroecological movement, became the order of the day (Fernandez et al. 2018). The Washington Consensus’ free market orthodoxy, rejected early on by the Caracazo riots of 1989, Cuba’s survival and the Zapatista uprising of 1994, was upended permanently by the electoral triumphs of Venezuelan Hugo Chavez in 1998, 1999, 2004, 2006, 2009 and 2012 (Wilpert 2007). Chavez argued that Latin America and the Caribbean had only achieved a partial, formal independence, and that a “second independence”, based in part on wealth redistribution, was needed to decolonize the continent economically and culturally (Escobar 2010). Chavez and Cuban President Fidel Castro formed the Bolivarian Alternative for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA) alliance in 2004, in response to George W. Bush’s proposal for a Free Trade Agreement of the Americas, known in Spanish as ALCA. Rather than ALCA, which open all the economies of the AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 5 region to “free” competition, ALBA proposed a regional integration based upon the principles of solidarity and complementary relations. As progressive and semi-progressive candidates were elected in Argentina (2003), Brazil (2003), Bolivia (2005), Honduras (2005), Nicaragua (2006), Ecuador (2006), Paraguay (2008), Uruguay (2009), El Salvador (2009), and other countries, the ALBA alliance swelled and the decades-long isolation of Cuba was finally broken (Riggirozzi and Tussi 2012). The opposition of voters to neoliberalism opened a broad conversation about socialism, post-liberalism, post-capitalism, autonomy and decolonization. There emerged a multi-tiered resistance to laissez-faire capitalism in Latin America: the governements of Brazil, Argentina, and Uruguay became examples of a “responsible” left that sought to reduce poverty through a neodevelopmentalist approach that expanded both capitalist and social investments, people’s revolutions in Ecuador and Bolivia used new constitutions to defend the indigenous concept of Buen Vivir as an antipode to capitalist development, and Chavista Venezuela embarked on constructing “21st Century Socialism”, calling on urban and rural people’s movements, Afro-descendent communities and indigenous peoples to organize a new kind of State (Katz 2008). In addition to ALBA, progessive institutions for regional integration created during the Chavez era included the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR), Petrocaribe, and the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC). This was a period in which agroecological principles were enshrined into law in many Latin American countries, particularly Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Brazil, Argentina and Nicaragua. The progressive governments of Latin America are generally credited with dramatically reducing extreme poverty, restoring literacy, education and health care as rights rather than privileges, and broadening the conception of citizen and State to guarantee historically-denied rights of women, indigenous peoples, Afro-descendants, peasants and workers (Escobar 2010). These governments vastly expanded social services and public investment in infrastructure, while reducing or ending dependence on predatory loans from the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. However, none of these progressive projects found a way to definitively break away from the extractive economic structures that have dominated since colonial times, sparking deep debates within leftist communities and popular movements (Andermann 2018; Stédile 2017; Veltmeyer 2018). Despite a transformed institutional landscape, the role of agroecology has not been consistent in Latin America’s “left turn.” The role of the private sector in food processing, distribution and retail has not been aggressively challenged by ALBA governments, except Cuba, which represents a qualitatively distinct level of commitment to agroecological food systems (Rosset and Benjamin 1994; Machín et al. 2010). Other countries of Latin America’s ‘pink tide’ since 1999 have, in general, pursued a two-track policy of supporting sustainable smallholder farming, at least in discourse, while also 6 O. F. GIRALDO AND N. MCCUNE being complicit to transnational agribusiness and mining interests’ incursions into peasant territories. Throughout the early 2000s, traditional elites found themselves displaced from political power and faced with uncomfortable choices – taking exile in the US, organizing active opposition to progressive governments, retiring to strictly private sector activities, or simply waiting for an opportunity. The coup attempt against Hugo Chavez in 2002 and oil industry lockout the same year, the armed rebellion that ousted Haitian president Jean-Bernard Aristide in 2004, the “Media Luna” rebellion by landlord elites of Croatian descent against the government of Evo Morales in Bolivia during 2008, the military coup against Honduran president Manual Zelaya in 2009, and the coup attempt against Ecuadorian president Rafael Correa in 2010 are landmarks in the evolution of opposition to progressive governments in Latin America and the Caribbean (Borón 2014). The early success of left-leaning governments in repeling plots and elite-led rebellion was linked to the committed support for these regimes by organized sectors of society, particularly urban barrio organizations and peasant movements (Wilpert 2007). Guided by Chavez’s example, these government’s common reaction to coup attempts was to deepen national processes of transformation and maintain the permanent mobilization of supportive social sectors. Such deepening translated into measures such as the nationalization of hydrocarbons in Bolivia and Ecuador, as well as the commitment by Hugo Chavez to replace the “bourgeois state” with a communal, ascendant democracy of people’s power, including an explicit commitment to agroecological production (Ciccariello-Maher 2014). All of these governments, however, were bogged down by their inability to stamp out corruption in State bureaucracies, and many observers decried a widening gap between aspirations of experimental democracies and entrenched cultural and social practices that reproduce inequality (Katz 2008). The glaring contradiction between political constitutions and laws that formally recognized the rights of nature, and policies that encouraged extractivism, pushed leftist governments toward quagmire. Many academics and progressive nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) criticize the “redistributive neodevelopmentalism” of the governments of Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and Nicaragua, which are seen as being too friendly toward capitalist interests and in particular, for fomenting extractive industries (Gudynas 2011). However, most of the organizations and social movements that make up the Latin American Coordination of Rural Organizations (Coordinadora Latinoamericana de Organizaciones del Campo – CLOC), continental expression of La Via Campesina in Latin America and the Caribbean, have been slightly more qualified in their critiques of left-leaning governments, and in general have closed ranks with urban movements and progressive candidates during election cycles (CLOC 2015). AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 7 Soon after Hugo Chavez died of cancer in 2013, the Venezuelan economy sank into crisis as oil prices dropped from $110 per barrel in June 2014 to $22 per barrel in January 2016, a period of less than two years. As Venezuelan financial support for the regional economy disappeared, leftist governments faced the prospect of cutting social programs or taking on deficits. In this context, protest movements of the newly created middle class blossomed in Latin America, generally over issues of corruption. By that point, conditions had ripened for more brazen regime change efforts (Mora 2018), and the success of US-managed “color revolutions” in Eastern Europe and the Arab Spring became a blueprint for similar applications in Latin America. The elite rebellions that have emerged recently receive critical logistical and financial assistance from the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which in its own publications has boasted of building the capacity of opposition groups to take sudden control of communications media and control a dominant narrative (Waddell 2018). The novel collaboration of traditional oligarchical media companies and social media campaigning virtually transforms the political landscape overnight, using messaging previously developed through extensive political, social, anthropological and psychological research of the type that has gained notoriety since the scandal of Cambridge Analytics. US-owned transnational social media platforms Facebook, WhatsApp and Twitter play a fundamental role in stoking “spontaneous” and leaderless uprisings against progressive governments in the region, aided by “post-truth” contemporary political tools such as fake news stories, bots and trolls to construct a state of public opinion that can force out progressive governments. The extremely violent guarimba protests in Venezuela in 2014 and 2017, the media blitz run-up to the impeachment of Dilma Rouseff in 2016, Lula’s imprisonment and the 2018 elections, and Nicaragua’s political crisis since April 2018, were all essentially media operations, guided by Gene Sharp’s (1994) theories of asymmetrical conflict, in which non-State actors bring down political regimes (Korybko 2015). The dismantling of progressive governments signals a chilling return toward authoritarian and neoliberal regimes in Latin America.3 Incoming traditional landlord elite castes in some cases, and neoright populist extremists in other cases, use State power to intensify diverse forms of violence against indigenous and peasant communities, internal and global migrants, sexual minorities, Afro-descendant peoples, women and in general, the poor (Andermann 2018; Bähre and Gomes 2018). The “end of the progressive cycle” in the continent appears to be the beginning of a period of heightened repression, criminalization and hate. Not only have agroecology-friendly policies been overturned in these countries, but they have arguably been converted into tools for repression and information-gathering against movements.4 8 O. F. GIRALDO AND N. MCCUNE Section 2: why, how and when of agroecological public policy What is to be learned from this harsh experience? Do social movements waste precious energy designing and demanding agroecological policy? Before venturing responses to these troubling questions, we examine some of the agroecological policies created in Latin America through the social movement/progressive government dynamics in the last two decades. To begin with, it must be said that the struggles to take agroecology to scale are really recent, with Nicaragua’s peasant-to-peasant movement of the late 1980s and Cuba’s transition in the 1990s as milestones (Holt-Giménez 2006; Wright 2005). Although agroecology has been defended – under that and other names – by social movements over the last forty years, it was only very recently that the growing agroecological movement managed to include the issue in public debates (Wezel et al. 2009). For a long time, agroecology was excluded from political discussions in institutions. The political platform that gave rise to scaling up agroecology was built with the struggles of peasant movements throughout the 20th century (Rosset 2006). Although historically the struggles were mainly defensive – against land grabbing, the flooding of exported food into national markets, water privatization, mining concessions, seed patents – it was in the context of progressive or socialist governments that agroecological policies were achieved, thanks to pressure from a wide network of actors such as organized peasants, indigenous peoples, rural workers’ unions, NGOs, academics, as well as sectors of governments and international cooperation (Altieri and Toledo 2011). This brief review of agroecological policies also proposes three guiding principles for changing the power relations in favor of agroecology: knowledge, territory and sovereignty. Knowledge means the recovery of indigenous knowledge and technology, the exchange and dialogue between ways of knowing, including scientific/ rational, complex/relational, constructionist and others. Agroecology challenges conventional, productivist logic in food systems. It does so through the revalorization of indigenous and traditional knowledge systems, which are inevitably linked to places and territory-based social relations. With the category of Territory we want to argue that only by stopping land and resource grabbing, defending indigenous territories, and constructing peasant, peasant-indigenous, and peasant-worker territories through popular, integrated agrarian reform, can agroecology be taken to scale. As such, agroecological solutions imply transforming land-based social relations, which in practice means breaking landlord power structures, which may take agrarian, laboral, legal, economic, political, or cultural forms. This is why agrarian reform remains the policy par excellence of this category, without which agroecology and food sovereignty cannot be scaled out. In territorial policies we also include access to certain means as a guarantee for public credit systems; biological means for the AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 9 early stages of agroecological reconfiguration; and rural infrastructure. Disrupting landlord power is only a first step. Agroecological policy is also that which prevents food empires from taking hold, and reduces their ability to maintain control where they currently exercise it, such as in supermarkets, gate prices and trade negotiations. Finally we chose Sovereignty. Agroecology builds food sovereignty at every level, as the Declaration of Nyéléni makes clear (International Forum for Agroecology 2015). It puts food production, distribution and consumption in the hands of the people. At the same time, national, local and popular sovereignty are necessary to protect agroecological processes from the offensive of transnational capital (McKay, Nehring, and Walsh-Dilley 2014). Sovereignty means that agroecology is understood as part of sovereign food systems, wherein social actors are free to define, construct and defend their food culture, and they are protected from outside predatory actors (such as banks, mining companies, and agribusiness circuits) that would undermine these food cultures. Each of these three principles is used to analyze the progressive policy for agroecology that has emerged since 1999 in Latin America and the Caribbean. Knowledge This category includes policies that have promoted or supported processes of agroecological training, exchange of experiences and knowledge, researchaction, and technical support to families and producer communities. The Brazilian National Rural Extension Policy (PNATER) created in 2004 stands out, which in the period 2010–2104 reached a budget of US$ 600 million and benefited approximately 550 thousand families (Borsatto 2018). Also noteworthy in Brazil is the creation, since 2003, of more than 167 technical courses and a bachelor’s degree in Agroecology, as well as doctorate programs in Agroecology (Schmitt et al. 2017). In Venezuela, there is the Programa de Formación de Grado en Agroecología de la Universidad Bolivariana de Venezuela, with more than 2,000 graduates who are part of the country’s dynamic agroecological movement (Domené et al. in this issue). In this group of policies, we include the policies of transition towards agroecology that support with training and co-production of agroecological knowledge, especially for food autonomy. Among the emblematic cases are the ProHuerta program in Argentina with 464,527 gardens in operation (Patrouilleau et al. 2017), the Manos a la Siembra program in Venezuela, and the National Program of Urban, Suburban and Family Agriculture of the Institute of Fundamental Research in Tropical Agriculture (INIFAT) in Cuba. This latter program has more than one million linked people; it generates more than 300 thousand jobs; it has 23 subprograms in organoponics, intensive 10 O. F. GIRALDO AND N. MCCUNE orchards and semi-protected crops, patios and family plots, municipal projects, and suburban farms; it is articulated with 8 ministries and 16 institutions; it has a network of more than 7,000 organic fertilizer centers; and a network of 147 municipal seed producing farms.5 Cuba was the pioneer country in the region in implementing public policies favorable to agroecology as a response to the crisis caused by the fall of the socialist bloc (Machín Sosa et al. 2013), when the country opted to implement many minority ideas of Cuban scientists who recommended decoupling agricultural production from imported technologies. Throughout the 1990s, Cuba massified urban agriculture with few external resources, while the country’s food production fell to the associated peasant sector, which had never lost certain ancestral practices, such as crop rotation, ploughing with oxen, and the use of manure and compost to maintain soil fertility. The existence of more than 15 agroecological research institutes that existed before the crisis of the nineties was crucial for the expansion of agroecology in Cuba. Particularly noteworthy are the State Council’s Science and Technology Forum (Machín Sosa et al. 2013), and the universities currently conducting research located in all the provinces of the island. Territory In taking stock of the redistribution of land, achievements have been very limited. Despite distributing more than 51.2 million hectares to 721,442 families (Sauer and Mészáros 2017), the Workers’ Party (PT) governments of Brazil mostly allocated public and marginal lands, attempting the least possible impact on landlords. The strategy of the government of Evo Morales in Bolivia was similar, where by 2014, 28.2 million hectares had been distributed to 369,507 beneficiaries (Webber 2017). These were legalization and land titling programs that did not affect the interests of the landowners. In Venezuela, the case is different, because although thanks to the Law of Lands and Agrarian Development, the important amount of 6.34 million hectares was recovered and 117,224 agrarian letters were distributed, this result did not translate into an increase in the cultivated area because it coincided with an economic policy focused on obtaining oil revenues (Purcell 2017). In Cuba, on the contrary, the agrarian reforms of 2008 and 2012 did favor the massification of the agroecology of the Peasant to Peasant Agroecological Movement of the National Association of Small Peasant (ANAP). It was a policy that handed over 1.9 million hectares of idle land from state-owned enterprises to peasants through the figure of “usufructuaries” (Vázquez, Marzin, and González 2017). In this group of countries there were special low-interest lines of credit, including the National Program to Strengthen Family Farming (PRONAF) in Brazil (Schmitt et al. 2017), loans to beneficiaries of the agrarian reform AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 11 of the Credit and Commerce Bank in Cuba (Vázquez, Marzin, and González 2017), the soft credit for producers of the new Ministry of Family, Community, Cooperative and Associative Economy of Nicaragua, the loans for small and medium cocoa farmers of the new Institute of Popular and Solidarity Economy in Ecuador (Clark 2017), and the credits of the Enterprise to Support Food Production (EMAPA) in Bolivia (Webber 2017). These credits, although in some cases they have displaced the usurious lenders that prevailed, have also received criticism that, except in Cuba, they are aimed at farmers with greater capacity to pay, and do not promote agroecology, but rather monocultures of agribusiness. With respect to access to water, it is worth mentioning Bolivia’s new Political Constitution, which establishes water as a common good, and Brazil’s One Million Rural Cisterns program for rainwater harvesting and storage, which has energized gardens in arid zones (Schmitt et al. 2017). For access to seeds it is important to mention the National Program of Genetic Resources in Cuba which established a seed supply system for the urban agriculture program, and in Venezuela the Seed Law of 2016, which prohibits patents, transgenics and establishes the seed as patrimony of the peoples at the service of humanity. In Cuba, two flagship programs for the agroecological transition are the National Program for the Production of Biological Means – created in 1988 – and the National Program for Organic Fertilizers – in 1991 –, through which decentralized production of biological pest controllers – entomophagous and entomopathogenics – is made through a network of more than 200 laboratories at the service of the peasantry, which in turn converged with a series of State policies that favoured the rapid evolution of the Peasant to Peasant Agroecological Movement.6 It is also important to mention the rural infrastructure programs, such as the Program to Support Infrastructure in Rural Territories (PROINF) in Brazil, and the investment in rural roads that has existed in most of these governments which has reduced transportation costs, reduced the power of intermediaries and brought farming families closer to the consuming population. Sovereignty Brazil, Nicaragua and Uruguay have enacted specific laws for agroecology, while several other countries created laws to support organics, environmental laws and legislation on the right to food (Freguin-Gresh 2017). Local ordenances against GMOs or glyphosate have also been important, and among local experiences, none shine so brightly as that of Rio Grande do Sul and Belo Horizonte, where the Food Acquisition Program (PAA) was implemented in 2003 and, later, the National School Feeding Program (PNAE). The latter two 12 O. F. GIRALDO AND N. MCCUNE policies aimed to purchase organic/agro-ecological food at prices up to 30% higher than conventional agronomic products, for local public schools, food programmes, food banks, community kitchens, charitable associations and community centres (Schmitt et al. 2017). In Cuba, on the other hand, there is a marketing facility through fixed prices established by the Ministry of Finance and Prices, and there is a state insurance that covers 50% of the premium – for food and grains. The cooperatives,7 to which the Cuban peasants are integrated, sell to the state agrocenter – which distributes to other places in Cuba –, although they also have direct sales points (Chan and Freyre 2010). Nicaragua has become 80–90% food self-sufficient over the last decade, with rice production recovering from 30% of consumption in 2006 to over 70% in 2017 (Núñez-Soto 2018). However, landlord power has remained potent, and when Venezuela (due to its own crisis) stopped purchasing Nicaraguan beef in March 2018, the landholding oligarchy led a prolonged and violent effort to oust the government which had, until that moment, provided it with a lucrative business opportunity in the form of beef exports (Dada 2018). Nicaragua was in 2017 the only Central American country with a positive trade balance with the United States (Office of the US Trade Representative 2018), undoubtedly one of the factors fueling regime change efforts from outside the country. There is no doubt that the achievements and advances in these exemplary policies are evident. However, it is important to highlight some of their greatest difficulties and obstacles: (1) Only in Cuba can it be argued that there is an effort to articulate policies at the national level to transform the food system using agroecology (Chan and Freyre 2010). Even in Cuba, there are voices within the state sector that perceive agroecology as a provisional alternative until commercial relations can be re-established (Altieri and Funes-Monzote 2012). (2) In other cases, agroecological policies have created niches, without challenging the dominance of agribusiness. Brazil, despite many agroecological policies under PT governments, became globally the largest consumer of agrochemicals and the second-largest in area cultivated with genetically modified crops (Schmitt et al. 2017). (3) Achievements are vulnerable to changes in the political regime. For example, with the coup d’état of the neconservative Temer government in 2016 “the Ministry of Agrarian Development dedicated to agrarian reform and family agriculture was closed, and resources for public purchases and agroecology were cut off” (Schmitt et al. 2017, 387). Bolsonaro, for his part, promised to close the MST schools and declare the movement as “terrorist organization”, while in Argentina AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 13 Macri’s government dismantled the newly created Secretariat of Family Agriculture in 2018. (4) The policies that promote short circuits were bureaucratized to such an extent that they ended up establishing lists of requirements, documents, control mechanisms and quality standards totally out of line with agroecological philosophy and alien to the peasant economy (Freguin-Gresh 2017; Schmitt et al. 2017). (5) The legislation has conjugated agroecology with organic agriculture, and is therefore based on the substitution of inputs (Rosset and Altieri 1997) and not on the redesign of plots and rural landscapes, and a mercantile approach to agro-export. Section 3: agroecology and the state of the state After taking stock of public policies for agroecology in Latin America and the Caribbean, we consider it necessary to make a reflection of the contemporary State and the real possibilities of what can be done from its institutions in our days. We do so, however, not as an exercise in seeing like a State, but rather as a step toward orienting the efforts of agroecological movements toward judging if, when, and to what degree they should put effort into gaining institutional reforms for agroecological scaling. For two decades after the Cold War ended, there was a tacit agreement between the forces of the left and the right in Latin American politics, outside of Cuba. According to this arrangement, leftist movements would honor the rules of bourgeois democracy – by seeking political power through electoral means and protecting private property relations – while the right would not use military means to exterminate the left and would allow it to present its platform to voters (Núñez-Soto 2018). According to Vergara-Camus and Kay (2017), once left-wing movements win elections, they may incorporate social movement activists into the institutional bureaucracy and adopt some of their ideas, but cannot radically transform the relations that structure the entire system. Progressive governments do not really emerge as the ruling class, are forced to make agreements and programmatic coalitions with historically oppositional forces to win elections, and they domesticate radical agendas by institutionalizing them in the state bureaucracy (Rosset 2018). The experience of progressive governments in Latin America shows that, aside from Cuba and Venezuela, none broke the structures of landlord power; on the contrary, under their management, large landowners regrouped by forming alliances with transnational capital. Leftist and centerleft coalitions argued that they controlled the government but not the State (García-Linera 2012), and as such, the bourgeois, rentier and oligarchical classes’ opposition to redistributive policies would need to be “softened”, by 14 O. F. GIRALDO AND N. MCCUNE guaranteeing them public infrastructure investments, greater levels of social stability and some areas of liberalized capital expansion. In this sense, progressive regimes delivered exactly what capitalism needed – more palatable politics, economic stability, and new infrastructure for future privatization. It’s becoming evident that, once deposed from power, a decade or two of progressive governance has favored the overall stability of the capitalist system. We believe that Latin American popular movements are interpreting this situation in divergent ways. While not necessarily antagonistic to one another, two emerging positions do indeed suggest distinct long-term strategies. Both begin with a recognition that center-left governments generally failed to deliver structural change, and even “to a certain extent laid the groundwork for a return of the Right, by failing to resolve the structural and political contradictions of the country, and by facilitating extraordinary access by agribusiness and financial capital to rural areas and government programs” (Pinheiro-Barbosa 2018, 1). However, from this point forward, interpretations diverge. Is the State intrinsically regressive and repressive, no matter who wields its power? Or did the State once hold the potential to transform economic structures (as in Cuba), but has lost it in the last 30 years as a result of globalized capitalism? Or does the State still have the potential to redistribute wealth, defend the commons and ancestral territory, and even decolonize Latin American society by transforming public budgets and redefining national priorities? These theoretical doubts immediately translate into political correlaries: Should leftist governments have broken relations with the local oligarchy, transnational investors and the United States immediately after being elected and instead decreed food sovereignty? Should they have taken advantage of the moment they had to nationalize the media corporations and reform the corrupt political systems that ultimately orchestrated the coups against them? Should the rural social movements have avoided forging alliances with the urban working classes to support leftist candidates, instead rejecting “post-neoliberal” politics as a farce? Does the current situation call for more autonomy, or does it call for a stronger popular front against fascism? In short, the current situation in Latin America calls for deep reflection about the strategy and tactics of food sovereignty, pragmatism, alliances, reform, and revolution. We will briefly overview what we consider to be two of the most serious tendencies in rural social movements: one which we call “autonomist” and another which we call “sovereignist”. The autonomous perspective may be epitomized by the Zapatista movement in Southern Mexico, and the traditional left position by the Landless Workers’ Movement of Brazil, although even these are not precise labels. The autonomist position reflects a conception that rejects putting State power in the center of social movement strategies for changing reality. Instead, it AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 15 focuses on self-determination and democratization as bottom-up processes. This position is highly critical of the attempts to engage the State as a partner in agroecological scaling. The concern is that participating in the institutionalization of agroecology could serve the technologies of governments to maintain a dual agriculture – agribusiness in peaceful coexistence with peasant agriculture now renamed as agroecological – while agroecological movements are subsumed by the logic of regulations, programs and projects of an institutional bureaucracy coupled with market forces. Autonomists see an immense risk of being incorporated into the established rules of the game; included in the framework of instituted power, having to move in a system whose purpose is the preservation of the interests of the dominant class (Negri 1999; Rancière 1999). This position considers that there is a risk that agroecology, instead of being a destituent power – capable of rendering inoperative the system before which it is revealed – becomes a constituent power – maintaining operative forms of power of the constituted political economic system – (Agamben 2014). Autonomists warn that the scaling up of agroecology, and the underlying public policies, could become servile to the logic of capital accumulation, making agroecology be swallowed up by the enemy that movements wanted to fight. This position sees an inward-looking process of agroecological education and horizontal scaling as the best strategy for replacing agribusiness with agroecology. The sovereignist position, in contrast, sees transnational corporations as the main enemy and demands that people learn how to govern themselves, but also govern territories and exercise full sovereignty, in order to check corporate power. From this perspective, the character of the State depends on which social class is dominating the others; only active State intervention, in response to permanent and massive popular mobilization, is capable of stopping the business deals and resource grabs of transnational capital. When movements physically stop the installation of mining equipment or occupy farms, they resort to legal frameworks and mechanisms to avoid direct violent confrontation and deaths. The basis for these legal strategies is the expectation that the State will not permit capitalist powers to commit mass violation of human rights. In this discussion there are good reasons from both sides. From the autonomist position, several risks can be anticipated with the institutionalization of agroecology. Indeed, with the return to orthodox regimes that transfer State functions to the private sector, there is an enormous risk that the institutionalization of agroecology ends up being an ally of investments. The case of extractive industries is alarming: payment schemes for compensation for damage caused by the actions of large companies – mining, hydrocarbons, dams, wind farms – or payment for REDD+8 type environmental services may end up being directed towards financing agroecological projects in publicprivate partnerships. Public policies and funding for agroecology may be an 16 O. F. GIRALDO AND N. MCCUNE opportunity for the expansion of extractivist projects, not only to have legal viability – compensation for mitigation for land use change is an obligation in many countries – but legitimacy in adopting an environmentalist disguise and a socially responsible face. Agroecology, re-worked as climate-smart agriculture, is being welcomed by the world’s largest corporations. The recent interest in including agroecology in public policy can be partially explained by the need for agrocapitalism to create, or expand, new sources of business, such as the industry of organic inputs, organic monocultures for export niches, profit from the sale of carbon credits, agroecotourism, and biotrade, while re-establishing production conditions (O’Connor 1998) degraded by the technologies of the green revolution (Giraldo 2019; Giraldo and Rosset 2018). One more warning from the autonomist side is about the risks inherent in the flow of resources that will come to fund agroecology programmes, projects and loans that have been announced with FAO’s global Scaling Up Agroecology Initiative (FAO 2018). As has been seen in the most autonomous cases, austerity as a working principle is a virtue, and on the contrary, as usually happens in the classic development projects, excess money corrupts the processes. Austerity impedes clientelism, corporatism and attachment to power, and instead fosters political imagination, stimulates the flowering of reciprocity, mutual support, and solidarity to build paths outside the world of money and economics. Simplicity avoids the creation of relations stimulated by project salaries, the emergence of inequalities in the way of life between those who earn resources from the projects and the rest of the peasants. The funding cycles of projects and programs tend to be true schools of consumption that create dependence on money (Baschet 2015) and unweave community relations based on other types of values – such as gratuity and the pleasure of service – which do not go through the logic of monetary interest (Timmermann and Félix 2015). Also, even in the best cases of agroecological policies, there exist risks associated with creating a “beneficiary” population. Good public policy in general has a demobilizing impact, but particularly when the governments creating the policy are seeking to demobilize, accommodate, or coopt movements. The State itself creates the image that the movement has become redundant to the extent that its institutions are already meeting the demands of the base (McKay, Nehring, and Walsh-Dilley 2014). As such, movements need to show extreme prudence in deciding when to “cash in” on their mobilization strength and consolidate it as institutional reforms. If good policies completely demobilize the movement, it becomes much more difficult to react to changing political winds. However, it is also necessary to pay attention to the sovereignist position. Not participate in the institutionalization of agroecology could prevent the modification, even partially, of the State’s reason for agrifood policy, indirectly supporting the creation of even more obstacles to the territorialization of agroecology. AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 17 Achieving certain spaces is possible to facilitate some aspects as shown in the policies that have been achieved so far, or others that could be achieved through an adequate correlation of forces of the agroecological movement and the economic elites that tend to dominate political power. The State is a permanent contradiction that allows for breaches, ruptures, and interstices within the global system of power. When there is sufficient correlation of forces derived from social organization, these spaces can be opened up and some policies antagonistic to the project of the dominant elites can be carried out (Boneti 2006). However, it is still necessary to ask ourselves how to open these cracks without the movements losing sight of the objectives; without the state agenda eating away at the movement. Conclusions: reformism or agroecological revolution? In the last years of the 19th century Eduard Bernstein (1993) opened a sharp debate on the role of social democracy in the construction of socialism. His famous thesis asserted that it was possible to achieve the objectives of the labour movement without having to resort to revolution, by appealing to gradual reforms within the framework of state institutions. The strategy, according to Bernstein, was to make gradual reforms and qualitative changes in the capitalist relations of production through the political institutions of the capitalist regime in order to slowly get on the socialism objectives (Steger 2006). Rosa Luxemburg (2006), controversied his ideas in her famous work entitled Reform or Revolution (2006), questioning him for having abandoned class analysis and offering solutions that would only serve the perpetuation of the bourgeois order. This old debate becomes valid in the discussions of Latin American progressivism at the beginning of the 21st century, because history has shown that radical changes – such as those required by the transformation of the globalized agrifood system – cannot be made while respecting the current institutionality and status quo. The question for the agroecological movement is to ask if we aspire to a reformism of the agroalimentary model, or if, on the contrary, our struggle is for a peasant revolution with an agroecological base that radically transforms the instituted system (Levidow, Pimbert, and Vanloqueren 2014). What we have learned from progressive regimes, such as those that have occupied the government in Latin America since the beginning of the new millennium, is that, in essence, they have had blocked the possibility of impeding the reproduction of capital, which is particularly evident in agrarian issues, since what has happened in the region has been an unprecedented expansion of agribusiness,9 accompanied by some minor changes in the agrifood structure. Up against the “capitalist hydra”, we cannot continue aiming the machete at one of its heads. What should be the perspective of agroecological movements, in this historical moment of counter-revolution and the rise of the far right? 18 O. F. GIRALDO AND N. MCCUNE Perhaps, the choice of whether to engage or not in institutions is a false dictotomy. We believe it is necessary to open a struggle on several fronts, although it may sound contradictory. As long as the State exists, it is necessary to dispute it in order to open certain cracks. In some aspects, such as access to the means of production, the State constitutes an entity that we cannot renounce in the process of building hegemony. That is why when there are similar regimes it is necessary to co-opt them, to permeate them, to conspire from within, to create common sense, to gain space for the proposals of social transformation thanks to the allies within the structures of power. But also to know themselves distanced, as critical entities of the state bureaucracy. This, in other words, means rethinking strategies by decentralizing the State: taking it out of the center, marginalizing it, which means that we cannot concentrate on the State, but neither can we ignore it. Across Latin America, peasant communities displaced by tractors and armed guards have no other recourse but to appeal to institutions. Without legal protection or rights upon which to base their claims, frontline agroecological communities have very little options for activating media campaigns and solidarity networks to their plight. Ignoring public policy also means handing it over to corporations that are trying to impose their version of agroecology as a tool of green capitalism. Rather, agroecological movements can and should develop the capacity to create and defend their knowledge, their territories and their sovereignty, constructing their own institutions and making use of the State when and only when such use concretely strengthens grassroots processes of emancipation, autonomy and self-determination. Indeed, the policies implemented by Cuba and by progressive governments in the region teach that the institutional actions to be sought are those that facilitate certain conditions for agroecology to be practiced and expanded, but without these actions generating dependencies or eclipsing processes in the face of changes in administrations. In other words, it is acceptable that there should be some degree of heterotomy that complements ongoing social processes and opens the possibility for new ones, without institutional actions appealing to the dynamism of the most autonomous collective actions. The objective of desirable policies that can be developed under pressure from civil society is to open up spaces and free up certain resources for organized actors to use according to their collective agreements and cultural horizons. The idea is that the accompaniment of external agents fosters spontaneous relationships among people, and thus distributes power, encourages access to knowledge and common goods, and there is a gradual transition to autonomy for individuals and communities. We believe that public funding for the pursuit of some of these objectives should not be rejected and that, as some emblematic cases such as those AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 19 described teach, specific policies for the scaling up of agroecology can be welcomed (Rosset and Altieri 2017). We refer to state support for: (1) Agroecological training schools led by rural movements and organizations – See Rosset et al. article in this issue; (2) Horizontal Peasant to Peasant type exchange processes – See Val et al. article; and Khadse and Rosset in this issue; (3) Peasant markets located, and territorial; (4) Public procurement programmes of food produced in an agroecological manner (5) Agrarian reform; (6) Support for the recovery and strengthening of local seed systems – See article by García et al. in this issue; (7) Release of funds for research in agroecology; (8) Public basic education programs for agroecology – See article by Morales and Ferguson in this issue – and university careers associated with changes in the agronomy curriculum and other agricultural careers – See article by Domené et al. in this issue. All this is acceptable and undoubtedly helps agroecological transitions. However, the “politics from below” should concentrate most of the efforts of agroecological movements, bearing in mind that the fissures that can open up in the State, the government and the institutions are only a complement to the collective construction for self-determination and autonomy of peasant and popular organizations. We cannot underestimate the structuring capacity of politics that is made from below through self-organization, selfmanagement, and the revitalization of wealth relational and the regeneration of commons. In terms of Spinoza (2001) it is the potentia (inner ability) and not so much the potestas (outer power) that must be strengthened in antisystemic struggles. Giving too much power to the State through the search for public policies for the massification of agroecology can be counterproductive if it is a means of capturing the collective potentia built by the heterarchic trials of power that have been made from below. That is why we believe that the discussions on agroecology scaling out should leave the state-centric tone that they have taken in their beginnings. The horizontal social processes of agroecology, and in particular Campesino a Campesino, have shown with great eloquence that it is possible to revive relational wealth, regenerate the network of human relations, and revitalize traditional knowledge, mobilizing the capacity of rural and suburban communities to use available resources, such as seeds, techniques, tools and knowledge. This experience is proof of the potential of rehabilitating community environments, and the advantages of relational structures based on massive participation and collective creativity (Giraldo 2019). The foregoing is just a way of saying that the massification of agroecology is radically different from the logic of state projects, because it changes the sense of process construction because it is done slowly,10 little by little, its growth is rhizomatic and in the long term, very different from the logic of government periods and project funding cycles. Agroecological transitions are long-lasting processes and demand continuity. This process logic, slow, 20 O. F. GIRALDO AND N. MCCUNE continuous and qualitative, has a different rhythm to the agendas of governments, which must be governed by quantitative indicators and results, strict legal frameworks, hiring of professional personnel for specific tasks, and short financing cycles. The only road left is the long road. As military strategist Liddell Hart (1991[1954]) put it, “In strategy the longest way round is apt to be the shortest way home.” Only the active practice, time and time and time again, of grassroots community organizing methods, based on agroecological practices, dialogue, local struggles, and leadership building, can create the kind of solid grassroots movements that can change the balance of forces. Although slower than we would like, it is the only way we now see possible not to appeal to reformism but to revolution. Notes 1. Other works have made recommendations for the design of public policies (Parmentier 2014), or have evaluated the scope of political instruments for the scaling up of agroecology in the region (Sabourin et al. 2017). This article contributes a critical analysis of the contemporary State from the point of view of agroecological social movements. 2. We understand institutionalization as the process by which State institutions formally recognize agroecology through legal frameworks, public policies and other actions. 3. The process began with Macri in Argentina in 2015, followed by Temer (2016) in Brazil, Kuczynski-Vizcarra in Peru (2016), Morales in Guatemala (2016), Danilo Medina in the Dominican Republic (re-election 2016), Lenín Moreno in Ecuador (2017), Piñera in Chile (2017), Hernández in Honduras (2017), Abdo Benítez in Paraguay (2018), Duque in Colombia (2018), Bolsonaro in Brazil (2018) and Bukele in El Salvador (2019). 4. The best-known example of this is from the public procurement programs in Brazil, in which the Brazilian government purchased food from family farmers of the Small Farmers Movement (MPA) for school lunch programs. In the hands of the Temer government, data on cooperatives is now a tool for judicial harassment against the MPA. 5. Data obtained by INIFAT of the Ministry of Agriculture of Cuba. 6. National Animal Traction Program, National Organic Matter Production Program, Popular Rice Cultivation Program, National Soil Improvement and Conservation Program, National Program to Combat Desertification and Drought, National Forestry Program, Participatory Plant Improvement Program, Integral Forest Farms Program (Machín Sosa et al. 2013). 7. The figures: Agricultural Production Cooperatives (CPA) and Credit and Service Cooperatives (CCS), created by the State, were fundamental to configure a national structure articulated to ANAP around agroecology (Machín Sosa et al. 2013). 8. Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation. 9. The most dramatic case is the “soy republic” in South America. This is an area that in Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay and Bolivia grew from 17 million to 46 million hectares between 1990 and 2010, and in which 20 million hectares were deforested from 2000 to 2010 (World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) 2014). AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 21 10. We remember the principles from peasant to peasant: start slowly and in small, limit the introduction of technologies, experiment on a small scale. ORCID Omar Felipe Giraldo http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3485-5694 Nils McCune http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9040-9595 References Agamben, G. 2014. What is a destituent power? Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 32 (1):65–74. doi:10.1068/d3201tra. Altieri, M., and F. Funes-Monzote. 2012. The paradox of cuban agriculture. Monthly Review 63 (8):23–33. doi:10.14452/MR-063-08-2012-01_3. Altieri, M. A., and V. M. Toledo. 2011. The agroecological revolution in Latin America: Rescuing nature, ensuring food sovereignty and empowering peasants. Journal of Peasant Studies 38 (3):587–612. doi:10.1080/03066150.2011.582947. Andermann, J. 2018. Turn of the tide? Cultural critique and the new right. Journal of Latin American Cultural Studies 27 (1):1–3. doi:10.1080/13569325.2017.1420635. Bähre, E., and F. Gomes. 2018. Humiliating the Brazilian poor: The iconoclasm of former president Lula. Anthropology Today 34 (5):10–15. doi:10.1111/1467-8322.12459. Baschet, J. 2015. Adiós al capitalismo: Autonomía, sociedad del buen vivir y multiplicidad de mundos. Madrid: Ned ediciones. Bello, W. 2017. Counterrevolution, the countryside and the middle classes: Lessons from five countries. Journal of Peasant Studies. doi:10.1080/03066150.2017.1380628. Bernstein, E. (1993 [1889]). Bernstein: The Preconditions of Socialism. Cambridge University Press. Boneti, L. W. 2006. Políticas públicas por dentro. São Geraldo: Editora Unijuí. Borón, A. 2014. América Latina en la geopolítica del imperialismo. Mexico: CEIICH. Borsatto, R. 2018. Brazilian experience in rural extension reform: challenges of a pluralistic and participatory policy addressing family farming. Unpublished manuscript, São Carlos. Chan, M. L., and E. F. Freyre. 2010. Atando Cabos. La Agricultura Cubana: Contratiempos, Reajustes y Desafíos. Havana: Oxfam. Chomsky, N. 2003. Dominance and its dilemmas. Boston Review 28 (5). Accessed October 22, 2018. http://bostonreview.net/archives/BR28.5/chomsky.html. Ciccariello-Maher, G. 2014. Building the commune: Insurgent government, communal state. The South Atlantic Quarterly 113 (4):791–806. doi:10.1215/00382876-2803657. Clark, P. 2017. Neo-developmentalism and a “vía campesina” for rural development: Unreconciled projects in Ecuador’s citizen’s revolution. Journal of Agrarian Change 17 (2):348–64. doi:10.1111/joac.12203. CLOC. 2015. Declaración Final del VI Congreso de la Coordinadora Latinoamericana de Organizaciones del Campo-La Vía Campesina. Argentina: Buenos Aires. Accessed October 22 2018. http://www.cloc-viacampesina.net/congresos/vi-congreso. Dada, C. July 6, 2018. Los enmascarados son de los dos bandos. El Faro, Accessed November 8, 2018 https://elfaro.net/es/201807/centroamerica/22202/“Los-enmascarados-son-de-losdos-bandos”.htm 22 O. F. GIRALDO AND N. MCCUNE Escobar, A. 2010. Latin America at a crossroads: Alternative modernizations, post-liberalism or post-development? Cultural Studies 24 (1):1–65. doi:10.1080/09502380903424208. FAO. 2018. Scaling up Agroecology Initiative: Transforming food and agricultural systems in support of the SDGs (A proposal prepared for the International Symposium on Agroecology, 3–5 April 2018), Accessed October 7, 2018. http://www.fao.org/3/I9049EN/ i9049en.pdf. Fernandez, M., J. Williams, G. Figueroa, G. G. Lovelace, M. Machado, L. Vasquez, L. Perez, L. Casimiro, G. Romero, and F. Funes-Aguilar. 2018. New opportunities, new challenges: Harnessing Cuba’s advances in agroecology and sustainable agriculture in the context of changing relations with the United States. Elementa Science of Anthropocene 6 (1):76. doi:10.1525/elementa.337. Freguin-Gresh, S. 2017. Agroecología y agricultura orgánica en Nicaragua. Génesis, institucionalización y desafíos. In Políticas públicas a favor de la agroecología en América Latina y El Caribe, ed. FAO, Red PP-AL, 174–95. Brasilia: FAO. García-Linera, Á. 2012. Las tensiones creativas de la revolución: La quinta fase del Proceso de Cambio. La Paz: Presidencia de la Asamblea Legislativa Plurinacional. Giraldo, O. F. 2019. Political ecology of agriculture. Agroecology and post-development. Cham: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-11824-2. Giraldo, O. F., and P. M. Rosset. 2018. Agroecology as a territory in dispute: Between institutionality and social movements. The Journal of Peasant Studies 45 (3):545–64. doi:10.1080/03066150.2017.1353496. Gliessman, S. 2018. Scaling-out and scaling-up agroecology. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 42 (8):841–42. doi:10.1080/21683565.2018.1481249. Gudynas, E. 2011. Debates sobre el desarrollo y sus alternativas en América Latina: Una breve guía heterodoxa. In Más Allá del Desarrollo, ed. M. Lang and D. Mokrani, 21–53. Quito: Ediciones Abya Yala. Holt-Giménez, E. 2006. Campesino a campesino: Voices from Latin America’s farmer to farmer movement for sustainable agriculture. Oakland: Food First Books. International Forum for Agroecology. 2015. Declaration of Nyéléni. Sélingué, Mali: International Forum for Agroecology, Nyéléni Centre. IPC (International Planning Committee for Food Sovereignty). April 52018. Intervention by Organizations of Small-Scale Food Producers and Civil Society at the II International Symposium on Agroecology. Rome. Accessed October 22, 2018. http://www.foodsover eignty.org/international-symposium-on-agroecology/ Katz, C. 2008. Las disyuntivas de la izquierda en América Latina. Buenos Aires: Ediciones Luxemburg. Klein, N. 2007. The shock doctrine. New York: Metropolitan Books. Korybko, A. 2015. Hybrid wars: The indirect adaptive approach to regime change. Moscow: People’s Friendship University of Russia. Levidow, L., M. Pimbert, and G. Vanloqueren. 2014. Agroecological research: Conforming— Or transforming the dominant agro-food regime? Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 38 (10):1127–55. doi:10.1080/21683565.2014.951459. Liddell Hart, B. H. 1991 [1954]. Strategy. London: Meridian. Luxemburg, R. (2006 [1900]). Reform or revolution and other writings. Chelmsford, MA: Courier Corporation. LVC (La via Campesina). 2018. UN Human Rights Council passes a resolution adopting the peasant rights declaration in Geneva. Accessed October 28, 2018. https://viacampesina.org/ en/un-human-rights-council-passes-a-resolution-adopting-the-peasant-rights-declarationin-geneva/ AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 23 LVC (La Vía Campesina). 2009. Small scale sustainable farmers are cooling the earth. Jakarta: Views. Accessed October 15, 2018. https://viacampesina.net/downloads/PAPER5/EN/ paper5-EN.pdf. Machín Sosa, B., A. M. Roque Jaime, D. R. Ávila Lozano, and P. M. Rosset. 2013. Agroecological revolution: The farmer-to-farmer movement of the ANAP in Cuba. Havana and Jakarta: ANAP and La Vía Campesina. Machin-Sosa, B., A. M. Roque Jaime, D. R. Avila-Lozano, and P. Rosset 2010. Revolución Agroecológica: el Movimiento deCampesino a Campesino de la ANAP en Cuba. ANAP, La Habana. McCune, N. 2017. Family, territory, nation: Post-neoliberal agroecological scaling in Nicaragua. Food Chain 6 (2):92–106. doi:10.3362/2046-1887.2016.008. McKay, B., R. Nehring, and M. Walsh-Dilley. 2014. The ‘state’of food sovereignty in Latin America: Political projects and alternative pathways in Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia. Journal of Peasant Studies 41 (6):1175–200. doi:10.1080/03066150.2014.964217. Mier Y Terán, M., O. F. Giraldo, M. Aldasoro, H. Morales, B. Ferguson, P. Rosset, M. Khadse, and A. Campos. 2018. Bringing agroecology to scale: Key drivers and emblematic cases. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 42 (6):637–65. doi:10.1080/ 21683565.2018.1443313. Mora, F. September 4 2018. Don’t focus on regime change in Venezuela. Washington, D.C: Foreign Affairs. Accessed October 22, 2018. https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/09/04/aftermaduro-in-venezuela-regime-change/ Negri, A. 1999. Insurgencies: constituent power and the modern state. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Nicholls, C. I., and M. A. Altieri. 2018. Pathways for the amplification of agroecology. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 42 (10):1170–93. doi:10.1080/ 21683565.2018.1499578. Núñez-Soto, O. 2018. ¿Quién produce la riqueza en Nicaragua? Managua: CIPRES. O’Connor, J. R. 1998. Natural causes: Essays in ecological marxism. New York: Guilford Press. Office of the US Trade Representative. 2018. Resource Center, Western Hemisphere, Nicaragua. Accessed November 3, 2018. https://ustr.gov/countries-regions/americas/ nicaragua Parmentier, S. 2014. Scaling-up agroecological approaches: What, why and how? Belgium: Oxfam-Solidarity. https://www.oxfamsol.be/fr/scaling-agroecological-approacheswhatwhyand-how. Patrouilleau, M. M., L. E. Martínez, E. Cittadini, and R. Cittadini. 2017. Políticas públicas y desarrollo de la agroecología en Argentina. In Políticas públicas a favor de la agroecología en América Latina y El Caribe, ed. FAO, Red PP-AL, 20–43. Brasilia: FAO. Pinheiro-Barbosa, L. March 18–21 2018. Dilemmas of peasant social movements faced with the dichotomy between progressive governments and the rise of the new right in Latin America: The case of Brazil. Working paper at Emancipatory Rural Politics Initiative: Authoritative Populism and the Rural World, The Hague. Accessed November 8 2018, https://www.iss.nl/sites/corporate/files/201803/ERPI%20CP%2026_Barbosa.pdf. Purcell, T. F. 2017. The political economy of rentier capitalism and the limits to agrarian transformation in Venezuela. Journal of Agrarian Change 17 (2):296–312. doi:10.1111/joac. v17.2. Rancière, J. 1999. Disagreement: Politics and philosophy. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota Press. Riggirozzi, P., and D. Tussi. 2012. The rise of post-hegemonic regionalism in Latin America. In The rise of post-hegemonic regionalism: The case of Latin America, ed. P. Riggirozzi and D. Tussi, 1–16. London: Springer. 24 O. F. GIRALDO AND N. MCCUNE Rosset, P. 2006. Moving forward: Agrarian reform as a part of food sovereignty. In Promised land: competing visions of agrarian reform, ed. P. Rosset, R. Patel, and M. Courville, 301– 321. Oakland: Food First Books. Rosset, P. 2018 August 19. América Latina y la conciliación de clases. Mexico: La Jornada, Opinión. Rosset, P. M., and M. Benjamin. 1994. The greening of the revolution. Fort Lauderdale: Ocean Press. Rosset, P. M., and M. A. Altieri. 1997. Agroecology versus input substitution: A fundamental contradiction of sustainable agriculture. Society & Natural Resources 10 (3):283–95. doi:10.1080/08941929709381027. Rosset, P. M., and M. A. Altieri. 2017. Agroecology: Science and politics. Rugby: Practical Action Publishing. Sabourin, E., M. M. Patrouilleau, J. Francois, L. Vásquez, and P. Niederle, ed. 2017. Políticas públicas a favor de la agroecología en América Latina y El Caribe Red PPAL. Brasilia: FAO. Sauer, S., and G. Mészáros. 2017. The political economy of land struggle in Brazil under workers’ party governments. Journal of Agrarian Change 17 (2):397–414. doi:10.1111/ joac.12206. Schmitt, C., P. Niederle, M. Ávila, E. Sabourin, P. Petersen, L. Silveira, W. Assis, J. Palm, and G. B. G. Fernandes. 2017. La experiencia brasileña de construcción de políticas públicas en favor de la Agroecología. In Políticas públicas a favor de la agroecología en América Latina y El Caribe, ed.FAO, Red PP-AL, 44–69. Brasilia: FAO. Scoones, I., M. Edelman, S. M. Borras Jr., R. Hall, W. Wolford, and B. White. 2018. Emancipatory rural politics: Confronting authoritarian populism. The Journal of Peasant Studies 45 (1):1–20. doi:10.1080/03066150.2017.1339693. Sharp, G. 1994. From dictatorship to democracy. Boston: Albert Einstein Institute. Spinoza, B. 2001. Ethics. Hertford, UK: Wordsworth Editions. Stédile, J. P. 2017. Necesitamos una nueva estrategia de disputa del poder politico. ALAI América en Movimiento. Accessed on October 15 2018. https://www.alainet.org/es/articulo/ 188764 Steger, M. B. 2006. The quest for evolutionary socialism: Eduard bernstein and social democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Timmermann, C., and G. Félix. 2015. Agroecology as a vehicle for contributive justice. Agriculture and Human Values 32 (3):523–38. doi:10.1007/s10460-014-9581-8. Vandermeer, J., A. Aga, J. Allgeier, C. Badgley, R. Baucom, J. Blesh, L. Shapiro, A. Jones, L. Hoey, M. Jain, et al. 2018. Feeding prometheus: An interdisciplinary approach for solving the global food crisis. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 2:39. doi:10.3389/ fsufs.2018.00039. Vázquez, L. L., J. Marzin, and N. González. 2017. Políticas públicas y transición hacia la agricultura sostenible sobre bases agroecológicas en Cuba. In Políticas públicas a favor de la agroecología en América Latina y El Caribe, ed.FAO, Red PP-AL, 108–31. Brasilia: FAO. Veltmeyer, H. 2018. Resistance, class struggle and social movements in Latin America: Contemporary dynamics. The Journal of Peasant Studies 1–22. doi:10.1080/ 03066150.2018.1493458. Vergara-Camus, L., and C. Kay. 2017. Agribusiness, peasants, left-wing governments, and the state in Latin America: An overview and theoretical reflections. Journal of Agrarian Change 17 (2):239–57. doi:10.1111/joac.12215. Waddell, B. May 1st 2018. Laying the groundwork for insurrection: A closer look at the U.S. role in Nicaragua’s social unrest. Global Americans, Accessed October 15, 2018. AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 25 https://theglobalamericans.org/2018/05/laying-groundwork-insurrection-closer-look -u-s-role-nicaraguas-social-unrest/ Webber, J. R. 2017. Evo Morales, transformismo, and the consolidation of agrarian capitalism in Bolivia. Journal of Agrarian Change 17 (2):330–47. doi:10.1111/joac.12209. Wezel, A., S. Bellon, T. Doré, C. Francis, D. Vallod, and C. David. 2009. Agroecology as a science, a movement and a practice. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 29 (4):503–15. doi:10.1051/agro/2009004. Wilpert, G. 2007. Changing Venezuela by taking power: The history and policies of the chavez government. London: Verso. World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF). 2014. The growth of soy: Impacts and solutions. Surrey, UK: Gland. Wright, J. 2005. Falta Petroleo! Perspectives on the emergence of a more ecological farming and food system in post-crisis Cuba. Thesis, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems ISSN: 2168-3565 (Print) 2168-3573 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjsa21 Peasant balances and agroecological scaling in Puerto Rican coffee farming Nils McCune, Ivette Perfecto, Katia Avilés-Vázquez, Jesús Vázquez-Negrón & John Vandermeer To cite this article: Nils McCune, Ivette Perfecto, Katia Avilés-Vázquez, Jesús Vázquez-Negrón & John Vandermeer (2019): Peasant balances and agroecological scaling in Puerto Rican coffee farming, Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, DOI: 10.1080/21683565.2019.1608348 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2019.1608348 Published online: 25 Apr 2019. Submit your article to this journal View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wjsa21 AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2019.1608348 Peasant balances and agroecological scaling in Puerto Rican coffee farming Crisis, coffee, and agroecological scaling in Puerto Rico Nils McCune a, Ivette Perfectoa, Katia Avilés-Vázquezb, Jesús Vázquez-Negrónb, and John Vandermeera a School for Environment and Sustainability, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA; bOrganización Boricuá de Agricultura Ecológica de Puerto Rico ABSTRACT KEYWORDS This paper examines the relationship between agroecological scaling and the agrarian question, based on Puerto Rico’s contradictory agricultural and demographic tendencies in the aftermath of Hurricanes Irma and Maria. We find that labor-based intensification, literally rebuilding and recovering the diversity of farms devastated by the hurricanes, is a necessary step toward scaling out agroecology in Puerto Rico. The rebuilding of farms requires both ample manual labor and accumulated local knowledge, two elements which are difficult to bring together in Puerto Rico due to a complex interplay of historical and social factors. Decades of public policy based on the belief that the small farmer is not essential to Puerto Rico have produced a series of obstacles for farmers who wish to recover their farms. The peasant economy, a field of study that recognizes peasant farmers as capable subjects of their own historical resistance – within and against economies of empire – can be a powerful tool in the effort to recover local food systems and (re)create a vibrant small farmer sector. Here, we explore peasant balances, a capacity to aggregate daily farm management decisions into coherent, multifunctional economic strategies that allow for dynamic responses to changing environmental, social and market conditions, and how these balances relate to Puerto Rican coffee farmers’ capacity to stay on the land and transition toward agroecological production. Fieldwork included qualitative interviews with leaders of small farmers’ organizations, Puerto Rican government officials and farmers in the mountainous central region between August 2017 and March 2018. Peasant balances; agrarian political economy; Chayanov; agroecology; just recovery Introduction: disaster capitalism and food imperialism in Puerto Rico Along with the rest of the Caribbean islands, Puerto Rico was devastated by the unprecedented hurricane season of 2017. Puerto Rico’s lack of national sovereignty was an immediate barrier for receiving emergency aid from neighboring countries, due to colonial legislation of the US federal government (Jones Act 1917) that bars any ship not of US make or bearing the stars-and-stripes from landing in the San CONTACT Nils McCune [email protected] © 2019 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC University of Michigan, USA 2 N. MCCUNE ET AL. Juan port. But even before the twin hurricanes of Irma and Maria tore down hillsides, sliced through highways and leveled forests in September 2017, Puerto Rico was agonizing in eye of an invisible cyclone: a debt crisis that the US government had used to usurp the already-feeble capacity for policy-making of the Puerto Rican government in order to push through neoliberal shock therapy. Indeed, Puerto Rico has a long history of being a guinea pig of the colonialmodernization project. Centuries after the sweat of enslaved indigenous and African peoples made plantation agriculture profitable, Puerto Rico continued to provide cannon fodder, offshore tax havens, and lands for contaminating with depleted uranium. Table 1 is a brief periodization of colonialism in Puerto Rico, with emphasis on the agrarian and food regimes that correspond to each historical stage. As the corporate food regime has reached a high level of development, the democratic veneer of Puerto Rico’s status as a “free associated state” of the US has practically disappeared, revealing dramatic levels of poverty, vulnerability, and dependency. A study by Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health on deaths resulting from Hurricane Maria estimated that over 4,600 people may have died, many due to delayed medical care (Kishore 2018). Over a year later, parts of the archipelago remained without electrical power and posttraumatic stress has led to skyrocketing rates of suicide and depression, as up to 14% of the remaining population of 3.4 million people was expected to leave by the end of 2019 (Meléndez and Hinojosa 2017). These trends compound the general composition of the aging Puerto Rican population. Since 1960, the percentage of the population under 14 years old has declined steadily from over 40% to under 20%, a trend that feeds into school closures, a reduced workforce and a dwindling tax base, even as the ratio of elderly dependents to working-age population has soared, from 10% in 1955 to 23% in 2016 (World Bank 2017). Coffee farming, the most stable mainstay of Puerto Rican agriculture since the 1800s, has been reduced to just one-fifth of the area it occupied in 1985 (Borkhataria et al. 2012). Even more dramatic is the loss of shade coffee, which has lost over 90% of its area in the same time period. With electricity, water and education in line for privatization in post-hurricane Puerto Rico, small-scale agriculture continues to be deeply impacted. Public transportation is unavailable, so producers must maintain vehicles that can transport harvests. Rural clinics and hospitals are being closed down, forcing farmers to travel farther and lose more work days to health care. Sending children and grandchildren to school requires that family members live in cities or are willing to embark on expensive daily commutes. The lack of services also means a lack of workers, even during peak periods of coffee harvest or plantation establishment. Massive layoffs have compelled some young people to return to family farms, but by and large, there is an aging agricultural population with little AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 3 Table 1. Periodization of Puerto Rican agriculture and food regimes in relation to colonialism. Spanish colonial period (1502–1898) Characterized by peasant agriculture with important entrepreneurial colono sugarcane, tobacco and coffee plantations directly connected with imperialist value chains and transnational slave economies, but without the same level of financing and technology as in other centers of sugar production, such as Cuba or Louisiana (Scott 2005). US direct military occupation (1898–1917) Weak de-peasantization process in inland areas, as the major changes take place in coastal sugar plantations, which become increasingly consolidated as US capital assumes a controlling share. Initial concerns among Creole elite of US capital’s instrumentalization of sugarcane colonos and the replacement of the elite family-owned ingenios by more corporate centrales linked to financial interests. US direct colonial regime (1917–1945) Sugar endures a crisis after US import tariffs are lifted at the end of the World War, US markets are flooded by cheap beet sugar and prices collapse (Nazario Velasco 2014). Ensuing recovery implies a greater degree of exploitation of workers, increasing economies of scale, more pervasive direct ownership of land by US companies, and intensified labor strife (Nodín Valdés 2011). Coffee battered by hurricanes in 1928 and 1932 as well as Great Depression. Eugenics experiments, sophisticated FBI repression of independence movement, repeated US military massacres of civilians, and growing opposition to US sugar interests comprise political trends. US indirect colonial regime in context of Cold War (1945–1992) Structural reform of Puerto Rican economy begins slowly after 1940, and accelerates with Operation Bootstrap, in 1947. Export-focused industrialization based on US corporate direct investment and tax breaks creates powerful pull factor to stimulate migration from the countryside, as do programs to encourage migration to US mainland (Berman Santiago 1998). Later, in the 1970s, the inclusion of Puerto Ricans in federal food stamp programs pulls more labor out of the countryside, as farm wages are not necessarily competitive with livelihood strategies of full dependence on anti-poverty programs. Sugarcane production is the first victim of the new development strategy, while USDA policies support industrial farming – medium and large-scale monocrops (mainly plantains and coffee) begin to push out small farmers in regions of the island previously characterized by peasant production. With the advent of food stamps, there occurs a simultaneous leap in food consumption and food imports: local producers were unable to take advantage of the increased purchasing power of food consumers, as supermarkets came to control food consumption (Carro-Figueroa 2002). In 1989, Organización Boricuá de Agricultura Ecológica (Boricuá) is formed by a diverse group of Puerto Ricans actively participating in struggles related to environmental justice, independence and health who decided to focus on ecological agriculture as a material basis for sovereignty. US indirect colonial regime in neoliberal period (1992–2016) As the need to portray Puerto Rico as an unmitigated success wanes in the post-Cold War period, several of the policies that guaranteed ongoing US capital investment in the island also disappear, particularly the tax breaks entailed in Section 936 of the Federal Tax Code. By the time the final provisions of Section 936 are phased out in 2006, the island’s pharmaceutical industry has entered a crisis that would continue over a decade later (Schoan 2017). Industrial employment declines, and the service sector proves unable to produce adequate employment opportunities. The government used triple-exempt bonds to compensate for the loss of industrial income. At the same time, the US military maintains a large number of military and military intelligence facilities, including the base in Vieques, where it bombs the inhabited island with conventional and chemical weapons until international outcry leads to a moratorium in 1999 (Lindsay-Poland 2009). The Vieques base is even rented out to the militaries of other nations to carry out live-ammunition exercises, with no compensation for the local population of farmers and fisher people who endure an ongoing crisis of cancer and other chronic diseases. In the meantime, the agricultural subsidy regime which had become firmly established, begins to give way (Borkhataria et al. 2012), with less technical assistance, more paperwork, less state support for cooperatives, etc. The quantity of small farms continues its downward trend. Large land purchases by transnational corporations takes place, and massive production of GMO seeds is carried out by Monsanto, Pioneer, Dow, Bayer and Syngenta. Puerto Rico Coffee Roasters, fully owned by Coca-Cola, is founded in 2008 and purchases the 11 largest local brands, effectively monopolizing the market for green and roasted coffee. Puerto Rico has a higher ratio of Walmart stores to unit land area than any US state or indeed any country where Walmart is present (Cintrón Arbasetti 2014). US direct disaster colonialism regime under fiscal control board (2016-present) (Continued ) 4 N. MCCUNE ET AL. Table 1. (Continued). In light of Puerto Rico’s unpayable sovereign debt and a shrinking economy, Obama signs the PROMESA Act into law, effectively claiming federal control over Puerto Rico’s public policy, and designates an unelected seven-person fiscal control board to negotiate, in the name of Puerto Rico, the largest bankruptcy in US history. The PROMESA board, or junta as it is known in Puerto Rico, is untouchable to Puerto Rican law as it enacts a privatization and austerity program that threatens public education, health care and social security on the islands (González 2017). By 2016, 85% of the food consumed in Puerto Rico is imported. In 2017, up to 90% of crops are lost due to the catastrophic damage inflicted by Hurricane Maria (Robles and Ferré-Sadurní, 2017). Supermarkets experience shortages for months as the situation becomes a humanitarian crisis. Meanwhile, both US and Puerto Rican governments lose prestige because of their mishandling of the crisis and incapacity to revitalize agriculture in time to prevent acute economic shortfall among small and medium farmers. generational renewal taking place. Land remains a commodity too expensive for many would-be farmers. Corporate behemoth Monsanto rents tens of thousands of hectares in southern Puerto Rico from the Land Authority to produce genetically modified corn, soy, cotton, and sorghum seeds (Martínez Mercado 2013), and was reportedly among the first farm entities in Puerto Rico to receive insurance payments in the months after the hurricanes. Small farmers, in contrast, have consistently faced obstacles renting land from the Land Authority, and received late and insufficient crop insurance payments, putting hundreds of farm operations in peril in the coffee sector alone. The Coca-Cola beverage company, through its subsidiary founded in 2008, Puerto Rico Coffee Roasters, has quietly purchased nearly all the Puerto Rican coffee brands. Amid the disaster capitalism that has enveloped Puerto Rico, there is a vibrant resistance movement of small-scale farmers, food workers, students, and consumers. This article compiles evidence from open-ended interviews before and after the hurricanes with coffee farmers, farm workers, members and national leadership of Organización Boricuá, as well as researchers and government officials. We sought to understand Puerto Rico’s potential food system recovery from ecological, cultural, socioeconomic and political perspectives, recognizing the inseparability of the food question and the national sovereignty question, particularly in times of growing intolerance emanating from the US government. Alexander Chayanov’s theory of peasant economy (Chayanov 1986a, 1986b), expanded and contextualized by authors such as van der Ploeg (Van der Ploeg 2008, 2013) is useful for connecting the dots between food empires, everyday resistance, and alternative economies for scaling agroecology. The social relations that structure agriculture will need to be dramatically transformed in order for Puerto Ricans to recover and manage their own food systems, and one of the first steps has been for movements to find ways to work outside the formal, commoditized economy (Félix, Rodríguez, and Vázquez 2018). In this journal, Sevilla Guzmán and Woodgate (2013) wrote an authoritative history of how heterodox sociological thought contributed to the AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 5 development of agroecological theory. In section one of this paper, we build upon these authors’ seminal work by locating Chayanov’s contribution to the agrarian question, highlighting the differences between capitalist economies and peasant economies, and exploring how these differences influence agroecological scaling. Then, we focus on the concept of peasant balances as the mechanism by which farmers use labor-based economies to avoid or mitigate the impacts of shocks in ways that fully capitalist farms cannot do, giving small-scale farmers that opt for the ‘peasant path’ an important advantage in the era of climate instability. In section two, we examine Chayanovian balances in Puerto Rico, using data from interviews carried out with coffee farmers in 2018, just months after the hurricanes of September 2017. We find that demographic issues such as outmigration and an aging farm population, combined with the legacy of decades of anti-peasant policy, imperiled small-scale farmers long before their plantations were destroyed by hurricanes. We also find a long-term process of differentiation among small farmers, in terms of their relationships with markets, the State, and grassroots organizations. The farmers that have been most completely incorporated into the policies of the Puerto Rican government are divided into two camps: one tiny group of successful, middle to large monoculture farms, and one large group of families that are in downward economic spirals with no solutions in sight. On the other hand, those farmers who have sought autonomous development through the use of Chayanovian balances tend to be embedded in dense social relations, strategic participation in markets, and ongoing local processes of agroecological transition. Our results lead us to conclude that the forms of resistance and persistence of small farmers – particularly those organized in visible, dynamic agroecological movements – manifest the importance of peasant economies in overcoming system perturbations and developing a labor-based strategy for scaling agroecology. Peasant economies and agroecology The agrarian question was born out of Marx’s premise that capital expands in the countryside through primitive accumulation mechanisms such as land enclosure and resource grabs. Dialectically, these movements to free up capital also displace people from their territories, creating ‘surplus’ labor that can be utilized in extractive industries, plantation agriculture or the factory system (Wood 2002). Marx (Marx 1991, 949) noted that capitalist property relations “provoke an irreparable rift in the interdependent process of social metabolism, a metabolism described by the natural laws of life itself.” Primitive accumulation associated with the European invasion of the Americas and slave economies became the primordial means for depeasantization, on one hand, and the development of imperialist and industrial powers on the other. Subsequent development of agricultural capitalism and proletarization, in each specific 6 N. MCCUNE ET AL. context, were by no means endogenous transitions, but rather related to the expansion of a global capitalist economic system (Wallerstein 1979). Peasants are often defined by their deep connection with and control over the farming activities occurring in a specific place, self-organization of labor at the family level, and emergence as a social class whose economic activity is subordinated to capital, yet not capitalist (Bryceson 2000). Often the community level of social organization, mediating between family and class dynamics, is highly important for peasant societies. Peasantries are the historic result of agrarian labor processes that constantly respond to changing environmental, political, cultural and economic conditions of production and reproduction. As capital relations have expanded into the countryside, theorists have debated the fate of the peasantry, in what is known as the agrarian question (Kautsky 1988; Lenin 1961). Many have used arguments of efficiency, labor productivity and even natural resource conservation to insist that the peasantry is bound by the laws of history to disappear, as capitalism encloses its lands and differentiates it socially into opposing groups of agrarian bourgeoisie and proletarians (Bernstein 2010; Lenin 1961). There is a hegemonic tendency to discount the ‘peasant path’ of autonomous democratic development in Marxist and liberal economic orthodoxy, both of which have enthusiastically supported industrialization and equated a growing social division of labor with progress (Moyo, Jha, and Yeros 2013). Steckley and Weis (Steckley and Weis 2016, 1) note that “while critical agrarian studies tends to focus more on the ways that capital shapes conditions facing peasant producers, there has been much less attention to the ways that peasant decision-making can restrict how capital operates.” The peasantry has not disappeared, and some authors see its absolute numbers to be growing (Van der Ploeg 2008). A counterhegemonic view of the peasantry, based not on its perceived inferiority to capitalist economies but on its capacity to resist and survive despite them, has survived in the margins of Marxist and emancipatory thought for over a century and a half, and contributed to the creation of agroecology as a discipline (Sevilla Guzmán and Woodgate 2013). In the early Soviet Union, agricultural economist Alexander Chayanov (1888–1937) carried out empirical studies of the workings and internal organization of peasant family economies. Chayanov (1986a) found that, unlike capitalist economies in which each factor of production can be represented in monetary values, peasant families operate “natural economies” based on the interaction of labor and ecological processes in which a gambit of non-monetary concerns are present in decisionmaking. Despite being embedded in market economies, peasants are able to autonomously decide what and how to produce, based on internal calculations and priorities. In the prevailing context of agrarian capitalism, farms are compelled by competition and production costs to capitalize: maximizing the generation of AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 7 surplus value even at the cost of future productivity. In contrast, even while existing within larger capitalist economies, peasants create economies with internal organizing principles that limit the effects of competition and avoid production costs by maintaining access to non-commodified factors of production, such as land and labor, as well as “historically guaranteed” factors provided by their own previous labor cycles, such as well-adapted seeds and animal breeds, fertile soil and homemade plows. In Table 2, we present a comparison between peasant and capitalist economies with regard to key issues for agroecological scaling, such as labor, resource use, knowledge, and control. Chayanov (1986b) observed that the family labor unit’s main objective is to provide for its own food consumption. To that end, the family will be willing to engage in high levels of labor output until all mouths are fed. However, once the family’s needs have been met, additional labor is seen as drudgery – detrimental to family well-being. Van der Ploeg (2013) further develops the notion of Chayanovian balances, recognizing the balances that peasants manage between past and present production, income, and ecology, as well as individual and collective responsibilities. By using noncommoditized labor and concentrated local knowledge, peasants exercise the power to mediate their relationships with other components of their agroecosystems. This enables peasants to develop autonomy from markets – to the degree that it is advantageous to them. At the same time, merchants and capitalists look for ways to co-opt peasant production – using through low prices, but increasingly through such mechanisms as payments for environmental services – in order to support processes of capital accumulation (Giraldo and Rosset 2018; Steckley and Weis 2016). Chayanovian balances have been identified as mechanisms wielded by Haitian peasants who resisted transforming their farms into mango plantations, despite pressure from the state, private capital and transnational institutions and NGOs after the 2010 earthquake (Steckley and Weis 2016). In Brazil, Petersen and Silveira (2017) found that intensification can be capital-centered, which tends to lead toward depeasantization and rural outmigration, or driven by skilled labor applying specific management strategies dependent on local ecological contexts. Labor-driven intensification, in their study, is dependent on access to communities of agroecological thinking and practice. Fraser et al. (2018) explore the political economy of the mutualitymarket dialectics of Amazonian peasants who develop community labor regimes in concert with ecological cycles, unless market forces coerce them into becoming extractivists. Valencia Mestre, Ferguson, and Vandermeer (2018) propose that the patterns of tree cover in Panamanian cattle pastures can be understood as resulting from the continuum between peasant and capitalist economies. In each of these cases, peasants are found to be active, collective subjects who constantly shift their degree of self-sufficiency and 8 N. MCCUNE ET AL. Table 2. Comparing capitalist and peasant agricultural models (adapted from work by Chayanov 1986a; Rosset 2003; Van der Ploeg 2008). Category Basic goals Value Capitalist Agriculture Maximize production and profit Value is not added, but taken away, mainly by expropriating resource bases, or mobilizing capital and labor in short-term exploitative production processes that appropriate surplus value by externalizing environmental and social costs. Mobilized value moves toward the financial sectors of the economy. Labor-Capital In capitalist exploitation, labor is mobilized Relationship in order to maximize accumulation. Peasant Agriculture Achieve sufficiency and stability Peasant farming is geared toward producing as much added value as possible under the given circumstances. This value, once created, can materialize as use-values or exchange-values, depending on the needs and plans of the household, i.e. selling a cash crop in order to build a new bedroom for a growing family. In family labor units, accumulation is a means by which to provide employment and assure the reproduction of labor. Resource base Capitalist agriculture must expand the The peasant unit of production and production of commodities in order to avoid consumption generally works with crisis; to do so, it exists upon a constantly a limited and threatened resource base. expanding resource base by becoming more Peasants seek to maximize output by dependent on market or states, i.e. by working with the existing local resources, grabbing water, taking out loans to rent implying a resistance process based on more land and/or becoming part of gradually increasing technical efficiency. a subsidy program to maintain profitability of monocrop production. Investment Capital is mobilized externally through the Within the peasant economic unit, labor is market, i.e. banks, reducing the flexibility of generally more abundant than the objects operations. Debts must be serviced, so of labor, such as land or animals. This productivity is key, leading to labor means that capital is formed and expanded exploitation, pollution and overproduction. through labor investments, rather than through loans or external development plans. Knowledge Production takes place through intensive use Related to the previous aspects, the and of externally-sourced technologies that deproductivity and future development of Technology skill farming, enrich transnational a peasant farm depend upon the quantity corporations and gloss over differences and quality of labor, highlighting the between agroecosystems. importance of labor investments (terraces, irrigation systems, crop and animal varieties, etc.) and skill-oriented technologies. Control over The resources of the farm system are The available social and material resources Farm privatized and parceled into parts controlled represent an organic whole that is System by banks, loan sharks, input companies, controlled by those directly involved in the corporate land renters, profiteers or the labor process – not loan sharks, corporate state. land renters, or other outside actors. The peasant farm is a self-regulating unit. Relationship Capitalist agriculture and food consumers, The peasant family tends to be the primary to Food alienated through chains of intermediaries, consumer of the farm’s products. Relationships with other consumers are Consumers have contrary interests with regard to flexible and may include barter, trade, direct prices, health, and labeling. marketing or other means. Relationship Hit-and-run investments are by nature short- Peasant agriculture is typically grounded to Time and term, with no lasting physical or cultural upon previous cycles and embraces Space infrastructure. relatively autonomous, historically guaranteed reproduction. AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 9 market orientation in order to guarantee future productive cycles. Peasants shift along balances including social and natural demands, production and reproduction, the scale and intensity of farming, internal and external resources, and autonomy and dependence (Van der Ploeg 2013). Chayanovian balances in Puerto Rican coffee farming Qualitative interviews were carried out with leaders of small farmers’ organizations, Puerto Rican government officials and coffee farmers in their homes in the mountainous municipalities of Utuado, Jayuya, Adjuntas, Lares and Orocovis, between August 2017 and March 2018. Interviews before the hurricanes tended to focus on the agroecological movement and the impact of austerity measures on farm subsidies and supports, while 31 farmers – 29 of them coffee farmers – interviewed after the hurricanes often talked about the trauma of having their farms destroyed and being without food and water for weeks, communications and electricity for months. Two-thirds of the farmers could be considered conventional farmers, in the sense of using agrochemicals, paying waged labor and participating in government programs that subsidize certain inputs. The other 11 farmers either do not use any agrochemicals (9), pay no waged labor (10), or avoid government programs (7), or overlap these strategies in some way or another. The conventional and non-conventional farmers showed strongly divergent paths in the wake of the hurricanes of 2017. Among the 20 conventional farmers, only 2 were rebuilding their farm or had mostly rebuilt their farm by the time of fieldwork in January–March of 2018. These two were among the largest family-owned estates (>25 ha.), and made up of mostly sun coffee in monoculture, reflecting their capacity to mobilize capital in order to rebuild. Another five could be considered middle farmers that were strongly impacted by the hurricanes, and were not rebuilding because they had other sources of income. This category includes some farmers from professional backgrounds who were already operating at or near a loss and cannot currently continue to operate their farm. The largest section, however, of conventional farmers was comprised of 13 small farmers who faced severe economic hardship and total loss of income after the hurricanes. This group, of whom seven were over 65 years old, is particularly vulnerable to selling their land and migrating to the United States. Table 3 describes the impacts of Hurricane Maria on these farms and their products. Labor availability plummeted after the hurricanes as many workers – left without electricity, water, schools, health clinics, and jobs – migrated to the United States. In January 2018, Puerto Rico governor Ricardo Roselló announced plans to sell the public utility company and introduce a charter school system to replace public schools. All of the highways and roads between farms were lined with abandoned houses. None of the farmers had yet received N. MCCUNE ET AL. 10 Table 3. General situation of small, conventional coffee farmers affected by Hurricane Maria. Before Hurricane Maria • Production of coffee, plantains, banana, citrus and tubers with shade trees • Coffee is the main income-earning crop and is used to enter into a system of subsidies: agrochemical packages, half-priced seedlings and half-priced workforce • Citrus is a favorite of farmers: simple management, trees can be forgotten most of the year, one straightforward harvest, good income source • Plantains and bananas represent a cash flow, with harvests each week or monthly, depending on the farm • Tubers are for eating, selling or giving away among neighbors After Hurricane Maria • The situation in unbearable, after months without electricity • Major losses of citrus, coffee, Musaceae and shade trees, but with large variability from one hillside to another • Increased out-migration and farm labor is scare • Farmers are selling tubers or firewood, but the income is insufficient Economic Principles of • It is more advantageous to live from insured crops with steady demand, even if System this means formally considering farms as monoculture to access insurance • Citrus are a complement to coffee and are oriented toward markets • Other crops (such as plantains, banana and tubers) are mostly for home consumption, although their sale is an option insurance payments, so even when there existed available labor and a desire to rebuild, the economic possibility of doing so was very limited. Interviews showed that farmers had diverse reasons for no longer contracting farm laborers or hiring fewer workers. Many made reference to an agrarian economy that no longer works for small farmers, particularly as family size has declined, the farming population has aged and farm labor has become scarce in recent decades: ● ● ● ● ● ● “I am waiting to receive my insurance payment.” (n = 26) “Since Maria, I have no income.” (n = 20) “Workers no longer arrive here to my farm.” (n = 8) “Working isn’t worth the trouble. They’re better off not working.” (n = 6) “There isn’t a workforce anymore, and what exists is no good.” (n = 5) “Here, half of Puerto Rico could be unemployed and they still wouldn’t pick coffee.” (n = 1) The lack of labor makes family farming much more difficult, as elder farmers are called upon to carry out the work that they would rather assign to younger family members or hired workers, or simply must reorganize the farm based on having less labor to mobilize. Farmers without the capacity to shift toward more labor inputs were basically stuck waiting for State intervention to recover their farms, because they were physically isolated and alienated from non-monetary means to mobilize labor. The conventional farmers interviewed lacked relative autonomy from market institutions and the State. The decades-old, bureaucratic system of subsidies for small farmers entered into crisis along with the rest of the AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 11 Table 4. Pillars of dependence, knocked out by combined effect of Hurricane Maria and austerity measures. Number of interviewees receiving the support Type of subsidy or support received by interviewees The government paid half the salary of each employee Farmer received fertilizer and herbicide Subsidies to buy equipment Harvest or plantation insurance Before Hurricane Maria 19 Being received at the time of the interview 4 22 6 25 0 0 0 Puerto Rican economy, becoming a source of acute vulnerability for farmers who had developed a path dependence upon government support. Contrary to expectations, it was not only the most market-focused farmers that depended on the State. Rather, dependence on subsidies took several forms among interviewed farmers and spanned the differences in economic status and distance from cities (Table 4). These pillars of dependence upon federal programs are the most direct legacy of Puerto Rican neo-colonial public policy since the creation of the “free associated” status in 1950 (Dietz 2018). Food stamps make up a fundamental part of the family economy for over half of the farmers interviewed. The relationship between Puerto Ricans and federal anti-poverty programs is complex and problematic; created during the Cold War, consumer food subsidies dramatically increased food consumption while not deterring agricultural decline (Carro-Figueroa 2002; Weisskopf 1985). Federal welfare programs compete with locally available wages and encourage people to avoid full-time non-professional employment. Interviewees mostly felt that the food stamp program had accelerated the disintegration of the small farmer sector; however, in the post-hurricane context, food stamps were what prevented a more desperate humanitarian disaster, and many small farmers lived on food stamps as they waited to rebuild their farms. In this very limited sense, participation in food stamp programs can be considered part of a peasant strategy to balance consumption with autonomy. In stark contrast to the dire situation of conventional small farmers, 10 of the 11 unconventional farmers had made significant advances rebuilding their farms. Only one was in a similar situation as the five middle farmers mentioned above – not rebuilding her farm while she focused on her alternative income source. Of the 10 who had partially or completely rebuilt their farms, seven had done so through agroecological brigades – groups of people, often other farmers, who traveled to farms in the days, weeks and months after the hurricanes to physically rebuild damaged structures, plow fields, fix greenhouses and replant farms, focusing on short cycle crops that could produce food quickly. In this group, age was less of a factor: three of the 10 were over 70 years old. This suggests that age is not as much a limitation 12 N. MCCUNE ET AL. for mobilizing labor as is isolation from autonomous organizational processes in the countryside. The only farms that had been replanted in their entirety were those of farmers who participate in Organización Boricuá, a Vía Campesina member organization founded in 1989 through farm labor exchanges. Boricuá had been organizing reconstruction brigades in agroecological farms since 21 September 2017, the day after Hurricane Maria passed over the island. These agroecological brigades were made possible through broad alliances of urban and rural social movements in Puerto Rico and the United States, and particularly through the leading efforts of Organización Boricuá, which would be honored with the Food Sovereignty Prize in October 2018 for its innovative approach to disaster recovery. The post-hurricane agroecological brigades were examples of a peasant moral economy (Scott 1976), as volunteer labor teams, generally infused with high levels of political and ethical commitment to peasant farming, mobilized labor that the conventional economy has not been able to mobilize before or after the hurricanes. Félix, Rodríguez, and Vázquez (Valencia Mestre, Ferguson, and Vandermeer 2018, 1) explain further: These brigades followed months of impromptu, voluntary immediate relief brigades in which members of these organizations engaged to support farmers and their communities. Organización Boricuá’s brigades were held in the format of moving camps, spending 3-4 days in each farm rebuilding farming structures, houses and planting. These brigades incorporated spaces for political training, dialogues, workshops, cultural exchanges and reflection while promoting active group participation during the process. Exchanges like these not only help farmers get stabilized and better positioned to confront the next hurricane season(s), but also help bolster the movement work of organizers, educators, activists and farmers that often spills over beyond a farm’s perimeters into diverse communities and across many issues. Historical and personal connections run deep between grassroots groups and social movements in the US, Latin America and the Caribbean due to the shared history of colonialism, occupation, and slavery that characterizes the Caribbean region and the development of the global agricultural sector. The group’s efforts served to strengthen relationships and knowledge exchange between farms as a regional resiliency strategy that embraces the campesino-a-campesino methodology and combats the physical, social, and emotional isolation that can characterize reconstruction and recovery. The brigades serve to not only speed up production preparations and infrastructure reconstruction, but to re-energize farmers and those who support them to continue the work that is now more urgent than ever. A high initial labor input has been noted as a necessary ingredient in agroecological transitions by both proponents and detractors of agroecology (Altieri and Hecht 1990). Few authors, however, have recognized the transformative potential of the knowledge-intensive labor involved in agroecological change (Timmermann and Félix 2015). The organized agroecological movement transforms the need for large AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 13 amounts of labor from a weakness, as it exists in conventional economics, into a strength, as a pretext for building new social relations and consolidating organizations. The hurricanes became an opportunity for developing stronger organicity (Rosset 2015) in the countryside, and tested the movements’ capacity to fill a need that neither the State nor the market could fill. Of the 10 unconventional farmers who had partly or completely rebuilt their farms, three had done so through family labor alone, without a Boricuá brigade. These were the few large families that had enough young people living on the farm to mobilize the labor needed to rebuild. As a general trend, however, the reliance on work brigades appeared to be a phenomenon likely to continue growing. Furthermore, the brigades appear to be linked to a cultural process of decolonization. As one farmer reflected after a day of brigade work: The root of Boricuá is cooperative work. Habi comes here and helps me, I go to Habi’s farm, and we both succeed in bringing in our harvests. I don’t call it voluntary work because we all benefit. It’s like a change of paradigm, right? You know, capitalism makes it impossible for you to live. So, what we are doing are alternatives so we can live with dignity. This work in solidarity is the only alternative that one has in order to survive. These people are friends we have had for a long time and we all knew what we came to do today. The routine of capitalism is from home to work, from work to home, and it takes away the social aspect. But if you talk to people from the countryside, this is what they did before. The peasants visited each other, and worked. It was a time for sharing, for relaxing, having a beer and telling a joke. It is something that is ours. It is in our collective memory, it’s there. The history of humanity is this kind of cooperative work. The sense of belonging was closely linked to whether or not farms had been rebuilt. The sense of historical memory is evidence of a Chayanovian balance between past and present, as well as between individual and social goals. The small conventional farmers unable to rebuild often recounted stories of family troubles or children who had left as migrants with as great a sense of tragedy as their lost crops, implying that farmers perceived a causal relation between their family’s loss of a long-term relationship to the land and their incapacity to rebuild after Hurricane Maria. This suggests that conventional farmers were experiencing the loss of a balance between past and future production. Conclusions The high level of economic vulnerability that conventional agroecosystems showed after the disturbance of Hurricane Maria indicates that decades of public policy since 1945, and austerity measures introduced since 2016, have created dependencies rather than robust food and agricultural systems. Instead of allowing for the autonomous development of peasant economies, farm policy has distorted peasant balances by focusing on productivity indicators. The Puerto Rican 14 N. MCCUNE ET AL. development model has discounted the reproductive sphere and the need for farming to exist within a rural culture that renews itself over the course of time. Neither subsidies for agrichemicals, nor complex and ineffective crop insurance programs, nor food stamp programs, have helped make small farming a more viable and sustainable way of life. Furthermore, the demographic tendencies of an aging population in Puerto Rico are combining with the increasing risk of climaterelated disaster to contribute vulnerability to household-based coffee farming and increase the risk of continuing depeasantization. Long-term increased vulnerability, especially for small farmers and rural people in general, are unfortunately consistent with trends of US colonialism in the Caribbean and Pacific Ocean, as well as in changing climates under global capitalism. Just as Patel and Moore (2018) have noted that it is easier for most people to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism, it is easier for more Puerto Ricans to imagine migrating to the US than agreeing on how to build a sovereign Puerto Rico. In the meantime, the ongoing role of the agroecological movement is fundamental for developing local food economies, a sense of belonging on the land, and momentum for scaling up agroecological solutions. The capacity of young people to enter peasant farming may depend on their ability to “become peasants” by applying balances that previous generations were unable to do. The long apprenticeship toward becoming a peasant farmer is extremely challenging in the austere environment of post-Maria Puerto Rico. Becoming a peasant farmer is much more of a conscious decision, and even a form of principled political and social resistance, than ever in the past (Van der Ploeg 2013). One of the flagship agroecology schools, Proyecto Agroecológico El Josco Bravo (Organización Boricuá member project), was facing an eviction order and incipient criminalization process at the time of fieldwork, despite its impressive achievements successfully training hundreds of young people in the arts of agroecological peasant farming.1 In the aftermath of the dual hurricanes, the ability of farmers to activate social organizations and mobilize labor outside of commoditized economies is crucial for rebuilding farms. Continuing challenges include reconciling the need to survive on food stamps and the need to sell at high-priced farmers’ markets in order for family farmers to maintain themselves on the land, with priorities of a social and organizational order. Farm labor brigades are an ancient practice that have become highly relevant in the wake of the collapse of the conventional labor economy in Puerto Rico. Peasant balances that bring together production and ecology, elder knowledge and youth interest, family economies and food sovereignty, are key mechanisms in the struggle for agroecology and against food dependency in Puerto Rico. AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 15 Acknowledgments Authors are grateful to the family farmers of Puerto Rico and to Jan van der Ploeg for providing valuable insight on the topics addressed in this research. Note 1. Proyecto Agroecológico El Josco Bravo is carried out on land rented from the Puerto Rican Land Authority, which, despite holding tens of thousands of hectares of unused land, has opted toward an aggressive anti-peasant policy that uses bureaucratic means to pressure the few small farmers who rent small parcels of land. It also rents thousands of hectares of farmland to transnational corporations such as Monsanto for the production of genetically modified seeds. Notes on contributors Nils McCune is a Research Fellow at the School for Environment and Sustainability of the University of Michigan. Ivette Perfecto is the George W. Pack Professor of Ecology, Natural Resources and Environment, at the School for Environment and Sustainability of the University of Michigan. Katia Avilés-Vázquez is a member of Organización Boricuá de Agricultura Ecológica de Puerto Rico. Jesús Vázquez-Negrón is a member of Organización Boricuá de Agricultura Ecológica de Puerto Rico. John Vandermeer is the Asa Grey Distinguished University Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Michigan. ORCID Nils McCune http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9040-9595 References Act, J. (1917). Sixty-fourth Congress, Session II. “Chap. 145. An Act To provide a civil government for Porto Rico, and for other purposes. [sic]” Accessed February 8, 2019. https://www.loc.gov/law/help/statutes-at-large/64th-congress/session-2/c64s2ch145.pdf Altieri, M. A., and S. B. Hecht (Eds.). (1990). Agroecology and small farm development (No. 306.349091724/A468). Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press. doi:10.1099/00221287-136-2-327 Bank, W. 2017. Data bank: Age dependency ratio (% of working age population). Puerto Rico. Accessed November 14, 2018. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.DPND?loca tions=PR. Berman Santiago, D. 1998. Puerto rico’s operation bootstrap: colonial roots of a consistent model for “third world” development. Revista Geográfica 124:87–116. 16 N. MCCUNE ET AL. Bernstein, H. 2010. Class dynamics of agrarian change, Vol. 1. Halifax, Canada: Kumarian Press. Borkhataria, R., J. Collazo, M. Groom, and A. Jordan-Garcia. 2012. Shade-grown coffee in Puerto Rico: Opportunities to conserve biodiversity while reinvigorating a struggling agricultural commodity. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 149:164–70. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2010.12.023. Bryceson, D. 2000. Peasant theories and smallholder policies: Past and present. Disappearing Peasantries 1: 1–36. Carro-Figueroa, V. 2002. Agricultural decline and food import dependency in puerto rico: A historical perspective on the outcomes of postwar farm and food policies. Caribbean Studies 30 (2):77–107. Chayanov, A. 1986a. On the theory of non-capitalist economic systems. in: The theory of peasant economy. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Chayanov, A. 1986b. The theory of peasant economy. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Cintrón Arbasetti, J. (2014). Walmart: Salarios bajos todos los días. Centro de Periodismo Investigativo 6. Accessed March 28, 2018. http://periodismoinvestigativo.com/2014/03/ walmart-salarios-bajos-todos-los-dias/ Dietz, J. L. 2018. Economic history of Puerto Rico: Institutional change and capitalist development. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Félix, G., H. Rodríguez, and J. Vázquez. (2018). Puerto rican ecofarms after maria: Bouncing back with a little help from our friends. FoodFirst Blog 3. 12.2018.Accessed May 24, 2018. https://foodfirst.org/puerto-rican-ecofarms-after-maria-bouncing-back-with-a-little-helpfrom-our-friends/ Fraser, J. A., T. Cardoso, A. Steward, and L. Parry. 2018. Amazonian peasant livelihood differentiation as mutuality-market dialectics. The Journal of Peasant Studies 45 (7):1382–409. doi:10.1080/03066150.2017.1296833. Giraldo, O. F., and P. M. Rosset. 2018. Agroecology as a territory in dispute: Between institutionality and social movements. The Journal of Peasant Studies 45 (3):545–64. doi:10.1080/03066150.2017.1353496. González, J. (2017). Puerto Rico’s $123 Billion Bankruptcy is the Cost of US Colonialism. The Intercept, Accessed May 9, 2017. https://theintercept.com/2017/05/09/puerto-ricos-123billion-bankruptcy-is-the-cost-of-u-s-colonialism/ Kautsky, K. 1988. 1899. On the Agrarian Question. Vol. 1. London: Zwan Publications. Kishore, N., others (15 authors). 2018. Mortality in puerto rico after hurricane maria. New England Journal of Medicine 379:162–70. Accessed September 24, 2018. https://www.nejm. org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1803972. Lenin, V. 1961. The Agrarian Question and the “Critics of Marx.”. In Collected Works, ed. V. Lenin, Vol. 5, 1901 103–222. Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing. Lindsay-Poland, J. 2009. US Military Bases in Latin America and the Caribbean. In The Bases of Empire: The Global Struggle against U.S. Military Bases (pp. 71–95), ed. C. Lutz. London: Pluto Press. Martínez Mercado, E. (2013). El dinero público subsidia a Monsanto. CPI. Accessed October 23, 2018. http://periodismoinvestigativo.com/2013/05/el-dinero-publico-subsidia -a-monsanto/ Marx, K. 1991. 1894. Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Vol. 3: 949. New York: Penguin Classics. Meléndez, E., and J. Hinojosa. 2017. Estimates of Post-Hurricane Maria Exodus from Puerto Rico. City University of New York: Center for Puerto Rican Studies, Hunter College. Moyo, S., P. Jha, and P. Yeros. 2013. The classical agrarian question: Myth, reality and relevance today. Agrarian South: Journal of Political Economy 2 (1):93–119. AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 17 Nazario Velasco, R. 2014. El paisaje y el poder: La tierra en el tiempo de Luis Múñoz Marín. San Juan: Ediciones Callejón. Nodín Valdés, D. 2011. Organized Agriculture and the Labor Movement Before the UFW: Puerto Rico, Hawai’i, California. Austin: University of Texas Press. Patel, R., and J. Moore. 2018. A history of the world in seven cheap things: A guide to capitalism, nature and the future of the planet. Oakland, California: University of California Press. Petersen, P. F., and L. M. Silveira. 2017. Agroecology, public policies and labor-driven intensification: Alternative development trajectories in the Brazilian semi-arid region. Sustainability 9 (4):535. doi:10.3390/su9040535. Rosset, P. 2003. Food sovereignty: Global rallying cry of farmer movements. Food First Backgrounder 9 (4):1. Rosset, P. (2015). Social organization and process in bringing agroecology to scale. In: Agroecology for Food Security and Nutrition- Proceedings of the FAO International Symposium. Rome, Italy. Schoan, J. (2017). Here’s how an obscure tax change sank Puerto Rico’s economy. 26 September, 2017. Accessed August 25 2018. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/26/hereshow-an-obscure-tax-change-sank-puerto-ricos-economy.html Scott, J. 1976. The Moral Economy of the Peasant: Rebellion and Subsistence in Southeast Asia. New Haven: Yale University Press. Scott, R. 2005. Degrees of Freedom: Louisiana and Cuba after Slavery. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Sevilla Guzmán, E., and G. Woodgate. 2013. Agroecology: Foundations in Agrarian Social Thought and Sociological Theory. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 37 (1):32–44. Steckley, M., and T. Weis. 2016. Peasant balances, neoliberalism, and the stunted growth of non-traditional agro-exports in Haiti. Canadian Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Studies/Revue Canadienne Des Études Latino-Américaines Et Caraïbes 41 (1):1–22. doi:10.1080/08263663.2015.1130293. Timmermann, C., and G. F. Félix. 2015. Agroecology as a vehicle for contributive justice. Agriculture and Human Values 32 (3):523–38. doi:10.1007/s10460-014-9581-8. Valencia Mestre, M. C., B. G. Ferguson, and J. Vandermeer. 2018. Syndromes of production and tree-cover dynamics of Neotropical grazing land. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 43 (4): 1–24. Van der Ploeg, J. 2008. The new peasantries: Struggles for autonomy and sustainability in an era of empire and globalization. Sterling: Earthscan. Van der Ploeg, J. 2013. Peasants and the art of farming: A chayanovian manifesto. Winnipeg: Fernwood. Wallerstein, I. 1979. The capitalist world-economy, Vol. 2. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Weisskopf, R. 1985. Factories and food stamps - the puerto rico model of development. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press. Wood, E. M. 2002. The origin of capitalism: A longer view. London and New York: Verso. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems ISSN: 2168-3565 (Print) 2168-3573 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjsa21 Seed sovereignty and agroecological scaling: two cases of seed recovery, conservation, and defense in Colombia Valeria García López, Omar Felipe Giraldo, Helda Morales, Peter M. Rosset & José María Duarte To cite this article: Valeria García López, Omar Felipe Giraldo, Helda Morales, Peter M. Rosset & José María Duarte (2019): Seed sovereignty and agroecological scaling: two cases of seed recovery, conservation, and defense in Colombia, Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, DOI: 10.1080/21683565.2019.1578720 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2019.1578720 Published online: 27 Feb 2019. Submit your article to this journal View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wjsa21 AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2019.1578720 Seed sovereignty and agroecological scaling: two cases of seed recovery, conservation, and defense in Colombia Valeria García López a, Omar Felipe Giraldo Peter M. Rosset a,c, and José María Duarted b , Helda Morales a , a Department of Agriculture, Society, and the Environment, El Colegio de la Frontera Sur (ECOSUR), San Cristóbal de Las Casas, México; bConacyt - El Colegio de la Frontera Sur (ECOSUR), San Cristóbal de Las Casas, México; cBPV-FUNCAP Professor at the Education Faculty (Crateús), and Graduate Program on Sociology (Fortaleza), Universidade Estadual do Ceará (UECE), Brazil; dConacyt- Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana, Xochimilco, México ABSTRACT KEYWORDS By evaluating two grassroots organizations that belong to the Red de Semillas Libres de Colombia (RSLC; Free Seed Network of Colombia), we show how the recovery, conservation, and defense of native and creole seeds have two types of effects on agroecological scaling. The first is a horizontal or scaling out effect, given that these activities involve the adoption of agroecological practices which allow for spreading knowledge, principles, and practices among seed custodians, their local communities and organizations, and the networks of these organizations. The second is a deepening effect, given that: 1) seed custodianship reaffirms and/or generates new peasant and indigenous identities and ways of life; 2) seed recovery, conservation, and defense conform a multi-dimensional process that is material, political, and symbolic, which provides cultural and territorial rootedness, and 3) strengthening of the social-organizational fabric through collective actions and strategies by seed custodians in their territories in defense of native and creole seeds. These processes propitiate fertile conditions for scaling peasant agroecology and contribute to the construction of seed sovereignty, which is an essential aspect of struggles to preserve and reproduce and native and creole seeds. Native and creole seeds; seed custodians; seed systems; depth scaling; agroecology Introduction Much of the literature on agroecological scaling has addressed two aspects of this process: horizontal (scaling out), involving an increase in number of families and communities that incorporate agroecological practices over ever more extensive areas (Altieri, Nicholls, and Funes 2012; Rosset and Altieri 2017), and the vertical (scaling up) involving promotion of markets and public policy to foment agroecological scaling (Parmentier 2014). We wish to posit and contribute to understanding a third aspect of agroecological scaling: that of deepening or “rooting” which takes place in CONTACT Omar Felipe Giraldo [email protected] Cristóbal de Las Casas, Chiapas, México © 2019 Taylor & Francis Conacyt - El Colegio de la Frontera Sur (ECOSUR), San 2 V. GARCÍA LÓPEZ ET AL. territories1 in which peasant agroecology is practiced. According to Brescia (2017), this deepening takes place as peasant farmers continually (re)affirm their identity as they defend their means and ways of life, which are embedded in a local cultural matrix (see also Guzmán Luna et al. in this issue). Following this logic, we propose that seed defense contributes to deepening agroecological scaling, as it involves social and symbolic practices which conform political subjects, reinvent identities, and socially reappropriate biocultural heritage (Boege et al. 2008; Leff 2014), in turn strengthening the grassroots peasant and community organizational fabric. Native and creole seeds2 are central to agroecology because they are adapted to local conditions, reduce input costs and strengthen autonomy as seeds are saved rather than purchased, provide greater flexibility in the face of external shocks to agricultural systems such as climate change and promote essential agrobiodiversity (Altieri 1995; Berkes and Turner 2006; Santilli 2009). By contrast, industrialized seeds are selected for planting in monocultures and to respond to agrochemicals and other external inputs. Furthermore, they lead to genetic homogenization and thus ecological and economic vulnerability (Gliessman 2016; Mooney 1983). Therefore, we argue that native and creole seeds are key to the socioecological fabric of territories in which agroecology is practiced, as well as crucial to agroecological scaling. This article is based on a study of two grassroots organizations in Colombia: Custodios de Semillas de Riosucio (Seed Custodians of Riosucio, in the Department of Caldas) and Red Agroecológica del Caribe (Caribbean Agroecological Network or RECAR,3 in the Department of Cordoba), both of which belong to the Red de Semillas Libres de Colombia (Free Seed Network of Colombia or RSLC).4 We used these case studies to gather information, taking each organization as a unit of analysis for which a variety of techniques were used to obtain information (Yin 1994). Fieldwork was carried out from January 2016 to December 2017; 16 semi-structured interviews were carried out with seed custodians,5 community leaders, and specialists on the topic of seeds; focus groups were used; participant observation was carried out in 14 plots; and photographs were taken.6 This study examines the relationship between seed recovery, conservation, and defense and the expansion of agroecology. Our central question is: how does seed sovereignty contribute to agroecological scaling in these two case studies? In this article we examine how seed sovereignty contributes to seed availability, access, and control, as well as to protection of the right to preserve, reproduce, and exchange native and creole seeds, thereby counteracting the industrial agriculture model which commodifies and monopolizes seeds (Kloppenburg 2010; Wittman 2009). We describe those mechanisms of control over seeds which are currently in effect worldwide, including in the territories studied, as well as a range of processes of resistance in response to these global changes. We then present AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 3 results of our field research, addressing: (a) the environmental and sociopolitical context of the grassroots organizations studied; (b) the adoption of agroecology and seed defense; (c) the role of seed custodians in their organizations and in the RSLC; (d) collective actions and strategies carried out by the grassroots organizations regarding seed use, conservation, and management; and (e) social processes involving seeds in territories in which agroecology is practiced. Finally, we discuss how both cases contribute to agroecological scaling by building seed sovereignty. Processes of seed recovery, conservation, and defense The study of seed systems addresses knowledge related to, and functioning of, seed production and distribution (Almekinders, Louwaars, and Bruijn 1994). We identify two large seed provisioning systems: the local and the industrial. Local systems are maintained by peasants and indigenous peoples, as well as other small and medium-scale farmers, so that they may have access to seeds; and are highly influenced by the local social, economic, and political context (Brush 2000; Pautasso et al. 2013). In this system, seeds are harvested and saved for later planting (Jarvis et al. 2011), and are primarily exchanged through family and community networks (Coomes et al. 2015), characterized by relationships of trust and reciprocity (Badstue et al. 2007). Meanwhile, the industrial system involves large-scale production and supply of commercial seed varieties by specialized governmental and private seed producers, certifiers, and distributors (Bishaw and Turner 2008) who follow strict quality control based on standard physical and physiological criteria (Louwaars, Le Coent, and Osborn 2010). Over the past two decades, local seed systems have been increasingly despoiled7 in the process of developing and expanding industrialized agriculture (Bellows et al. 2016; Oakland Institute 2017; Wattnem 2016). Kloppenburg (2005) points out two mechanisms through which this occurs: one which is technological – through advances in plant genetics and biotechnology, and another which is political – through seed laws and intellectual property rights. Both mechanisms affect local seed systems worldwide, causing not only genetic erosion and in turn erosion of biodiversity and associated knowledge and practices, but also the loss of popular control of seeds due to legal restriction of seed use and transport. On a global level, national policies that establish intellectual property rights and seed laws8 promote normalization9 and standardization of seeds (Aoki 2008; Louwaars 2007; Wattnem 2016), serving as forms of control, displacing local seed systems from their role in self-provisioning and local distribution, affecting peasant and communitarian economies, denying human rights, and placing at risk the possibility of production and reproduction of life. 4 V. GARCÍA LÓPEZ ET AL. Many peasant and indigenous organizations, as well as national and international movements, have taken action and developed strategies to counteract these mechanisms, which are increasingly being implemented. These include La Via Campesina (LVC), a global movement which has been defending land and food sovereignty for 25 years (Martínez-Torres and Rosset 2010; Rosset and Martínez-Torres 2012; Rosset and MartínezTorres 2016). One of LVC´s actions is their international campaign, “Seeds: heritage of our people in the service of humanity”, which consists of 1) recognizing the fundamental role of women – who have been systematically invisibilized – in seed management and conservation; and 2) revaluing seeds as a common good in the hands of peasant communities and original peoples at the service of humanity (LVC 2013). In Latin America, several cases exist of seed defense through legal processes. For example, in Mexico, since 2013 a collective lawsuit has detained mass introduction of genetically modified (GMO) maize (Alvarez-Buylla and Piñeyro-Nelson 2013; Morales-Hernández 2014). In Brazil, as a result of decades of rural struggle, in 2012 the National Policy for Agroecology and Organic Production was implemented, recognizing the importance of creole and native seeds (Peschard 2017; Santilli 2013). In 2015, Venezuela implemented an alternative seed law including mechanisms to protect the informal seed system and recognition of farmers´ right to use, exchange and reproduce traditional seeds (Felicien et al. 2018; LVC and Grain 2015). Results and Discussion Construction of seed sovereignty in Colombia Colombia´s food system has changed drastically over the past three decades. Formerly a nation which was relatively food self-sufficient and even exported food, since the 1990s Colombia has increasingly undergone systematic loss of its food autonomy due to neoliberal policies (Machado 2004). In 2010, Colombia signed a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with the United States, which led to the implementation of several reforms, including Resolution 970, which regulates marketing of seeds, pressuring farmers to purchase certified patented seeds produced by agribusiness, and limiting access to native and creole seeds. Backed by this resolution, in 2010 and 2011 the Colombian Agricultural Institute (ICA) together with government authorities confiscated two tons of seeds – principally rice (Oryza sativa), potato (Solanum tuberosum), maize (Zea mays), and beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) (Grupo Semillas 2014). The 2013 National Agrarian Strike brought to light the precariousness of Colombian farmers due to concentration of land by agribusiness, persistence of rural poverty, armed conflict, and free trade policies which displaced AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 5 national agricultural markets. This strike led to over 430 agreements in favor of Colombia´s rural population (Salcedo, Pinzón, and Duarte 2013). As a result, Resolution 970 was temporarily suspended, and the Colombian government committed to working with farmers. Nevertheless, rather than modifying government policies, they have been replaced by similar regulations. For example, Resolution 3168, passed in 2015, is ambiguous as it refers to seed obtained by “conventional” and “non-conventional” methods, without specifying whether non-conventional methods include adaptations made by peasants and indigenous peoples using traditional methods over the course of thousands of years. This resolution also established sanitary control measures that restrict non-government certified seeds, while protecting seeds that are formally certified and labeled (Grupo Semillas 2015). In response, the First National Encounter of the Free Seed Network of Colombia was organized in 2013, under the slogan: “For each seed they decommission from us, we will make them germinate and flourish again, multiply, spread, and freely walk with the farmers through the fields of Colombia” (RSLC 2013, 1). Over the course of this event, members of 80 peasant and indigenous organizations, NGOs, and activist groups addressed three broad topics: 1) recovery, conservation, and management of native and creole seeds; 2) political advocacy; and 3) communication and media to promote and visibilize actions and strategies for defending seeds. As a result of this event, the Free Seed Network of Colombia (Red de Semillas Libres de Colombia – RLSC) was formally launched and is currently active in six regions of the country (see Figure 1). Cases of seed recovery, conservation, and defense The first case study is of the Caribbean Agroecological Network or RECAR, located in the Zenú10 Indigenous Resguardo11 San Andrés de Sotavento in the Department of Cordoba, on Colombia´s Caribbean coast. As of 2018, the municipality had a population of 53,000. Climate is warm-humid with an average annual rainfall of 1,300 mm and an elevation of 100 masl. Colombia ´s Caribbean region is widely considered to be a secondary center of diversity of maize, as well as other crops, including cassava12 (Manihot esculenta), yams (Dioscorea spp.), and bananas and plantains (Musa spp.). In 2002, RECAR was formed by four peasant organizations (ASPROAL, ASPROINPAL, Artisans´ Association, and ASPROINSU). This network foments marketing, agroecology, communication, and gender equality. RECAR began to defend seeds when GMOs were introduced to Colombia, which brought the risk of contamination of maize, principally in the Caribbean region. In 2005, with the support of RECAR, the Resguardo San Andrés de Sotavento declared itself to be the first GMO-free territory in Colombia (García 2012). RECAR also promotes land recovery and diversified 6 V. GARCÍA LÓPEZ ET AL. Figure 1. Map of Colombia showing the area covered by the RLSC, and the two case studies addressed in this article. Source: original map AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 7 crop production, and currently 77 families act as seed custodians, growing and conserving seed of 26 varieties of maize, 25 varieties of cassava, 11 varieties of rice, 8 varieties of yam, 6 varieties of squash (Cucurbita spp.), 4 varieties of sweet potato (Ipomoea batata), and 71 other vegetable varieties. They have established two community seed houses where they exchange and sell seed of 8 varieties of maize and 20 other crop species. RECAR has recovered 600 traditional maize-based recipes, evidencing the diversity of Caribbean gastronomy (RECAR 2004). The second case study is of the Seed Custodians of Riosucio located in the Indigenous Resguardo Cañamomo-Lomaprieta of the Emberá Chamí ethnic group,13 in the municipality of Riosucio, in the Department of Caldas. This Resguardo is part of the Coffee Axis region, and it has an approximate population of 26,000 in over 4,800 ha. Geography is mountainous with interAndean valleys, elevation ranges from 1,400 to 2,200 masl, and average annual rainfall is 2171 mm. Agriculture is based on maize, coffee (Coffea arabica), beans, and sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum). A diagnostic study of the resguardo carried out by ASPROINCA (2006) reported 45 varieties of bush and climbing beans, 24 varieties of maize, 28 bananas and plantain varieties, 20 varieties of cassava, and 19 other root and tuber varieties. In 2007, within the Resguardo Cañamomo-Lomaprieta, the organization Seeds Custodians of Riosucio was formed as a result of updating the Resguardo´s “life plan”14 to further the resguardo´s food sovereignty (Gómez et al. 2009). In 2009, the resguardo declared itself to be GMOfree territory, and in 2012 the municipality of Riosucio did the same (García 2012). Seeds Custodians of Riosucio currently consists of 57 families who work on collective seed recovery and conservation; research, education, and training regarding seeds, as well as reestablishment of traditional agricultural systems. They run 10 community seed houses where they exchange and sell seeds of beans, maize, and other food species. They also carry out annual regional agrobiodiversity fairs. The role of seed custodians organized in the RSLC Seed custodians care for and manage native and creole seed varieties, for which they are renowned by their neighbors and even by the members of other communities. They typically cultivate plots with high levels of crop diversity as compared other farmers, and focus on rare and endangered crop species, thus contributing to in situ conservation of diversity. Custodians also seek new varieties from other farmers and adapt them to their own regions, thereby enhancing local agrobiodiversity (Emperaire 2008; Sthapit et al. 2015). Custodians expressed a variety of motivations for carrying out their work. One example is provided by an interviewee: 8 V. GARCÍA LÓPEZ ET AL. My grandfather at that time was 102. I was a little boy, around 10 or 12 years old. I already worked in agriculture and he told me, “Mijo [my little son], take these cassava seeds – one of oak cassava and of seven mesina [seven months] cassava. Plant them and don´t let them die out.” That was the first cassava I knew, more or less 60 years ago. That´s why they walk with me. I cultivate them, I conserve them, I plant them, and that´s why I´ve never lacked them. Now I have 38 varieties of cassava […] It´s good for one to be a lover of the seed […] They call me the king of cassava. IN1MR15 This testimony expresses a strong legacy linked to family heritage and emphasizes the custodian´s relationship to nature. Other motivations for being seed custodians include commitment to traditional knowledge, environmental conscience and a desire for self-provisioning and a healthy diet. The figure of the custodian has led to the development of new identities within the agroecological movement, thereby innovating new roles and functions such as defense of seeds in their territories, as another custodian illustrates: Before, we asked ourselves, “But who said that we´re custodians, and why?”, because 20 or 30 years ago this didn´t exist – that is, the term custodians didn’t exist, because everyone had seeds; that is, all people had a little piece of land where each harvested and saved their seed for the next planting. That ended because agriculture changed. Here the change came on very strong […] Of course, all those people that cultivated so many things stopped planting. So, we could say those who save seeds were very few; we didn’t join that model in such a drastic manner. We could say that this situation went about getting us to reemerge and that´s why now we´re so important. IN3WR In this sense, the role of custodian is political. Furthermore, custodians make an effort to share the cared-for seed with more people, as one interviewee expresses: I´m a lover of the seed; I´ve always liked this, but I joined the organization and that was when I became more motivated. I found someone who would support me, because we have the seeds that in other parts, they don´t know or have lost. […] Our goal is that the seeds be spread everywhere. That´s what we do as a network, with the seeds walking is the only way they won´t disappear. IN1MR This account demonstrates that being part of a local grassroots organization has increased peasants´ ability to safeguard seeds through exchange with other peasants. Thus, participating in such a collective effort leads custodians to recognize each other as peers and distinguish themselves as part of a social group with a collective identity (Mellucci 1999). Interacting through local organizations with the intention to care for, conserve, and manage seeds – and all that this involves – has also led the custodians to become the principal actors around which their organizations and the network organize. AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 9 Agroecology and seed defense The custodians´ seed conservation and recovery efforts are part of a system based on traditional agricultural knowledge which involves a variety of agroecological practices (Altieri and Toledo 2011; Rosset and Altieri 2017), including planting of highly diverse polycultures to diversify genetic resources, maintain ecosystemic equilibrium, and prevent pests and diseases; recovery of soil fertility through crop rotation, biomass recycling – including addition of green manures and other forms of organic matter, and establishment of living fences; and water conservation by building terraces and ditches, managing runoff, and storing water in wells and tanks. This study identified individual and group actions oriented toward seed recovery, conservation, and defense. Figure 2 shows the actions that seed custodians, local organizations, and seed networks carry out in the process of defending seeds. For example, custodians participate in seed observation and selection, collection of plants for seeds, and seed exchange. Each of these actions has one or more dimensions (material, symbolic, and political). For example, seed exchange has material and symbolic dimensions. Figure 2. Diagram of actors, actions, and dimensions of the process of seed recovery, conservation, and defense. Source: Original Diagram 10 V. GARCÍA LÓPEZ ET AL. As Figure 2 shows, the process of seed recovery, conservation, and defense involves at least 12 actions. First, custodians observe and select their plants, favoring certain characteristics (including germination, development, and reproduction) that they wish to be passed on to future crop generations (plant observation and selection). Following this, they gather those plants previously selected (collection of plants for seeds). Then, they separate, clean, and dry seeds (post-harvest seed management), and store them under protected conditions to maintain healthy, high-quality seeds (seed storage and protection). Custodians as well as their organizations also carry out experiments – principally in custodians´ plots – in response to their problems related to seed production and storage, as well as to improve their crops (experimentation, seed selection, and crop breeding). Custodians share their seeds through kinship, neighbor, and organizational relationships by gifting, lending, and exchanging them, thereby enhancing crop diversity (seed transmission). Organizations gather information on the characteristics, abundance, and diversity of their members´ seeds (seed description and inventories). With this information, they determine the demand for each of their seed varieties within their region and proceed to distribute seeds and plan for future provisioning (seed provisioning). Through seed and agrobiodiversity fairs, the seed network and its member organizations exchange seeds and associated knowledge over increasingly broader areas, reaching more and more people (seed and knowledge exchange). Finally, they recover and promote local gastronomy and related aspects of their culture (promotion of gastronomic culture), which is also important to conserving seeds and related knowledge. Two other actions involve each of the three dimensions (material, political, and symbolic) of the seed recovery, conservation, and defense process. The first involves different forms of giving thanks for the fertility of the land and harvests through offerings, celebrations, and other activities that reinforce links of mutual trust and unity within the organizations and communities through ritual, prayer, and symbolism (symbolic-spiritual practices). These practices are carried out by custodians, the local organizations, and the network. Such symbolic or spiritual practices are maintained by – and are increasingly recognized as important for – social movements in defense of life (Hernández-Castillo and Nigh 1998; Rosset and Martínez-Torres 2016). The other involves the organizations and the network spreading information and visibilizing their seed struggle by carrying out workshops as well as regional and national encounters which contribute to “peasant protagonism”, by which peasants make their own decisions and take action according to their needs (pedagogical processes). Such horizontal pedagogical processes have also been documented as key to advancing agroecology in other regions AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 11 of the world (e.g., Khadse et al. 2017; McCune et al. 2017; Mier Y Terán et al. 2018; Rosset and Altieri 2017). Collective actions and strategies toward the defense of seeds and agrifood autonomy Currently, approximately 400 farmers of 67 grassroots organizations from 10 departments and 8 indigenous resguardos make up 15 local networks which belong to the Free Seed Network of Colombia (RSLC 2017). Other actors participate in RSLC, such as NGOs, researchers, and international aid organizations.16 RSLC´S function is to provide technical and economic support, diffusion to the public, and legal aid. Custodians interviewed state their difficulties and challenges to include loss of diversity and knowledge of native and creole seeds, generational changes which affect traditional life and local production, and public lack of awareness of the consequences of industrialization of agriculture. Obstacles that the communities face include lack of land, unequal market competition, health and environmental effects of agrochemicals, natural phenomena such as droughts – perhaps accentuated by climate change – that have intensified in recent years, and introduction of GMOs. A custodian points out one challenge: […] The problem now with GMOs is that the purpose of agriculture changes: it stops being subsistence agriculture – of healthy food, and becomes simply a profitable project – that is, a crop that produces money. IN7MSA Some challenges mentioned have led custodians to emphasize the value of seeds to other community members and try to recover associated knowledge, thereby enhancing local production and protecting their right to reproduce life. The network has carried out efforts with the political intention of confronting some of these challenges through three initiatives: declaration of GMO-free territories, community seed houses, and participatory “guarantee” – or seed certification – systems. Introduction of GMO seeds (three varieties of cotton (Gossypium spp.) and nine varieties of maize) to Colombia in 2002 caused a general concern among peasant and indigenous communities regarding the dangers of GMO contamination and its effects on crops of economic and cultural importance, particularly maize. Following the precautionary principle, some local organizations, as well as the RSLC, have declared their territories to be GMO-free17 as a mechanism of protection in the face of possible genetic contamination. Community Seed Houses (CSH) have emerged from the need to establish autonomous collective spaces for provisioning seed adapted to local conditions through exchange, “lending” (giving away seeds with the recipient promising to pay back in seeds from future harvests), and/or purchase. CSH have established protocols for their general functioning, as well as for seed production, keeping 12 V. GARCÍA LÓPEZ ET AL. records, and taking inventories. They carry out tests of viability and germination and make use of seed storage and conservation techniques (Chacón and García 2016). Currently, 69 CSH exist, many of which were built through the Seeds of Identity campaign.18 At present, in an effort to sustain themselves economically and maximize their autonomy, CSH of five local networks market their agroecological seeds nationally through the 2018 Seeds of Identity Catalogue. Thus far, this catalog offers 18 varieties of maize, 12 varieties of beans, and 4 varieties of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum). In this manner, the local networks are gaining control over seeds in their regions, and in turn over their local economy. According to a custodian interviewed: This place [their CSH] is for guaranteeing high quality seeds, and serves as a meeting site. It´s like the house of everybody, a reference point. We believe that to have food sovereignty you have to have seeds, but not just any seeds; we seek to have good-quality agroecological seeds. IN3WR In 2015, as a result of a collective effort by custodian farmers, local organizations, and the RSLC, participatory guarantee (or certification) systems (PGS) were established as local mechanisms to “certify” and promote agroecological seeds from peasant, indigenous, and afro-descendent communities which are pest and disease-free and adapted to specific cultural and biological context (Aguilar, García, and García 2018). These PGS provide an alternative to external certification and industrialized seeds, and contribute to communities being able to provision themselves with high-quality seeds and thereby increase their agrifood autonomy. Through GMO-free territories, community seed houses, and participatory “guarantee” systems, Colombian peasants unite in defense of life with other struggles such as those against land-grabbing, mining, and hydroelectric dams. A specialist on seeds highlights the following: A recent advance is that we find increasingly more examples of people building territorial defense, which connects the seed struggle with other struggles such as defense of water and against mining. This is new, as before they appeared to be isolated struggles; now increasingly an interconnection [among struggles] is observed. IN8MSp Effectively, recovery, conservation, and defense of seeds regenerate communities, enhances people´s capacity to use their locally available resources, revitalizes local social interactions and traditional knowledge, and foments local autonomy (Rahnema 2010). Social reappropriation of territory based on native and creole seeds As Fernandes (2009) and Rosset and Martínez-Torres (2012), Rosset and Martínez-Torres (2016) argue, there is an increasing need to comprehend territories not only with respect to their material aspects (land and so-called AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 13 natural resources), but also to understand the immaterial territory associated with each material territory (ideas, knowledge, culture, and identity). Within territories, on a material as well as immaterial level, disputes are occurring, but revindication of autonomy is taking place as well; this includes the right to recover, conserve, and defend seeds. The following account reflects a connection between seeds and custodians´ concepts of territory: Native and creole seeds for the Zenú People is the same as saying seeds of life; that is, if we don´t have our seeds then we would just be depending on a market […] and that would no longer be our life; the permanence of our culture wouldn’t exist […]. That is, if there are seeds and we don´t have anywhere to plant, we wouldn’t have strength, because if we don´t have territory we also don´t have seeds. Both things are important. IN3MSA Thus, we see how the custodians refer to native and creole seeds as autonomy, culture, collective work, and resistance. This broad understanding of seeds demonstrates social constructions that have a symbolic sociocultural meaning which transcends the biological aspects of seeds. Another custodian points out: Native and creole seeds are those that are in our territory. We want to continue planting those seeds because they are our food – healthy food for us. For me, doing what I do means life, because the land is our life – the indigenous people, because the land gives food and gives fruit. So for me, land is life, water, seeds, everything that´s around us. Here is where we were born, because one plants a tree and then it grows, gives fruit, and gives the food that we need; so that´s life for me. IN9MR. Haesbaert (2011) and Porto Gonçalves (2006) explore how social processes nourish the concept of territory, explaining that they are the collective means of constructing identity and taking charge of one´s own history. This reappropriation of territories takes place through community members´ daily activities as well as through their cultural, economic, and ecological struggles to defend their common heritage in the face of despoilment (Escobar 2008, 2014). With respect to this, a custodian comments: I´ve always thought that natural seeds – the native ones – come from so long ago; one doesn´t have […] (a way) of knowing how long ago. The seeds that they call “improved” have nothing to do with mother nature, because you can throw them down in any season, and you go about throwing them wherever; now the fruits are not as healthy as the native ones. I think that we should continue […] resisting with those that we have, caring for them so that they don´t get lost; one [must] continue with them, continue caring for our mother nature and our seeds, to not lose them, because if we continue in this manner, […] in a few years we won´t have traditional seeds. IN10WR Finally, social groups carry out these processes of sociocultural appropriation of nature and ecosystems based on their “cosmovision” or “ontology” (Escobar 2014). From this approach, seeds – in an immaterial sense – form part of people´s social and cultural constructions, in turn forming part of 14 V. GARCÍA LÓPEZ ET AL. a body of symbolisms, meanings, and ideas. In this manner, a custodian expresses: […] the custodians are mostly older people that come from an organizational process from before [land recuperation]. For them, the seed is very important, because it means resistance; it means the struggle for territory […] For them, the seed is their life and it´s the possibility of being on their plot of land today. IN14WR These statements show that defense of seeds – as one aspect of territorial defense – involves caring for and protecting what is one´s own, as well as life itself. In this manner, social reappropriation of territory may further deep scaling of agroecology. Conclusions: Planting native and creole seeds toharvest a deep agroecology The two cases of recovery, conservation, and defense of seeds presented in this article allow us to identify and analyze various aspects related to agroecological scaling. Responding to the initial question, “How does seed sovereignty contribute to agroecological scaling in these two case studies?” We find – with respect to horizontal scaling – that the organizational structure of the RSLC allows for spreading agroecological knowledge, principles, and practices among seed custodians, their local organizations, and their network, in turn contributing to spreading agroecological practices that further seed sovereignty, thereby unleashing organizational processes in their territories that may lead to expansion of agroecology. With respect to the depth dimension of agroecological scaling, we find that as a result of this dispute for control of seeds, political actors arise – such as the seed custodians – that carry out actions in defense of seeds and strengthen identities, both of which reaffirm peasant and indigenous ways of life that contribute to deepening and rooting agroecology. The cases studied demonstrate how the dispute for seeds involves material, political, and symbolic actions that further construction of seed sovereignty – as well as cultural and territorial rootedness, in turn deepening agroecology. Furthermore, collective actions and strategies such as GMO-free territories, community seed houses, and participatory “guarantee” systems are mechanisms of struggle and proposal of alternatives to the agroindustrial model that are enabling agroecology to take hold in their territories in which they are implemented. Mier Y Terán et al. (2018), proposed a set of key factors for understanding the scaling of agroecology as a result of analyzing several emblematic cases. In the present article in Colombia, we identify five factors which coincide with that study: (a) the presence of a crisis that in the Colombian case was catalyzed by Resolution 970, privatization and criminalization of peasant seeds, and popular response through the 2013 National Agrarian Strike, (b) an organizational AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 15 process that is the basis for social processes, which in the cases presented here are carried out through seed custodians, their organizations, and the RSLC, (c) agroecological practices carried out within agricultural systems that include practices oriented toward seed maintenance and recovery, (d) a motivational narrative in defense of native and creole seeds, and (e) teaching-learning processes that include active participation of seed custodians, local organizations, and the RSLC. Nevertheless, a lack of public policy favoring use and marketing of native and creole seeds, as well as pressure by the corporate actors, present obstacles to seed sovereignty which also inhibit scaling of agroecology. The struggle for seed sovereignty involves a struggle for reproduction of life in the face of material and symbolic despoilment imposed by “development”, and thereby contributes to scaling agroecology. These case studies of custodians and the seeds they defend allow us to understand the defense of diversity in general as an emancipating force in the face of the current hegemonic system that manifests itself in agrifood homogenization. Attempts by capital to appropriate seeds place at risk access to food, which is essentially expropriation of life. These cases motivate us to continue to explore the contributions of agroecological networks as well as the process of strengthening of local seed systems in the face of a dispute of among meanings given the current trend toward institutionalization of agroecology as well as attempts by agribusiness to coopt agroecology (Giraldo and Rosset 2017). Finally, we highlight the role of native and creole seeds in supporting the deepening of agroecological scaling, given the capacity of seed defense movements to contribute to cultural and territorial rootedness, as well as to serve as a bridge to horizontally unite different territories in defense of agrobiodiversity and construction of food sovereignty. Notes 1. We define territory as that space constructed of dynamic social processes which depend on the economic, political, and environmental context (Haesbaert 2011); these social processes involve multiple power relations in continual tension (Fernandes 2009). 2. We refer to native (to the Americas) and creole seeds (which, although not native to the Americas, have undergone adaptation). These terms are used by peasant, indigenous, and afro-descendent groups in Colombia to distinguish such seeds from commercial seeds. Other authors refer to them as local, traditional, and/or peasant seeds. In Latin America, approximately 70% to 80% of all crops are planted with native and creole seeds (ETC group 2017; Grupo Semillas and RSLC 2015). 3. All acronyms are based on their Spanish initials. 4. This network includes grassroots peasant, indigenous, and afro-descendent organizations, non-governmental organizations, student collectives, and other activists organized in a decentralized manner with the objective of promoting the right to produce, use, and distribute native and creole seeds (RSLC 2017). 5. We use the term “custodians” to include men and women committed to recovery, conservation, and defense of seeds. 16 V. GARCÍA LÓPEZ ET AL. 6. Information was transcribed and analyzed using the programs ATLAS.ti 8 and CmapTools 6.01. Analysis resulted in 24 categories and 80 codes, providing the empirical basis for this article. 7. We understand despoilment as direct or covert appropriation of public or common property, backed by legal or illegal means (Gilly and Roux 2015). 8. See webpage “Seed laws around the world”: https://ejatlas.org/featured/seeds (accessed July 20, 2018). 9. Normalization consists of introducing norms and regulations that establish a value judgment regarding that which is normal, thereby excluding the “abnormal”. In this case, commercial seeds are established as the norm, as they comply with market standards. 10. The Zenú people have lived for over 4,000 years on Colombia´s Caribbean coast. They are renowned goldsmiths and artisans and practice agriculture and fishing. Approximately 2,000 years ago, they developed a sophisticated irrigation system using nearby rivers (Forero, Velez, and García 2008; Ministerio de Cultura 2010b). 11. In Colombia, resguardo is a legally recognized sociopolitical institution made up of one or more indigenous communities whose members have a collective land title. Its autonomous form of organization and regulatory system follow traditional customs, and resguardo members carry out community work. The resguardo cares for the territory, provides economic support to members, and protects members´ common interests (Ministerio del Interior 2013). 12. Although cassava is not planted by seed, those pieces of stem or tuber that are planted are locally referred to as “seed”. 13. The Emberá Chamí are an indigenous group whose language is Emberá, meaning “people of the mountain range”. They are principally farmers and artisans (Ministerio de Cultura 2010a). 14. The “life plan” is a participatory planning tool used to govern Colombia´s resguardos, guide their actions, and draw up project proposals (ONIC 2007). 15. This code is included to maintain participants´ confidentiality; IN = interview; M or W = man or woman; R, SA, and Sp = community of Riosucio, San Andrés de Sotavento, and specialist. 16. For example, since 1983, the NGO Swissaid has provided technical and economic support to Colombian grassroots organizations, assisting with project development related to seeds and agroecology. 17. Globally, over the past 10 years, citizens´ groups and other organizations have increasingly established GMO-free zones. Four thousand such zones have been recorded in Europe, and in Latin America three each in Costa Rica, Argentina, and Mexico, and five in Colombia (Grupo Semillas and RSLC 2015; Meyer 2007). 18. The Seeds of Identity campaign was launched by Swissaid to promote the defense of collective rights of indigenous, afro-descendent, and peasant communities over their territories and resources (Semillas de Identidad, Fundación Swissaid, Grupo Semillas and RECAR (Red Agroecológica del Caribe) 2007). Acknowledgments We are grateful to the Red de Semillas Libres de Colombia, and in particular to the Red Agroecológica del Caribe and Custodios de Semillas de Riosucio – Custodias y custodios your passion and work on seeds is a great inspiration. Also, thanks to Alejandra Guzmán and Mateo Mier y Terán for valuable comments on an earlier draft and to CONACyT for the doctoral grant to Valeria García López. AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 17 ORCID Valeria García López http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6017-1627 Omar Felipe Giraldo http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3485-5694 Helda Morales http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7583-2125 Peter M. Rosset http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1253-1066 References Aguilar, T., A. M. García, and M. García. 2018. Sistema participativo de garantía de la calidad de semillas criollas y nativas para las casas comunitarias de semillas en Colombia. Guía metodológica. Bogotá: Semillas de Identidad. Almekinders, C. J. M., N. P. Louwaars, and G. H. de Bruijn. 1994. Local seed systems and their importance for an improved seed supply in developing countries. Euphytica 78 (3):207–16. doi:10.1007/BF00027519. Altieri, M. A. 1995. Agroecology: The science of sustainable agriculture. Boulder: Westview Press. Altieri, M. A., C. Nicholls, and F. Funes. 2012. The scaling up of agroecology: Spreading the hope for food sovereignty and resiliency. SOCLA (Sociedad Científica Latinoamericana de Agroecología). doi:10.1094/PDIS-11-11-0999-PDN Altieri, M. A., and V. M. Toledo. 2011. The agroecological revolution in Latin America: Rescuing nature, ensuring food sovereignty and empowering peasants. The Journal of Peasant Studies 38:587–612. doi:10.1080/03066150.2011.582947. Alvarez-Buylla, E., and A. Piñeyro-Nelson(coord). 2013. El maíz en peligro ante los transgénicos : Un análisis integral sobre el caso de México. México: UNAM, UCCS. Aoki, K. 2008. Seed wars: Controversies and cases on plant genetic resources and intellectual property. North Carolina: Carolina Academic Press Durham. ASPROINCA (Asociación de Productores Indígenas y Campesinos de Riosucio, Caldas). 2006. La restauración y conservación de la biodiversidad en Asproinca: Un proyecto de resistencia y defensa de la vida. Bogotá: Arfo Editores. Badstue, L. B., M. R. Bellon, J. Berthaud, A. Ramírez, D. Flores, and X. Juárez. 2007. The dynamics of farmers maize seed supply practices in the central valleys of Oaxaca, Mexico. World Development 35 (9):1579–93. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2006.05.023. Bellows, A., A. Onorati, B. Patnaik, F. Sarmento, J. Manigueuigdinapi, S. Icaza, and M. Arana Cedeño. 2016. Keeping seeds in peoples’ hands. Right to food and nutrition watch. Accessed January 14, 2018, https://www.righttofoodandnutrition.org/watch-2016. Berkes, F., and N. J. Turner. 2006. Knowledge, learning and the evolution of conservation practice for social-ecological system resilience. Human Ecology 34:479–94. doi:10.1007/ s10745-006-9008-2. Bishaw, Z., and M. Turner. 2008. Linking participatory plant breeding to the seed supply system. Euphytica 163 (1):31–44. doi:10.1007/s10681-007-9572-6. Boege, E., G. Vidrales, G. García, M. Mondragón, A. Rivas, M. Lozada, and F. Soto. 2008. El patrimonio biocultural de los pueblos indígenas de México. Hacia la conservación in situ de la biodiversidad y agrodiversidad en los territorios indígenas. México: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia. Brescia, S., ed. 2017. Fertile ground: Scaling agroecology from the ground up. USA: Food First/ Institute for Food and Development Policy. Brush, S., ed. 2000. Genes in the field: On-farm conservation of crop diversity. Canada: IPGRI, Lewis Publishers, IDRC. 18 V. GARCÍA LÓPEZ ET AL. Chacón, X., and M. García. 2016. Redes de custodios y guardianes de semillas y casas comunitarias de semillas nativas y criollas. Guía metodológica. Bogotá: Swissaid, Corporación Biocomercio Sostenible. Coomes, O. T., S. J. McGuire, E. Garine, S. Caillon, D. McKey, E. Demeulenaere, D. Jarvis, G. Aistara, A. Barnaud, P. Clouvel, et al. 2015. Farmer seed networks make a limited contribution to agriculture? Four common misconceptions. Food Policy 56:41–50. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2015.07.008. Emperaire, L. 2008. O manejo da agrobiodiversidade: O exemplo da mandioca na Amazônia. In Seria melhor mandar ladrilhar? Biodiversidade: Como, para que e por quê, ed. N. Bensusan (org.), 337–52. Brasília: UnB, IEB. Escobar, A. 2008. Territories of difference. Place, movements, life, redes. Durham: Duke University Press. Escobar, A. 2014. Sentipensar con la tierra. Nuevas lecturas sobre desarrollo, territorio y diferencia. Medellín: UNAULA. ETC group. 2017. Who will feed us?. The industrial food chain vs the peasant food web. 3rd ed. Accessed April 15, 2018. http://www.etcgroup.org/content/who-will-feed-us-industrialfood-chain-vs-peasant-food-web. Felicien, A., C. Schiavoni, E. Ochoa, S. Saturno, E. Omaña, A. Requena, and W. Camacaro. 2018. Exploring the ‘grey areas’ of state-society interaction in food sovereignty construction: The battle for Venezuela’s seed law. The Journal of Peasant Studies 1–26. Special Forum on Seed Activism. doi:10.1080/03066150.2018.1525363. Fernandes, B. 2009. Sobre a tipologia de territórios. Territórios e territorialidades: Teorias, processos e conflitos. São Paulo: Expressão Popular. Forero, L., G. Velez, and M. García, RECAR (Red Agroecológica del Caribe). 2008. Semillas criollas del pueblo Zenú. Recuperación de la memoria, del territorio y del conocimiento tradicional. Bogotá: Arfo editores. García, M. 2012. Zonas y territorios libres de transgénicos. Guía metodológica para declarar zonas y territorios libres de transgénicos. Bogotá: Semillas de Identidad. Gilly, A., and R. Roux. 2015. El tiempo del despojo. Siete ensayos sobre un cambio de época. México: Itaca. Giraldo, O. F., and P. M. Rosset. 2017. Agroecology as a territory in dispute: Between institutionality and social movements. The Journal of Peasant Studies 45 (3):545–64. doi:10.1080/03066150.2017.1353496. Gliessman, S. 2016. Agroecology: Roots to resistance to industrialized food systems. In Agroecology: A transdisciplinary, participatory and action-oriented approach, ed. S. R. Gliessman, V. E. Méndez, C. M. Bacon and R. Cohen, 1st ed.,23–35. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Gómez, C. E., M. Gaitán, F. García, H. Herrera, A. Hernández, H. Tapasco, L. Montes, and S. Trejos. 2009. Plan de vida Resguardo Indígena Cañamomo Lomaprieta, fases de autorreconocimiento y avance de formulación, p. 176. Riosucio: Resguardo Indígena Cañamomo Lomaprieta. Grupo Semillas. 2014. Las leyes de semillas aniquilan la soberanía y autonomía alimentaria de los pueblos. In Leyes de semillas y otros pesares. Los pueblos de América Latina las cuestionan e impugnan, 38–44. Bogotá: Alianza Biodiversidad. Grupo Semillas. 2015. La resolución 3168 Del ICA de 2015 sobre semillas reemplaza la resolución 970. Revista Semillas 61/62: 1–6. Grupo Semillas, and RSLC. 2015. Las semillas patrimonio de los pueblos, en manos de los agricultores. Acciones sociales para enfrentar el colonialismo corporativo de las semillas en Colombia. Bogotá: Arfo editores. AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 19 Haesbaert, R. 2011. El mito de la desterritorialización: Del “fin de los territorios” a la multiterritorialidad. México: Siglo XXI. Hernández-Castillo, R., and R. Nigh. 1998. Global processes and local identity among mayan coffee growers in Chiapas. American Anthropologist 100 (1):136–47. doi:10.1525/ aa.1998.100.1.136. Jarvis, D. I., T. Hodgkin, B. R. Sthapit, C. Fadda, and I. Lopez-Noriega. 2011. An heuristic framework for identifying multiple ways of supporting the conservation and use of traditional crop varieties within the agricultural production system. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences 30 (1–2):125–76. doi:10.1080/07352689.2011.554358. Khadse, A., P. M. Rosset, H. Morales, and B. Ferguson. 2017. Taking agroecology to scale: The zero budget natural farming peasant movement in Karnataka, India. The Journal of Peasant Studies 1–28. doi:10.1080/03066150.2016.1276450. Kloppenburg, J. 2005. First the seed: The political economy of plant biotechnology. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Kloppenburg, J. 2010. Impeding dispossesion, enabling repossession: Biological open source and the recovery of seed sovereignty. Journal of Agrarian Change 10:367–88. doi:10.1111/ j.1471-0366.2010.00275. La Vía Campesina (LVC). 2013. From Maputo to Jakarta: 5 Years of agroecology in La Vía Campesina LVC. Jakarta: International Commission on Sustainable Peasant Agriculture. Accessed March 15, 2018. https://viacampesina.org/en/from-maputo-to-jakarta-5-years-ofagroecology-in-la-via-campesina/. La Vía Campesina (LVC) and Grain. 2015. Seed laws that criminalise farmers: Resistance and fightback. LVC/Grain. Accessed March 11, 2018. https://viacampesina.org/en/seed-lawsthat-criminalise-farmers-resistance-and-fightback/. Leff, E. 2014. La apuesta por la vida. Imaginación sociológica e imaginarios sociales en los territorios ambientales del sur. México: Siglo XXI Editores. Louwaars, N. P. 2007. Seeds of confusion: The impact of policies on seed systems. PhD dissertation, Wageningen: Wageningen University. Louwaars, N. P., P. Le Coent, and T. Osborn. 2010. Seed systems and plant genetic resources for food and agriculture. Rome: FAO. Machado, A. 2004. Seguridad alimentaria y sistema agroalimentario. In Territorios y sistemas agroalimentarios locales, ed. UNIBIBLOS, 33–48. Bogotá: Universidad Nacional de Colombia. Martínez-Torres, M. E., and P. M. Rosset. 2010. La Vía Campesina: The birth and evolution of a transnational social movement. The Journal of Peasant Studies 37 (1):149–75. doi:10.1080/03066150903498804. McCune, N., P. M. Rosset, T. Cruz-Salazar, H. Morales, and A. Saldívar. 2017. The long road: Rural youth, farming and agroecological formación in Central America. Mind, Culture, and Activity 24 (3):183–98. doi:10.1080/10749039.2017.1293690. Mellucci, A. 1999. Teoría de la acción colectiva. In Acción Colectiva, Vida Cotidiana y Democracia, 25–54. México: Centro de Estudios Sociológicos, El Colegio de México. Meyer, H. 2007. GMO-free regions manual: Case studies from around the world. Germany: IFOAM. Mier Y Terán, M., O. F. Giraldo, M. Aldasoro, H. Morales, B. Ferguson, P. M. Rosset, A. Khadse, and C. Campos. 2018. Bringing agroecology to scale: Key drivers and emblematic cases. Journal Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 42 (6):637–65. doi:10.1080/ 21683565.2018.1443313. Ministerio de Cultura. 2010a. Caracterización del pueblo Emberá. Bogotá: Gobierno Colombiano. Ministerio de Cultura. 2010b. Caracterización del pueblo Zenú. Bogotá: Gobierno Colombiano. Ministerio del Interior. 2013. Resguardos indígenas. Bogotá: Gobierno Colombiano. 20 V. GARCÍA LÓPEZ ET AL. Mooney, P. 1983. Seeds of the earth: A private or public resource? USA: Food First. Morales-Hernández, J. 2014. El cuidado y defensa del maíz nativo en México: Resistencias y acciones ciudadanas ante los transgénicos. Análisis Plural 1:243–55. Oakland Institute. 2017. Down on the seed. The world bank enables corporate takeover of seeds. Oakland: Oakland Institute. ONIC (Organizacion Nacional Indígena de Colombia). 2007. Plan de vida y desarrollo propio (25 años de resistencia y lucha VII Congreso Nacional), Bogotá: ONIC. Parmentier, S. 2014. Scaling-up agroecological approaches: What, why and how? Belgium: Oxfam-Solidarity. Pautasso, M., A. Guntra, A. Barnaud, S. Caillon, P. Clouvel, O. T. Coomes, and M. Delêtre. 2013. Seed exchange networks for agrobiodiversity conservation. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 33 (1):151–75. doi:10.1007/s13593-012-0089-6. Peschard, K. 2017. Seed wars and farmers’ rights: Comparative perspectives from Brazil and India. The Journal of Peasant Studies 44 (1): 144–68. doi:10.1080/03066150.2016.1191471. Porto-Gonçalves, C. W. 2006. A Reinvenção dos territórios : A experiência Latino-Americana e Caribenha. In Los desafíos de las emancipaciones en un contexto militarizado, ed. Coordinator: A. E. Ceceña, 151–97. Buenos Aires: CLACSO. Rahnema, M. 2010. Participation. In The development dictionary. A guide to knowledge as power, ed. W. Sachs, 2nd ed., 127–44. London: Zed Books. RECAR (Red Agroecológica del Caribe). 2004. Los maíces criollos y la soberanía alimentaria de la región Caribe. Revista Semillas 22/23. Bogotá: Grupo Semillas. Rosset, P. M., and M. A. Altieri. 2017. Agroecology: Science and politics. . Manitoba, Canada: Fernwood Publishing. Rosset, P. M., and M. E. Martínez-Torres. 2012. Rural social movements and agroecology: Context, theory, and process. Ecology and Society 17:3. doi:10.5751/ES-05000-170317. Rosset, P. M., and M. E. Martínez-Torres. 2016. Agroecología, territorio, recampesinización y movimientos sociales. Estudios Sociales. Revista de Investigacio´n Cienti´fica 25 (47):275–99. RSLC (Red de Semillas Libres de Colombia). 2013. Memorias red semillas libres. Bogotá: RSLC. RSLC (Red de Semillas Libres de Colombia). 2017. Red de custodios y guardianes de semillas Boletín Semillas de Identidad (2). Bogotá: RSLC. Salcedo, L. R., Pinzón, and C. Duarte. 2013. El paro nacional agrario: Un análisis de los actores agrarios y los procesos organziativos del campesinado colombiano. Cali: Universidad Javeriana de Cali. Santilli, J. 2009. Agrobiodiversidade e direitos dos agricultores. São Paulo: Peirópolis. Santilli, J. 2013. Agrobiodiversity: Towards inovating legal systems. In Renewing innovation systems in agriculture and food: How to go towards more sustainability? ed. E. Coudel, H. Devautour, C.T Soulard, B. Hubert, G. Faure, 167–84. Wageninen: Wageningen Academic Publishers. Semillas de Identidad, Fundación Swissaid, Grupo Semillas and RECAR (Red Agroecológica del Caribe). 2007. Campaña semillas de identidad: En defensa de la biodiversidad y la soberanía alimentaria. Biodiversidad, Sustento y Culturas 53: 5–9. Sthapit, S. G., S. Meldrum, Padulosi, and N. Bergamini. 2015. Strengthening the role of custodian farmers in the national conservation programme of Nepal. Rome: Bioversity International. Wattnem, T. 2016. Seed laws, certification and standardization: Outlawing informal seed systems in the global south. Journal of Peasant Studies 43 (4):850–67. doi:10.1080/ 03066150.2015.1130702. AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 21 Wittman, H. 2009. Reworking the metabolic rift: La Vía Campesina, agrarian citizenship, and food sovereignty. Journal of Peasant Studies 36 (4):805–26. doi:10.1080/ 03066150903353991. Yin, R. K. 1994. Case study research. Design and methods. In Applied social research methods series, Vol. 5, USA: SAGE Publications. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems ISSN: 2168-3565 (Print) 2168-3573 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjsa21 Zero Budget Natural Farming in India – from inception to institutionalization Ashlesha Khadse & Peter M. Rosset To cite this article: Ashlesha Khadse & Peter M. Rosset (2019): Zero Budget Natural Farming in India – from inception to institutionalization, Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, DOI: 10.1080/21683565.2019.1608349 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2019.1608349 Published online: 30 Apr 2019. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 137 View Crossmark data Citing articles: 1 View citing articles Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wjsa21 AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2019.1608349 Zero Budget Natural Farming in India – from inception to institutionalization Ashlesha Khadse a and Peter M. Rosset b,c a Amrita Bhoomi Centre, Chamarajanagara, Karnataka, India; bDepartament of Agriculture, Society, and the Environment, El Colegio de la Frontera Sur (ECOSUR), San Cristóbal de Las Casas, Mexico; c Education Faculty of Crateús and Graduate Program on Sociology, Universidade Estadual do Ceará (UECE), Brazil ABSTRACT KEYWORDS This paper delineates the growth of Zero Budget Natural Farming (ZBNF) in India. From its origins as a peasant-led social movement in the state of Karnataka, to becoming institutionalized in a state program in Andhra Pradesh, ZBNF is attaining scale and reaching more and more peasant families. We look at some of the key factors that have triggered ZBNFs growth, as well as highlight some of the challenges and contradictions that may arise in the institutionalization process. Agroecology; KRRS; Scaling-up agroecology; Subhash Palekar; Zero Budget Natural Farming Introduction In India, movements for sustainable agriculture have historically been led and articulated by the Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) sector and urban middle-class activists rather than peasant movements (Brown 2018). On the other hand, successful cases in sustainable agriculture, despite their important achievements, have mostly remained ‘islands of success’ and have not reached a mass scale, becoming a ‘wave of change’ (Gregory, Plahe, and Cockfield 2017). One exception to these tendencies, we argue, is the Zero Budget Natural Farming Movement (ZBNF) which started in Karnataka. While this is not a movement of peasants from marginal classes or castes, and it does have many urban middle-class members, it is primarily a rural movement composed of and spontaneously spread among middle and small landholding peasants (Khadse et al. 2017). It espouses the neo-Gandhian values of self-reliance and autonomy. It has operated outside the purview of institutional donors and NGO-led networks for sustainable agriculture in India. Among the reasons are rejection of any institutional funding and NGOs by the founder and guru Subhash Palekar, who stresses the importance of autonomy.1 But ZBNF has now spread across the country and CONTACT Ashlesha Khadse [email protected] Amrita Bhoomi Centre, Chamarajanagara, Karnataka, India Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/wjsa. © 2019 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC 2 A. KHADSE AND P. M. ROSSET a series of significant policy initiatives are cropping up. While ZBNF is promoted as a counter-hegemonic movement, challenging dominant ideas of economic globalization, as ZBNF becomes institutionalized in significant state-led policies it may now be at risk of becoming entangled with the very hegemonic institutions its leader has opposed. From its origins as a social movement in 2002 through 2015, ZBNF spread at the grassroots level through the collective efforts of a constellation of peasant members and movement allies, in what can loosely be termed as the ‘ZBNF movement’ in Karnataka, and subsequently in other states of India, especially in South India. It barely received any attention from policymakers, scientists or even NGOs. Yet today, one south Indian state, Andhra Pradesh, is attempting to scale up ZBNF across the entire state though comprehensive public policies. Inspired by Andhra Pradesh, other state governments are also showing keen interest and have made initial budgetary allocations. Activists have expressed concern that state-led efforts to scale up ZBNF may depend on international financial institutions with potentially contradictory interests (Saldanha 2018). Yet, Andhra Pradesh’s programme on ZBNF is investing resources in farmer-led agroecology, supporting collective learning, women-led social organizations, and recruiting rural youth – a stark contrast to traditional state interventions in agriculture. This essay attempts to provide an overview of some of the key developments in ZBNF’s growth from its inception until its institutionalization. It delineates some key drivers behind its growth and reflects on some of the challenges and contradictions that have arisen in this process. The paper first describes the factors behind scaling up of ZBNF, then it looks at the initial growth of the ZBNF movement in Karnataka, followed by the institutional process and shape of the program in Andhra Pradesh. Like agroecology, which is a scientific discipline, set of practices, and a social movement (Wezel et al. 2009), ZBNF too signifies both a set of practices and a social movement. We thus use the term ZBNF for both practices and movement. The key factors behind the scaling up of ZBNF in Karnataka have previously been elaborated by Khadse et al. 2017. These factors were largely drawn from social movement theories like frame theory, resource mobilization theory, and the political opportunity framework, along with empirical evidence from successful cases, and emerging literature on scaling up agroecology (Altieri and Nicholls 2008; Parmentier 2014; Varghese and HansenKuhn 2013; Wijeratna 2018), and were then further developed by Mier y Terán et al. (2018). They identify eight key drivers through an analysis of five emblematic cases of agroecology, which includes the ZBNF movement in India. These are: (1) crises that drive the search for alternatives; (2) social organization; (3) constructivist teaching–learning processes; (4) effective AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 3 agroecological practices; (5) mobilizing discourse; (6) external allies; (7) favorable markets; and (8) political opportunities and favorable policies. We will reflect upon these drivers in the context of the unfolding of ZBNFs amplification in India.2 ZBNF practices ZBNF is an agroecological farming approach that promotes growing crops in harmony with nature. The toolkit of ZBNF was developed by its guru Subhash Palekar in the 1990’s. ZBNF has two major axes, one agronomic and the other structural. On the one hand, it is about improving soil fertility through a number of agroecological principles, including diversification, nutrient recycling, increasing beneficial biological interactions, among others (Palekar 2006). ZBNF opposes use of external inputs or synthetic fertilizers. On the other hand, ZBNF is about de-linking farmers from external inputs and credit markets to create autonomy by not purchasing anything from external actors and especially from corporations (sensu Rosset and MartínezTorres. 2012). Four wheels of ZBNF ZBNF is based on what Palekar calls the four wheels of ZBNF, shown in Table 1. Bijamrita (a seed treatment) and Jivamrita (a soil inoculant) are microbial mixtures which are ready in under 48 h. For those who do not have access to water or labor, a dry version of Jivamrita called Ghanajivamrita is prescribed; this can be prepared once and stored for a year. Both are sources of beneficial bacteria which have plant protective qualities and stimulate plant growth (Sreenivasa, Naik, and Bhat 2009). Contrary to conventional agriculture, Palekar believes that the soil already has all the Table 1. Four wheels of ZBNF, Source: (APZBNF 2018). Four Wheels of ZBNF Jivamrita: A fermented microbial culture derived from cow dung and urine, jaggery, pulse flour, and soil Bijamrita: a microbial coating for seeds, based on cow dung, urine, and lime Acchadana- mulching: Covering the top soil with cover crops and crop residues Whapahasa: Soil aeration, a result of jivamrita and acchadana- represents the changes in water management brought about by improved soil structure and humus content Benefit Stimulate microbial activity to make nutrients bioavailable; protect against pathogens. Protects young roots from fungus and seed borne or soil borne diseases Produces humus, conserves top soil, increases water retention, encourages soil fauna, prevents weeds Increase water availability, water use efficiency, increase resilience to drought 4 A. KHADSE AND P. M. ROSSET nutrients necessary for plant growth, and thus no external inputs need to be added; instead, the existing nutrients have to be “unlocked” and made bioavailable via jiwamruta (Palekar 2005)- this idea is called Annapurna3 by Palekar. Palekar claims that the urine and dung from one cow are enough for farming 30 acres of land, and so cow ownership by each individual farmer is not necessary. In places where local cows are not available, other alternatives of other animals like buffalos or even human urine can be used,4 but Palekar claims that indigenous cow breeds have the most and best microbes and are preferable. Native cow breeds are less inputintensive and easier to manage for resource-poor farmers, but their populations have dropped significantly (Balaraju, Tripathi, and Yadav 2017). Some farmers we interviewed in Karnataka had found it hard to find native cows. This was also the case in Kerala (Münster 2016). Some others were purchasing the dung and urine from other farmers or landless herders. In AP, the state government has provided support to farmers to access dung and urine of cows. We visited a traditional pastoralist who had a special urine collection shed constructed via government support under ZBNF. He was collecting the dung and urine and selling these to neighboring ZBNF farmer groups. Mulching in ZBNF takes various forms. “Live mulching” is promoted with cover crops of a mix of monocotyledons (like millets) and leguminous dichotyledons (like beans). The monocots provide nutrients like potash or phosphate, while the dicots help in nitrogen-fixing (Palekar 2006). Straw mulching is also promoted, using dry crop residue. Waaphasa means water vapor. Palekar claims that roots absorb water vapor and not water. He promotes a microclimatic condition around the roots, where there is a mix of air and water molecules and rejects overwatering. He prescribes watering only when the sun is high at noon for optimum whaaphasa formation. Palekar claims that up to 90% of water use can be reduced through ZBNF practices making it ideal for rain-fed farming (Palekar 2006). Palekar also prescribes a number of natural fungicides and pesticides made from locally sourced ingredients like neem leaves, chilies, garlic, tobacco, sour buttermilk, etc. Increasing functional diversity is a critical principle of ZBNF; a number of crop combinations, with a view of increasing functional bio-diversity is proposed by Palekar. He rejects any external additions, including vermicompost made by exotic worm species and instead supports the growth of local earthworms in situ. In terms of farm design, Palekar’s most popular model is what he calls the five-layer model; a type of agroforestry model which integrates trees with various levels of plant canopies, each layer at an optimum level to harvest the sunlight it needs. He proposes various crop and tree combinations, including AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 5 Figure 1. A version of the five-layer Palekar model. Source: (BNNMurali 2016). living fences on the edges, and trenches for water harvesting. Careful measurements are provided on how many rows to create and at what distance. Farmers have further adapted this model according to their own needs and in Karnataka, many local versions can be found. See Figure 1 to see a version of the model. Various other traditional farming models are also practiced by farmers, for example, in ragi (a rainfed millet) cultivation, the guli ragi or square planting model from Karnataka, promotes wider spacing, similar to the System of Rice Intensification (SRI) model that leads to higher yields (Adhikari et al. 2018). The AP government has been promoting the guli ragi and SRI models among its farmers, and income results can be seen in Table 2. In interviews with farmers in Karnataka, they reveal that the labor requirement for the initial setting up of the five layer model is high. Once the trees are established however, the labor requirement drops significantly over time. Mulching further prevents the requirement for weeding-related labor. Farmers who do not have access to labor for preparing jiwamrita can use 6 A. KHADSE AND P. M. ROSSET ghanajiwanrita, jiwamrita’s dry form. In comparison to chemical farming, the labor requirement in all models of ZBNF drops over time over time. However, farmers interviewed explained that the labor requirement depends on the size of the farm and the type of crop; sugarcane and paddy are labor intensive. A small farm, under 1–2 ha, can be managed with the labor of the farm family itself, and we interviewed several families who depended purely on their own and extended family support. Farmers with larger land holdings (above 2 ha) have to hire labor. In Karnataka, the availability of farm labor has declined sharply, especially during peak seasons like harvest, and farmers across the board are adopting strategies to cope with labor shortage such as increasing farm mechanization, alternative crops, leasing out land, leaving land fallow among others (Satishkumar and Umesh 2018). In ZBNF models, like the five layer, there is no peak season, as a diversified farm yields p throughout the year, further reducing pressure to get labor during times of scarcity. Practitioners clarify that ‘Zero budget’ does not literally mean that costs are ‘zero’, but rather implies that the need for external financing is zero, and that any costs incurred can be offset by a diversified source of income which comes via farm diversification rather than dependence on one monoculture (APZBNF 2018). Palekar has faced some resistance because of the usage of the terms ‘zero budget,’ as many questioned the accuracy of the term, as some costs are involved. Recently, he changed the name of ZBNF to Subhash Palekar Natural Farming (SPNF). This has created confusion and many, including the AP government, continue to use the term ZBNF. The AP government has taken the help of expert NGOs, each of whom have their own package of practices which draw heavily from Palekar’s ZBNF, but also include many other practices commonly used in agroecological systems, such as pheromone traps, yellow plates, trap crops, NADEP5 composting, navdhanya or nine seeds planting system, bird perches, light traps, sheep manure, green leaf manure, paddy and fish combined farming among others. Landholding of ZBNF farmers ZBNF is positioned as a solution to the debt crisis among Indian farmers. Most recent available figures by the government of India show that about 52% of the agricultural households in the country are in debt (NSSO 2014). Among the major states, Andhra Pradesh had the highest share of indebted agricultural households (92.9%). Karnataka is at 77%. Although these figures include farmers with land holding under 0.01 ha and tenant farmers, the report states that those with over 2 ha of land had higher levels of debt- these households also derived a larger proportion of their income from cultivation. As farming is a major source of income for the AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 7 key ZBNF practicing group of farmers, improving net incomes in farming is a key aim of ZBNF. According to a survey of 97 farmers in Karnataka by Khadse et al. (2017), almost all ZBNF farmers possessed land, with 28.9% in the small farmer category (<2 ha), 43.3% in the medium size category (2–10 ha), and 27.8% in the large categories. The majority had access to some form of irrigation and 68% owned a cow. None of the farmers were absentees. However, the ZBNF movement did not make any special efforts to reach marginal or landless farmers aside from waiving of the fees for training camps. A ZBNF leader admitted that it is difficult for a marginal farmer to leave their farm for five days for training, which is the typical length of Palekar’s training camp. In the case of Andhra Pradesh, the government’s extension model is based on group approaches through Self Help Groups (SHGs) and claims to be putting a special emphasis on groups of landless and women farmers, elaborated later in the paper. Benefits of ZBNF Table 2, Net incomes in food crops, ZBNF versus Non-ZBNF, Figures from the government of Andhra from the Kharif crop in 2017. Source: (APZBNF 2018) In Karnataka, out of 97 farmers surveyed (see Table 3), 85% reported improved income, 90% reported reduced production costs, 92% reported reduced need for credit, 91% reported improved quality of produce, 78% reported improved yields. There is ample anecdotal evidence of ZBNFs ecological benefits reported by farmers – but no comprehensive study has been carried out yet, aside from some ongoing studies by the government of AP. However, there is ample scientific evidence on the ecological benefits of the particular practices promoted by ZBNF-such as cow based microbial mixtures, mulching, improving functional on farm bio-diversity, enhancing soil microbial activity, agro-forestry systems, on-farm water conservation, cover cropping among others (Altieri 2018; Asha 2015). Table 2. Comparison between net incomes in various food crops grown in ZBNF versus chemical farming, and indicates that ZBNF led to a better net income. This has also been demonstrated in the case of paddy by Amareswari and Sujathamma 2014 in Chittoor district in AP. Source: (APZBNF 2018). Cost of cultivation Food Crops Paddy Guli Ragi Ragi Blackgram ZBNF 30,983 7375 6875 15775 Non ZBNF 43,839 8125 7625 18595 Net Income ZBNF 60,743 42789 31590 39034 Non ZBNF 40,335 27717 25195 27243 8 A. KHADSE AND P. M. ROSSET Table 3. Efficacy of ZBNF in some social, economic, agroecological indicators (%) as reported by farmers in Karnataka (n = 97). Highest values are in bold (Khadse et al. 2017). Number of farmers (%) Has Decreased No Change Has Increased Soil Yield Conservation 12.8 2.1 8.5 4.3 78.7 93.6 Seed diversity 12.8 10.3 76.9 Pest attacks 84.1 4.5 11.4 Quality of produce 4.4 4.4 91.1 Seed autonomy 2.4 4.9 92.7 Household food autonomy 4.9 7.3 87.8 Selling price 7.9 34.2 57.9 Income 4.8 9.5 85.7 Production costs 90.9 2.3 6.8 Need for Credit 92.5 3.8 3.8 Health 0 0 100.0 AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 9 Scaling up of ZBNF among farmers Early years 2002–2006: farmer-led social movement in Karnataka Social organization Karnataka became the crucible where the experiment of ZBNF first succeeded in reaching a wide number of farmers, turning into a popular movement (Khadse et al. 2017). A decisive factor behind the scaling up of ZBNF in Karnataka was the coming together in 2002 of the guru of ZBNF, Subhash Palekar, with the social organization of Karnataka Rajya Raita Sangha (KRRS)- the largest farmers movement of the state. Interviews with both Palekar and KRRS leaders reveal that Palekar did not have a mass following in his own neighboring state of Maharashtra. It was when a KRRS leader from north Karnataka came across Palekar’s teachings, he invited him to Karnataka and organized a series of workshops to address the growing crisis of farmer suicides, indebtedness, and ecological crisis. These workshops became popular among farmers and the social organization of KRRS became the culture medium upon which ZBNF first spread. Mier Y Terán et al. (2018) highlight the importance of social organization and crises to the scaling up of agroecology, and in the case of ZBNF too, these were factors for its initial growth. Local champions When Palekar was first invited to Karnataka, he received a mixed response. At one workshop in 2002 in Hubli Karnataka, notes a KRRS leader, the majority of farmers abandoned a five-day ZBNF workshop, leaving only a handful of remaining participants. Yet one of the participants, Krishnappa, a heavily indebted farmer at the time, was so convinced by Palekar’s discourse that he abandoned chemicals and started practicing ZBNF.6 Krishnappa’s 2-ha farm became one of the most successful model farms in ZBNF. Krishnappa’s success convinced others to pay attention to ZBNF. He became a local trainer and advisor for other farmers. Over the years, hundreds of such local champions, many of whom we have interviewed and met, have developed across the state of Karnataka. They have volunteered their own time and donated their own resources for mentoring new ZBNF farmers. Today, there is an official list of such trainers available across every district of Karnataka that new farmers can reach out to. None of these trainers are paid. Mier Y Terán et al. (2018) indirectly identify local champions and leadership as a factor in achieving scale, while Nicholls and Altieri (2018) refer to the importance of ‘lighthouses’, which are demonstration and training farms led by NGOs or farmers themselves as effective mechanisms for scaling up agroecology. Khadse et al. (2017) analyze the importance of local leadership, called bridge or grassroots leaders to agroecology movements, who carry out movement goals on the ground. In the case of ZBNF, farmer champions, called ‘lighthouses,’ have turned out to be a critical factor in ZBNF’s growth. 10 A. KHADSE AND P. M. ROSSET Self-organized pedagogical activities and allies According to our interviews with ZBNF leaders, by 2006 the movement had gathered many new allies, and volunteers, beyond the farmers' movement. They were collectively organizing massive training workshops-with the participation of thousands of farmers over five to seven days. One workshop in the town of Kudalsangamma in North Karnataka recorded over 5000 farmer participants.7 The entire operation was volunteer-led with the support of a local rural cooperative bank – DCC Bank. This model of self-organized training workshops became the cornerstone of the ZBNF movement. The movement operated without a central organization or a bank account (Khadse et al. 2017). Palekar’s massive training, reminiscent of a religious retreat, are a unique feature of the ZBNF movement. Palekar goes into a detailed explanation of agroecological processes like carbon cycle, nitrogen cycle, humus creation, among others. Most of the farmers have never had an opportunity to understand such agroecology processes on their farm (Khadse et al. 2017). Subsequently, many such workshops were organized throughout Karnataka, including by local trainers. According to our interviews with ZBNF leaders, they estimate that possibly 200 workshops have been organized over the last 15 years to cater to farmers in the different districts of the state. The model was based on finding a team of local volunteer organizers-, who then locally mobilized resources from allies in order to organize such workshops. At the end of each workshop, accounts were announced in order to maintain transparency. Mathas8 turned out to be important allies and often provided board and accommodation for free (Khadse et al. 2017). Urban IT professionals turned into allies for the ZBNF movement, creating social media spaces for exchange, volunteering. We observe that today ZBNF has a strong social media presence. Facebook, Whatsapp, and such tools are frequently used by ZBNF farmers who have cell phones, and especially by youth for exchanges, troubleshooting or marketing. At the global level, the farmers' alliance La Via Campesina (LVC) became a major ally of ZBNF through its local member – the Karnataka Rajya Raitha Sangha, many of whose farmers are ZBNF farmers. ZBNF became part of LVC’s international work on agroecology and it was promoted as a successful case with a key role-played by farmers organizations including at the UN (La Via Campesina 2016). Several exchanges have been organized by Karnataka farmers for international farmers in India to learn about ZBNF (LVC South Asia 2015), while KRRS farmers that practice ZBNF are part of LVCs agroecology initiatives. ZBNF spread to Sri Lanka and Nepal through the efforts of LVC organizations there.9 Mier Y Terán et al. (2018) highlight the importance of allies in agroecology movements. In the case of ZBNF too, it was a string of allies that brought in a wide variety of resources towards the movement-either financial, board and housing, socio-organizational, volunteers, or cultural (in the form of art, music, or books on ZBNF). AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 11 Aside from these massive training camps, at the grassroots level training is done in a self-organized manner by local groups. Most districts in Karnataka have local ZBNF chapters which have their own schedules and styles of organization. While Palekar’s camp is essentially a top-down monologue with barely any time for interaction, the camp in itself presents an important networking opportunity for farmers. It is when they return and engage in farmer to farmer interactions in their locality where actual practical training takes place (Khadse et al. 2017). These are informal and ad-hoc in nature and are in line with constructivist teaching philosophies which often take the form of informal ‘learning by doing’ described by Mier Y Terán et al. (2018). Mobilizing discourse and charismatic leadership Many Indian political movements are formed around charismatic leaders and personality cults (Chitkara and Sharma 1997). In the ZBNF movement, Palekar’s charisma has created a strong movement community and a bond with his followers who see him as their guru, ascribe godlike qualities to him, and are willing to make personal commitments upon his word; key characteristics of Weberian charismatic leadership (Abbasiyannejad et al. 2015). Not all ZBNF practitioners have such an exalted view of Palekar, but they see him as an important teacher. Van Seters and Field (1990) assert that charismatic leadership “must be visionary; it must transform those who see the vision, and give them a new and stronger sense of purpose and meaning”. According to our interviews with several of ZBNF followers, a key reason for their taking up ZBNF is Palekar’s vision and discourse and their ability to relate to it. Münster shows that in Wayanad, Kerala, farmers have a similar dedication to Palekar (Münster 2016). Critics point out that such a cult-like environment is dangerous as it does not create an atmosphere of debate or dissent.10 In our interviews with farmers, they claim that Palekar’s explanations of these processes are straightforward and simple, and help them understand complex scientific concepts. Palekar uses what they call “farmers language”, which is language adapted to farmers for popular education. Farmers collectively take vows at such events to make a shift away from debt (Münster 2016). Our survey among 97 farmers revealed that attending Palekar’s workshops played a critical role in the majority of the respondent’s shift towards ZBNF, what Mier Y Terán et al. (2018) refer to as mobilizing discourse, which is a driving factor in agroecology movements. According to an official in the AP government, this is the reason that the APZBNF program also organizes Palekar camps as a key tool to motivate farmers, even though their key pedagogical work happens at the village level through group approaches. Palekar also discusses what he calls the spiritual philosophy of ZBNF, which is the basis of his other name for ZBNF-which is Zero Budget “spiritual” farming. Spirituality according to Palekar is Nature – “we see god through god’s organs – 12 A. KHADSE AND P. M. ROSSET trees, plants, mountains, forests, rivers, birds’ (32, Palekar 2005). His spiritual ideas are partially based in Gandhian thought of non-violence, self-reliance, and austerity which are commonly found among agroecology promoters in India (Brown 2018). But some other elements of Palekar’s discourse have generated controversy. He expresses a disdain for all things ‘western,’ but his idea of ‘Indian-ness’ is limited to elite Hindu ideals (Münster 2016). Palekar’s discourse on spirituality professes the sacredness of the Indian cow. Academics warn that holding the cow as ‘sacred’, and other nativist tendencies that extoll Hinduism may unintentionally support chauvinist Right wing Hindu forces who are on the rise in India and have unleashed violence towards other non-Hindu minorities and Dalits that may consume beef. Despite these criticisms, we note that Palekar has never made disrespectful statements about other religions in any of the several training camps we have attended. Palekar’s popularity among farmers only seems to be growing, and dangers of such a discourse are lost on them. Many of his followers in Kerala are of Christian origin for example (Münster 2016). Allies like KRRS have a strong position against religious or caste discrimination. Simple farming practices With regard to the links between agroecological practices and the scaling up process, Rosset and Martínez-Torres. (2012) discuss the importance of farming practices that actually solve problems that farmers face to taking agroecology to scale. The Central American campesino-a-campesino movement points towards the advantage of implementing practices at a small scale and to start slowly for better adoption (Holt-Giménez 2001). Mier Y Terán et al. (2018) point out that simple practices may be important for early adoption. The experience of ZBNF also highlights that adoption improves if initial practices are simple and require less effort or resources to implement. In interviews, farmers noted that ZBNF was often easier to adopt as compared to other alternative practices because it required relatively less effort and time and there were clear instructions provided by Palekar. For example, the creation of compost in an external pile or pit, commonly promoted in organic farming, requires large quantities of biomass, manure, and physical labor and requires a few weeks of time. On the other hand, the preparation of microbial mixtures in ZBNF, like jivamruta, took under three days and required less effort. Many of the practitioners that we interviewed were former organic farmers, disappointed because of its unaffordability (related to bio-inputs and certification), difficulty, and issues with commercialization. Münster reports the same for Kerala ZBNF farmers (2016). AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 13 Institutionalization of ZBNF – public policy in Andhra Pradesh According to our interviews with government officials in the neighboring state of Andhra Pradesh, ZBNF found a prominent ally around 2006. Vijay Kumar, a high ranking public official working on governmental poverty alleviation programs for women, introduced trainings on cost-cutting measures in farming via agroecology. He invited Palekar for various workshops sponsored by the state. This relationship subsequently led to ZBNF being adopted as a major state program in 2016. Mier Y Terán et al. (2018) identify the adoption of public policy as a key political opportunity for agroecology to attain scale. Policies can take multiple forms and address complementary areas such as land reform, extension, government procurement, or marketing. This program aims to cover six million farmers, by 2024–25 (APZBNF 2018). According to state officials, they hope this would be a tipping point in terms of reaching a critical mass that would sustain spontaneous movementlike adoption in the future. In the second year (2017–2018), the government of Andhra reports that 163,000 farmers adopted ZBNF at least partially on their farms in 972 villages. Group approaches in APZBNF The ZBNF program was built upon a previously successful state-led program on non-pesticide management, called Community Managed Sustainable Agriculture (CMSA). It helped to reduce pesticide usage in about 1.8 million acres and benefitted 738,000 farmers (Rao 2012). The unique feature of that program was that it worked with women organized into Self Help Groups (SHGs) and initiated a collective learning process via a Farmer Field School extension model (Vijay et al. 2009). The same model has now been replicated in the APZBNF program and gone beyond a focus on merely pesticide reduction to more holistic agroecological adoption. Andhra already has extensive experience in group approaches and was a leader in the women's’ Self Help Group movement in India (Deshmukh 2004). These programs targeted women from marginalized sections to engage in thrift and savings and were promoted as a tool for poverty alleviation and empowerment. They mainly became a channel to route micro-credit, as well as to find group solutions to problems like livelihood generation or health. Most of these SHGs, with 10–15 women each, have been federated at the village level to form Village Organizations and at district levels. Some of these federations have amassed significant capital, are linked to banks, and cater to the banking needs and other projects among their members. While there are mixed results on the impacts of these SHGs, they have provided an important experience in collective work and access to credit for many rural women in Andhra Pradesh and 14 A. KHADSE AND P. M. ROSSET expanded their economic opportunities. ZBNF has been introduced as one key activity for livelihood generation and food autonomy through these SHGs. Mier Y Terán et al. (2018) identify the importance of social organization as a key driving factor in scaling up agroecology – it serves as the social fabric or the culture medium on which agroecology grows. In the case of Andhra’s ZBNF policy (APZBNF), the social organizations of the SHGs became the foundation upon which the ZBNF program was initiated and replicated in the state. The SHG federation banks provide credit to their members to initiate livelihood projects, including those under ZBNF – for example, to landless workers for land leasing. The SHGs are also the unit where group training and implementation of ZBNF takes place. The SHGs, in this case, are limited to group learning, access to inputs, machinery, credit, value addition and marketing but not to joint farming as is being practiced successfully and outperforming individual farming in Kerala’s Kudumbashree model (Agarwal 2018). Farmer field school pedagogical approach Unlike most other mainstream agricultural extension programs, the AP ZBNF program is not a technology transmission model but a program where knowledge is extended through participatory social learning (Warner 2008). Farmers are trained by other farmer trainers called ‘master farmers.’ These are expert farmers who have already attained success in ZBNF practices, as well as receive training on horizontal extension and education methods. The master farmers provide handholding support to SHG members throughout their transition to ZBNF. They receive an honorarium from the state. The Farmer Field school methodology was originally developed by the FAO to promote integrated pest management and brings farmers together in regular study circles to carry out collective observation, analysis and reflection about processes in their farm (LEISA 2003). Various authors point towards the importance of horizontal pedagogical methods in agroecology rather than topdown methods (Machín Rosset et al. 2011; Sosa et al. 2010). Mier Y Terán et al. (2018) highlight constructivist teaching–learning processes as a key driver of agroecology where a common objective is recognition of peasant knowledge and cultivation of peasant protagonism in place of conventional agricultural extension, in which peasants play a more passive role. A key benefit of this method is ‘seeing is believing’ (Machín Sosa et al. 2010), as farmers are more likely to believe another farmer who has already implemented the practices. Tensions can arise between constructivist learning and the reproduction of the top-down method; if the peasant promoter/master teacher behaves just as another topdown extension agent to impose rather than to facilitate, and by prescription, then the knowledge can get concentrated in the hands of a few farmers (Machín Sosa et al. 2010). AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 15 Such tensions also arise in the case of the AP ZBNF program, where one NGO representative involved in the program implementation pointed towards a tendency for meeting official targets. This, they worry, could lead to a dilution of learning processes and turn into a mere transmission of ZBNF practices, thus emulating a top-down approach. According to our interviews with a number of master farmers and field observation, they have a full schedule of mandatory daily activities to ensure that they cover all the SHGs assigned to them. In the mornings, they organize a study circle in a specific village. In the afternoon, they visit farmers’ fields for troubleshooting. In the evenings, they project videos related to the days learnings so that farmers can engage in discussions. However, one criticism from sustainable agriculture experts that we have interviewed is that there is too much focus on a somewhat recipe style of transmission of practices. As the program is in its early stages of adoption, it seems logical that this may be the case, as simple practices are usually important for early adoption, whereas more complex practices that depend upon a more sophisticated understanding of ecological relationships at the farm and landscape levels advance at a slower pace (Mier Y Terán et al. 2018). One of our key observations of the farmer fields that we visited was that practices adopted by the farmers were at early stages, with a low level of sophistication, and mostly as a form of input substitution where jiwamrita was seen as another input. In comparison, ZBNF farms in Karnataka display a high level of integration, possibly because of the self-initiative and longer experience of farmers in the latter. While input substitution strategies can prove attractive to farmers, Mier Y Terán et al. (2018) maintain that agroecology movements need to move beyond input substitution to benefit from synergistic interactions in more fully integrated agroecological systems. However, our interviews with master farmers reveal that it is not possible to start with high complexity concepts at the first go. They encourage farmers to experiment with ZBNF in a progressive manner, i.e. initially on a small portion of their land, on certain crops only, or limiting themselves to a selection of practices, which they say increases receptiveness. They felt that it was more important to get practical results first and then encourage complexity over the years. This is similar to the early steps in the “campesino to campesino” methodology in Latin America (Holt-Gimé nez 2006). Women, youth, and landless farmers The AP ZBNF program has, by design, a strong participation of women and a strategy for what they call ‘Poorest of the Poor’ (POP) category of landless farmers.11 They also provide employment to educated rural youth as technicians in the program. This is unlike the ZBNF movement in Karnataka where, barring a few experiences, women are principally present as wives 16 A. KHADSE AND P. M. ROSSET of men farmers (Khadse et al. 2017) and landless farmers are absent. Mier Y Terán et al. (2018) point towards the need for a deeper understanding of womens’ participation in agroecology, and highlight the various roles they have played in emblematic cases of agroecology. However, we agree with feminist scholars and gender activists who have pointed out that beyond highlighting women’s participation in agroecology, it is important to ask how agroecology has increased opportunities for better gender relations (Mcmahon 2004). In the case of the AP ZBNF program, we note that there was a strong presence and spaces for women. Almost half of the master farmer trainers were women farmers, who were also teaching men farmers. Moreover, the program started out with women’s SHG groups and later created men’s SHGs modeled on the former. The state also has initiatives like custom rental centers for group renting of small machinery to reduce women’s drudgery, and Non-Pesticide Shops, which sell botanicals and cow-based formulations and are mostly run by women or landless families as an additional livelihood strategy. At the same time, the state has supported the women’s SHGs with subsidized credit linkages with banks. In literature on collective enterprises, there is support for the idea that group approaches have positive effects for resource-poor women, especially when they are from a homogenous social background (i.e. caste or class) which prevent the reproduction of social inequalities (Agarwal 2010). In our interviews with women farmers in AP, they stated they felt more confidence, solidarity, and learning. Most of them did not have land titles and were never traditionally part of any state extension service. The SHGs and ZBNF combination is making agriculture extension work more positive for them. Many SHGs had initiated projects related to health, violence against women, and income generation, and now ZBNF is a new source of additional income and food security for their families. The formation of men SHGs for ZBNF, said one woman farmer, had increased her husband’s receptiveness for her group work. These are preliminary observations however and much more detailed study needs to go into the intricacies of such group work and impacts on women at the household level. The question of women’s land ownership is a critical one that this policy approach does not address. Youth have not been central to many successful scaling up cases reported in the academic literature, though anecdotal evidence suggests that they are (Mier Y Terán et al. 2018). Peasant movements active in agroecology have been emphasizing the importance of youth leadership (La Via Campesina 2017). The AP ZBNF program has hired 150 youth farmer fellows; with more added every year through a screening process. These are mostly rural students with an agriculture degree who join the program and assist master farmers in their work, while learning to practice ZBNF on leased land to supplement the honorarium provided by the state. According to our AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 17 interviews with a number of Natural Farming Fellows, most were looking to migrate to the city or for jobs, but ZBNF provided them an opportunity to work on interesting social projects in the countryside and earn an income. A majority of the youth, despite an agriculture degree, were learning about agroecology for the first time and had previously focused purely on mainstream input oriented chemical farming. Although the number of youth hired is quite small and limited to youth from educated elite backgrounds, this could be an interesting model to include rural youth in relevant sustainable development programs in rural areas. However, more livelihood opportunities need to be created for many of the rural youth from poorer families and to prevent forced migration. The POP strategy of the government aims to target landless workers SHGs to turn them into ‘net food producers’ by leasing half an acre of land and grow food crops for household consumption. There is a half-acre POP model which consists of paddy, which is a staple food crop for the household, and other vegetables, which aim to provide about 725 USD per year per family of additional income through marketable surplus. The village federations of the SHGs have been given a fund of 14 million USD by the Rural Development department to lease 5000 acres of land for 10,000 landless farmers to practice ZBNF (APZBNF 2018). We interviewed at least five POP landless women who had obtained a loan from their SHGs for initial investment and land leasing and had repaid the loan. Some also worked in the government’s work program called MNREGA. Group approaches towards land-pooling and collective production could yield greater benefits for landless families where appropriate (Agarwal 2018). Controversial partnerships AP has raised funds from both the central Indian government as well as private philanthropy and on its website claims that its first preference is governmental funds. In India, it has partnered with the fund of the philanthropist Azim Premji, who has given 72 million USD. Globally, it has recently signed agreements with organizations like the German bank KfW, and the UNEPs Sustainable India Finance Facility, which includes the European bank BNP Paribas which are pledging two billion USD raised from climate bonds for the future scaling up of ZBNF across the state. Indian activists have raised an alarm over transparency and the involvement of global financial entities in AP ZBNF which poses a contradiction for ZBNF as it promotes autonomy and aversion to global capital (Palekar 2005; Saldanha 2018). As a result of some questioning, the AP government provided agreements on its website making a positive move towards transparency, yet a key concern remains as to the food sovereignty and autonomy of AP as well as how the loans and interests will be paid back without a commercialization of the sector. 18 A. KHADSE AND P. M. ROSSET Another concern is the establishment of a massive seed park with support of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation which has openly supported transgenics and gene editing technology elsewhere (Holt-Giménez, Altieri, and Rosset 2006; Saldanha 2018). It is contradictory for the state to enter such an agreement when it claims to promote ZBNF which shuns transgenics and claims to promote solely local seeds. Agroecology advocates have expressed concerns about the rising interest of transnational corporations in agroecology. These could empty agroecology of its meaning by greenwashing, producing commodities instead of food, proprietary inputs and seeds, leading to a loss of autonomy for peasants, among others (Giraldo and Rosset 2017). Similar concerns apply to the entities in the APZBNF program. All these questions pose a contradiction for ZBNF-on the one hand, it strives to create autonomy, especially from global capital, but on the other, it is entering into agreements with the very institutions that are part of the hegemonic order of capital. As in other agroecology policy initiatives such as Brazil, APZBNF does not threaten mainstream agriculture but rather exists alongside – there is incoherence among policies (Mier Y Terán et al. 2018). AP has established many new chemical fertilizer factories (Hans India 2016) and has a fertilizer bill of 860 million USD (Jonathan 2018). Similarly, the NitiAyog, India’s major policy think tank, has now been verbally promoting ZBNF for national adoption, while at the same time recommending GMOs (Saldanha 2018). Challenges ahead Inclusivity Organic activists are concerned about Palekar’s unreasonable aversion to the organic farming label (Palekar, n.d.). They also oppose what they call an exclusive promotion of the label ZBNF by the state without any scientific evidence to support the method, while ignoring other methods like biodynamic farming, permaculture, organic farming, etc. (Saldanha 2018). At the same time, Niti Ayog’s rhetorical promotion of ZBNF is also of concern to them as it could exclude work done by organic promoters. La Via Campesina, a major global proponent of peasant agroecology, highlights the importance of ‘dialogue of knowledge’ (dialogo de saberes) between different actors in order to strengthen agroecological knowledge and movement (Martínez-Torres and Rosset 2014). While we agree that ZBNF must not discriminate against other practices we are not convinced that the question of labels is really crucial. LVC has argued that rather than worrying about the name given to any particular approach, we should be more concerned about the principles behind it (La Via Campesina 2013). Most of the approaches mentioned are largely based on the same agroecological principles, and APZBNF, in AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 19 its package of practices, is actually promoting a host of agroecological practices that are not strictly ‘ZBNF’. Other new states like Himachal who have recently started to promote ZBNF do it closely in line with organic farming (Govt of Himachal Pradesh 2018). We are also concerned about the ‘lack of evidence’ arguments, as they sound a lot like those used by agribusiness advocates to discredit agroecological approaches (Rosset and Altieri 2017). ZBNF has arguably been popularly accepted by farmers and farmers movements at a large scale over quite some time. However, we do agree that ZBNF does face a challenge if it is not able to show inclusivity to and work with other forms of agroecology. State dependencies Related to the largely paid support system for ZBNF in the state, Mier Y Terán et al. (2018) raise a concern that state support could create dependencies over time. For instance, in Brazil, the cutback of policies that supported public acquisition from peasant cooperatives and incipient agroindustrial projects for family farmers suffered when the policies were cut back (Oliveira and Baccarin 2016). We find that a lot of state focus is on the ZBNF policy, while ignoring support for grassroots social movement efforts as in Karnataka. A concern remains as to what will happen once funding ends. However, we do note that the AP program engages more in building people’s institutions, social organization, and collective capacities, which we believe can have long-term impacts. Commodification The threat of international financial institutions, as well as the UN Environment Program’s verbal promotion of exports of natural commodities from APZBNF, could lead to increasing commercialization of the food sector (Saldanha 2018). While the AP government had not made any particular exporting efforts at the time of writing this paper, there were plans to establish Farmers Producer Organizations (FPOS)12 by the federations of SHGs which would have the autonomy to engage with markets- national or international. The establishment of voluntary collective marketing entities for small farmers like FPOs has been a key demand of many farmers movements (AIKSCC 2017), but activists are concerned that an export regime could come in because of stringent certification demands. While these concerns are valid, it is too early to comment on them as such developments have not yet taken place. At the moment, APZBNF is engaging in Participatory Guarantee System certification and local markets. Export markets bring threats like rigid certification requirements, focus on export crops, and export dependence (Münster 2016). Export markets are playing a key role in many of India’s state-led organic initiatives like in Sikkim and Kerala (Kumar, Pradhan, and Singh 2018; Thottathil 2012). Many largescale 20 A. KHADSE AND P. M. ROSSET agroecological transitions like organic coffee in southern Mexico, or Brazils organic cooperatives were supported by export markets but Mier Y Terán et al. (2018) point out that agroecological scaling that is based purely on market opportunities can be vulnerable to external market logic. Market mechanisms should strengthen social movement initiatives rather than become a central driving force. In AP, many positive examples of collective marketing exist such as Deccan Development Society and Timbaktu Collective which could show the way (Deccan Development Society 2016; Kothari 2014). A challenge for APZBNF will lie in incentivizing local food sovereignty even as export opportunities open up. Conclusion ZBNF is attaining wide scale in India among more and more farm familiesinitially as a farmer-led social movement, and more recently with the adoption of a significant public policy in the state of Andhra Pradesh. Other state governments like Himachal Pradesh and Kerala are also initiating pilot programs in line with Andhra’s experience. In both cases, its wide reach has been triggered by a number of factors identified by Mier Y Terán et al. (2018) as important for the scaling up of any agroecology process. These are (1) the farm crisis in India which has led to a receptiveness for alternatives; (2) the social organization of farmers movements in Karnataka, and Self Help Groups in Andhra Pradesh; (3) horizontal teaching–learning processes; (4) simplicity of ZBNF practices; (5) mobilizing discourse; (6) external allies; (7) political opportunities in the form of key allies inside government and favorable public policies. The role of marketing efforts like collective and nested markets has also been identified by Mier Y Terán et al. (2018) as playing a key role. While we have not seen that such efforts have played an important role in the case of ZBNF, there is ample potential to develop solidarity based group marketing to scale up ZBNF in India. Andhra Pradesh’s state policy has created an apparently positive state-led model which supports local horizontal and collective learning processes with leadership of women. Their model has inspired other states to commit resources and political will to implement ZBNF. Policy support is a welcome move and important in order to move from ‘islands of success’ to massive adoption (Gregory, Plahe, and Cockfield 2017). It remains to be seen how these upcoming state interventions will unfold over time and a more detailed investigation is needed about their results and implementation. While policy interest in ZBNF is being celebrated, there is also a need for caution, especially as states try to mobilize funding for their policies. In the case of Andhra, significant resources are being mobilized from international banks. The participation of such entities could threaten the AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 21 values of autonomy and independence from capital professed by the ZBNF movement. Notes 1. It should be said, however, that in our interviews with other sustainable agriculture activists in India, many noted that they have found it difficult to align with the ZBNF movement because of Palekar’s intolerance for other sustainable agriculture, practices especially ‘organic’ farming which he calls an extension of the corporate food regime Palekar, S. n d. However, he has grouped even small-scale agroecological farmers, who may identify with the organic label with industry-led organic, and thus rejects organic. This has offended many organic farming activists and prevented alliances with other movements. However, we note that farmers have an approach that is more pragmatic than organic rules, choosing the practices that work best for them. 2. Fieldwork for this paper was conducted from 2012–2015 in Karnataka and more recently in 2017 and 2018 in Andhra Pradesh. 3. Sanskrit for abundant. 4. Palekar training camp, Guntur 2018. 5. NADEP is a type of composting method created by an Indian farmer. It speeds up the composting process and provides much larger quantities of compost as compared to normal composting systems. 6. Interview with ZBNF farmer, Krishnappa. 7. Interviews with ZBNF leaders. 8. Mathas are Hindu monastic institutions. Mostly found in a few states like Karnataka, mathas are politically powerful religious institutions and an integral part of the social fabric. They have a long history of carrying out social programs. 9. No research has been conducted on ZBNFs adoption in these countries so far. 10. Interview with member of sustainable agriculture movement in India. 11. The ZBNF program has been linked up with other national programs targeting women and POP – such as the government’s Mahila Kisan Sashaktikaran Pariyojanaa program targeting women farmers from poor households. 12. A farmers’ collective under the Companies Act of India- a producer company is a hybrid between a private limited company and a cooperative society. Acknowledgments We are deeply grateful to the members of the Zero Budget Natural Farming Movement, several activists of India’s sustainable agriculture movement, and staff and farmers connected to Andhra Pradesh governments ZBNF policy. We also thank AnneSophie Poiset for her support with some sections of an earlier unpublished draft of the paper, as well as our reviewers for their valuable comments. ORCID Ashlesha Khadse Peter M. Rosset http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3152-1776 http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1253-1066 22 A. KHADSE AND P. M. ROSSET References Abbasiyannejad, M., A. D. Silong, I. A. Ismail, J. Othman, N. Wahiza, and A. Wahat. 2015. Charismatic leadership and society. International Research Journal of Social Sciences, 4(1), 68–73. Adhikari, Prabhakar, Hailu Araya, Gerald Aruna, Arun Balamatti, Soumik Banerjee, P. Baskaran, B. C. Barah, et al. 2018. System of crop intensification for more productive, resource-conserving, climate-resilient, and sustainable agriculture: Experience with diverse crops in varying agroecologies. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 16 (1). Taylor & Francis: 1–28. doi:10.1080/14735903.2017.1402504. Agarwal, B. 2010. Rethinking agricultural production collectivities. Economic & Political Weekly, xlv (9), 64–78. Agarwal, B. 2018. Can group farms outperform individual family farms? Empirical insights from India. World Development 108:57–73. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.03.010. AIKSCC. 2017. Demands of all India Kisan Sangharsh coordination committee. http://Aikscc. Com. http://aikscc.com/demands/. Altieri, M., and C. Nicholls. 2008. Scaling up agroecological approaches for food sovereignty in Latin America. Development 51:472–80. doi:10.1057/dev.2008.68. Altieri, Miguel A. 2018. Agroecology: The Science of Sustainable Agriculture, Second Edition. doi: 10.1201/9780429495465. Amareswari, P. U., and P. Sujathamma. 2014. Jeevamrutha as an alternative of chemical fertilizers in rice production. Agricultural Science Digest - A Research Journal 34 (3):240. doi:10.5958/0976-0547.2014.01012.X. APZBNF. 2018. Zero budget natural farming. Http://Apzbnf.in/Faq/. http://apzbnf.in/faq/. ASHA. 2015. Ecological agriculture in India: Scientific Evidence on Positive Impacts. www. kisanswaraj.in. Balaraju, B., H. Tripathi, and J. Yadav. 2017. Reasons for Decreasing Indigenous Cattle Population and Interventions in its Conservation: A perceptual study of field veterinarians in Karnataka. International Journal of Livestock Research 7 (12). BNNMurali. 2016. Zbnf Layout Plans. https://agricultureforbetterfarming.wordpress.com/ 2016/07/04/zbnf-plants-planting-layout-plans-2016/. Brown, Trent. 2018. Farmers, Subalterns, and activists : social politics of sustainable agriculture in India. New Delhi: Cambridge University Press. Chitkara, M. G., and B. R. Sharma. 1997. Indian republic: Issues and perspective. New Delhi: Ashish Publishing House. Deccan Development Society. 2016. Community controlled public distribution system: Experiences from Andhra Pradesh. Accessed November 2. http://ddsindia.com/PDF/ Community PDS.pdf.. Deshmukh, J. 2004. Women’s self-help groups in Andhra Pradesh: Participatory poverty alleviation in action. Info.Worldbank.Org. http://info.worldbank.org/etools/docs/reducing poverty/case/82/fullcase/India SHGS Full Case.pdf.. Giraldo, O. F., and P. M. Rosset. 2017. Agroecology as a territory in dispute: Between institutionality and social movements. The Journal of Peasant Studies 45 (3):545–64. doi:10.1080/03066150.2017.1353496. Govt of Himachal Pradesh. 2018. Himachal Pradesh government notification. http://www.hillag ric.ac.in/aboutus/registrar/pdf/2018/GA/30.05.2018/GA-30.05.2018-24882-98-29.05.2018.pdf. Gregory, L., J. Plahe, and S. Cockfield. 2017. The marginalisation and resurgence of traditional knowledge systems in India: Agro-Ecological ‘Islands of Success’ or a wave of change? South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies 40 (3):582–99.doi:10.1080/00856401.2017.1336686. Holt-Giménez, E. 2001. Scaling up sustainable agriculture lessons from the campesino a campesino movement. LEISA Magazine. October 2001: 27-29. AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 23 Holt-Gimé nez, E. 2006. Campesino a campesino. Voices from Latin America’s farmer to farmer movement for sustainable Agriculture. 1st ed. Oakland, CA: Food First Books. Holt-Giménez, E., M. A. Altieri, and P. Rosset. 2006. Ten reasons why the Rockefeller and the Bill and Melinda Gates foundations’ alliance for another green revolution will not solve the problems of poverty and hunger in Sub-Saharan Africa. www.foodfirst.org. India, H. 2016. AP Inks 10k Cr fertilizer plant deal with chinese firms. Http://Www. Thehansindia.Com. http://www.thehansindia.com/posts/index/Andhra-Pradesh/2016-0628/AP-inks-10k-cr-fertilizer-plant-deal-with-Chinese-firms/238133. Jonathan, S. 2018. Natural farming is the only way out, says expert. The Hindu. https://www. thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-andhrapradesh/natural-farming-is-the-onlyway-out-says-expert/article24092671.ece. Khadse, A., P. Rosset, H. Morales, and B. G. Ferguson. 2017. Taking agroecology to scale: the Zero Budget Natural Farming peasant movement in Karnataka, India. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 1–28. Kothari, A. 2014. Very much on the map: The Timbaktu collective.” http://kalpavriksh.org/ images/alternatives/CaseStudies/Timbaktu Collective_Case study report_20Mar2014.pdf. Kumar, J., M. Pradhan, and N. Singh. 2018. Sustainable organic farming in Sikkim: An inclusive perspective. In: S. SenGupta, Z. AS, K. Sherpa, and A. Bhoi, (eds). Advances in Smart Grid and Renewable Energy. Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering, (pp. 367–78). Singapore: Springer. La Via Campesina. 2013. From Maputo to Jakarta: 5 years of agroecology in La Via Campesina. Jakarta. La Via Campesina. 2016. Zero budget natural farming in India. Family Farming Knowledge Platform of FAO. http://www.fao.org/family-farming/detail/en/c/429762/. La Via Campesina. 2017. VIIth International Conference, La Via Campesina: Euskal herria declaration - Via Campesina. Www.Viacampesina.Org. https://viacampesina.org/en/viithinternational-conference-la-via-campesina-euskal-herria-declaration/. La Via Campesina South Asia. 2015. Call for participation in international agroecology training at Amritha Bhoomi (India) October 28-Nov 5. Lvcsouthasia.Blogspot.In. http:// bit.ly/1tk0MdX. LEISA. 2003. Learning with farmer field schools — AgriCultures network.” http://www. agriculturesnetwork.org/magazines/global/learning-with-farmer-field-schools. Martínez-Torres, M.E., and P. Rosset. 2014. Diálogo de saberes in La Vía Campesina: Food sovereignty and agroecology . Journal of Peasant Studies 41 (6):979–97. Mcmahon, M. 2004. Gender and organic agriculture: A local and partisan position. First Annual Conference for Social Research in Organic Agriculture, Guelph, Ontario. Mier y Terán, M., O. F. Giraldo, M. Aldasoro, H. Morales, B. G. Ferguson, P. Rosset, A. Khadse, and C. Campos. 2018. Bringing agroecology to scaKey drivers and emblematic cases. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 42 (6):637–65. Taylor & Francis. doi:10.1080/ 21683565.2018.1443313. Münster, D. 2016. Agro-Ecological double movements? Zero budget natural farming and alternative agricultures after the neoliberal crisis in Kerala. In Critical perspectives on agrarian transition: India in the global debate, ed. B. B. Mohanty, 222–44. India: Routledge. Nicholls, C.I., and M. A. Altieri. 2018. Pathways for the amplification of agroecology. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 42 (10): 1170–93. NSSO. 2014. Key indicators of situation of agricultural households in India. National Sample Survey Office, Government of India. Oliveira, J. A., and J. G. Baccarin. 2016. Organização Espacial e Execução Do Programa de Aquisição de Alimentos Da Agricultura Familiar Entre 2003–2012. Revista Equador 5 (2):120–38. 24 A. KHADSE AND P. M. ROSSET Palekar, S. 2005. The philosophy of spiritual farming I. 2nd ed. Amravati: Zero Budget Natural Farming Research, Development & Extension Movement, Amravati, Maharashtra, India. Palekar, S. 2006. The principles of spiritual farming II. 2nd ed. Amravati: Zero Budget Natural Farming Research, Development & Extension Movement, Amravati, Maharashtra, India. http://www.vedicbooks.net/principles-spiritual-farming-volume-p-14779.html. Palekar, S. n d. Is organic farming a conspiracy. Amravati: Zero Budget Spritual Farming Research, Development and Extension Movement. https://es.scribd.com/doc/141781151/ subash-palekar-book-list. Parmentier, S. 2014. Scaling-up agroecological approaches: What, why and how? Belgium: Oxfam Solidarity. Rao, G.B. 2012. Current climate variability in Andhra Pradesh and adaptation options available. Hyderabad: Food and Agriculture Organization and Global Environmental Facility. Rosset, P., B. M. Sosa, A. M. R. Jaime, and D. R. Á. Lozano. 2011. The campesino-tocampesino agroecology movement of ANAP in Cuba: Social process methodology in the construction of sustainable peasant agriculture and food sovereignty. The Journal of Peasant Studies 38 (1):161–91. doi:10.1080/03066150.2010.538584. Rosset, P., and M. E. Martínez-Torres. 2012. Rural social movements and agroecology: Context, theory, and process. Ecology and Society 17 (3):17. doi:10.5751/ES-05000-170317. Rosset, P., and M.A. Altieri. 2017. Agroecology : science and politics. Manitoba: Fernwood publishing. Saldanha, L. F. 2018. A review of Andhra Pradesh’s climate resilient zero budget natural farming programme. http://www.esgindia.org/sites/default/files/education/communityoutreach/press/crzbnf-review-saldanha-esg-oct-2018.pdf. Satishkumar, M., and K. B. Umesh. 2018. Farmers strategies to cope labour shortage in northern and southern dry zones of Karnataka, India. Current Agriculture Research Journal 6 (2):206–12. doi:10.12944/CARJ.6.2.10. Sosa, M., A. Braulio, M. R. Jaime, D. R. Á. Lozano, and P. Rosset. 2010. Revolución Agroecológica: El Movimiento de Campesino a Campesino de La ANAP. Havana: ANAP and La Via Campesina. Sreenivasa, M. N., Nagaraj Naik, and S. N. Bhat. 2009. “Beejamrutha: A Source for Beneficial Bacteria.” Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Sciences 22 (5). University of Agricultural Sciences: 1038–40. Thottathil, S. E. 2012. Ncredible Kerala? A political ecological analysis of organic agriculture. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6vc7m7ht. Van Seters, D. A., and R. H. G. Field. 1990. The evolution of leadership theory. Journal of Organizational Change Management 3 (3):29–45. doi:10.1108/09534819010142139. Varghese, S., and K. Hansen-Kuhn. 2013. Scaling Up agroecology. Towards the realization of the right to food. Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy. Via Campesina, La. 2016. “Zero Budget Natural Farming in India.” Family Farming Knowledge Platform of Fao. Http://www.fao.org/family-farming/detail/en/c/ 429762/ Vijay, K. T., P. Shah, D. V. Smriti Lakhey, J. K. Raidu, V. Kalavakonda, and M. Pillai. 2009. Ecologically sound, economically viable : Community managed sustainable agriculture in Andhra Pradesh, India. Washington D.C.: The World Bank. Warner, K. D. 2008. Agroecology as participatory science. Science, Technology, & Human Values 33 (6):754–77. SAGE PublicationsSage CA: Los Angeles, CA. doi:10.1177/0162243907309851. Wezel, A., S. Bellon, T. Doré, C. Francis, D. Vallod, and C. David. 2009. Agroecology as a science, a movement and a practice. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 29:503–15. doi:10.1051/agro/2009004. Wijeratna, A. 2018. Agroecology Scaling Up, Scaling Out. Action Aid. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems ISSN: 2168-3565 (Print) 2168-3573 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjsa21 Agroecology and La Via Campesina I. The symbolic and material construction of agroecology through the dispositive of “peasant-to-peasant” processes Valentín Val, Peter M. Rosset, Carla Zamora Lomelí, Omar Felipe Giraldo & Dianne Rocheleau To cite this article: Valentín Val, Peter M. Rosset, Carla Zamora Lomelí, Omar Felipe Giraldo & Dianne Rocheleau (2019): Agroecology and La Via Campesina I. The symbolic and material construction of agroecology through the dispositive of “peasant-to-peasant” processes, Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, DOI: 10.1080/21683565.2019.1600099 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2019.1600099 Published online: 14 Apr 2019. Submit your article to this journal View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wjsa21 AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2019.1600099 Agroecology and La Via Campesina I. The symbolic and material construction of agroecology through the dispositive of “peasant-to-peasant” processes Valentín Val a, Peter M. Rosset a,b, Carla Zamora Lomelí Omar Felipe Giraldo a, and Dianne Rocheleau c a , a Department of Agriculture, Society, and the Environment, El Colegio de la Frontera Sur (ECOSUR), San Cristóbal de Las Casas, Chiapas, Mexico; bEducation Faculty of Crateús and Graduate Program on Sociology, Universidade Estadual do Ceará (UECE), Brazil; cGraduate School of Geography, Clark University, Worcester, MA, USA ABSTRACT KEYWORDS In this essay, we look at the symbolic and material territorialization of agroecology in La Via Campesina (LVC) through peasant-topeasant processes (PtPPs) in the broad sense. The most significant examples of the scaling up of agroecology are clearly tied to organizational processes and in our perspective, PtPPs are the motor of these changes. We contend that agroecology, subjects, and territories are articulated in these processes, making up a powerful dispositive or device for agroecological transformation and scaling up. We also introduce a discussion on the emergence of a historical-political subject, the “agroecological peasantry,” within the larger territorial dispute concerning the transformation of the agri-food system and living conditions in the countryside. La Via Campesina; peasantto-peasant process; dispositive; agroecology; scaling up Introduction This is the first of two articles in which we will conceptually address different strategies and dispositives,1 devices or mechanisms to scale up and “massify” agroecology within La Vía Campesina International (LVC). We outline here the initial ideas around the construction of peasant to peasant processes (PtPP) as a dispositive for agroecological scaling up and transformation, the mobilization of a peasant political project and the building of a historical and political subject within the universe of organizations linked to LVC. In this article, we conceptually describe the general PtPP dispositive, while in the second one we focus on the political and pedagogical processes of agroecology within LVC as a more specific dispositive (see Rosset et al. in this issue). This work is fundamentally based on the achievements of the agroecological movement of the Cuban Asociación Nacional de Agricultores Pequeños (ANAP, National Small Farmers Association), because they are paradigmatic CONTACT Peter M. Rosset [email protected] Department of Agriculture, Society, and the Environment, El Colegio de la Frontera Sur (ECOSUR), San Cristóbal de Las Casas, Chiapas, Mexico Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/wjsa. © 2019 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC 2 V. VAL ET AL. in terms of scaling up agroecology and at the same time are a central reference point for the processes being developed in LVC at a continental and global scale (La Vía Campesina 2012, 2016; Machín Sosa et al. 2010; Rosset et al. 2011; Val 2012). To provide perspective, we describe the context in which the PtP methodology arrived in Cuba, and how this social methodology was gradually transformed into a dispositive for the integration of agroecologies, territories, and subjects. The heart of this essay is then devoted to the ways in which this dispositive is configured. In the final part, we discuss the importance of PtPPs in territorializing agroecology, as well as in the emergence of the “agroecological peasantry” as an historical and political subject for the materialization of political project of LVC. We argue that these processes together form a powerful strategy for the scaling up of agroecology. For us, scaling up refers as much to the more broadly recognized quantitative dimension (integrating ever more people, communities and organizations in agroecology) as to the qualitative dimension of the processes of organizing, transmitting and consolidating agroecology as a way of living in actual territories (Brescia 2017; Gliessman 2018; Gonsalves 2001; HoltGiménez 2001; Parmentier 2014; Rosset and Altieri 2017). For us, scaling up does not mean linearly reproducing preconceived models nor taking something small and making it big, but rather strengthening and multiplying many small processes (Rosset 2015a). In our perspective, the key to the scaling up potential of PtPPs is rooted in a balance between organization and spontaneity, the articulation of hierarchal and horizontal structures, as well as in the ability to generate frames of reference and networks without imposing one-size-fits-all models. In other words, a network design that can self-organize itself and create emerging processes of agroecological (re)territorialization. These processes cannot be reproduced in a straightforward fashion. Instead, culturally and environmentally unique and adequate endogenous processes are developed in each territory. These are articulated or connected processes, based on cooperation and solidarity, yet without impositions nor predefined templates (Giraldo 2018; Rosset 2015a). The most significant examples of the scaling up of agroecology are tied to organizational processes (De Schutter 2010; Rosset and Altieri 2017; Mier y Terán et al., 2018). In particular, processes in which peasants play the role of protagonist are key to fostering the scaling up of agroecology. In order to integrate more people and territories in the agroecological movement, an essential task is working to consolidate peasant organizations in the development of their own social, territorial, and political processes (Rosset 2015a). This is why PtP processes are central in LVC’s agroecology strategy for scaling up peasant agroecology. AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 3 The phrase peasant to peasant (or farmer to farmer) usually brings to mind the “campesino to campesino” methodology for the horizontal transmission of technical and productive knowledge (Holt-Giménez 2006). This is a participatory methodology that seeks to break with top down, hierarchical knowledge-power relations and the dependence on outside experts; it is a process in which the subjects are coproducers of knowledge through the exchange of ideas, experiences and innovations in agroecological production (PtP strict sensu) (Holt-Giménez 2006; Kohlmans 2006; Rosset et al. 2011). In these teaching-learning forms, the learning occurs “in the furrow,” and on the farm, which is an ideal environment for learning, training and experimentation. Successful innovations and experiments are collectively systematized and used as examples to motivate others and strengthen and expand agroecological production (Machín Sosa et al. 2010; Val 2012; Vásquez Zeledón and Rivas Espinoza 2006). These processes are typically linked to other areas of training or formation such as Peasant Schools (McCune, Reardon, and Rosset 2014; McCune et al. 2016; Barbosa 2013; Barbosa and Rosset, 2017; see also Khadse and Rosset, Rosset et al.; and Domené and Herrera. in this issue); spaces of local, national and international political organization and articulation (meetings, events, workshops, etc.); “South-South cooperation”; and “peasant organization to peasant organization” processes (Rosset et al. 2011). In all of these spaces, different articulation and exchange processes are developing what we can globally describe as peasant to peasant processes (PtPPs). This latter meaning is the one we will be referring to throughout this article when we talk about peasant to peasant processes. In an earlier article by our research group (Mier y Terán et al., 2018), 8 key factors were identified as drivers of processes for scaling up agroecology in different contexts: (1) the existence of a crisis that drives the search for alternatives, (2) social organization, (3) constructivist learning processes, (4) effective agroecological practices, (5) mobilizing discourses, (6) external allies, (7) favorable markets, and (8) favorable policies. In broad terms, PtPPs affect, to a greater or lesser extent, all of the key drivers identified by the authors. The very emergence of PtP processes is related to the search for alternatives in the face of the crisis (factor 1); self-organizing to share effective agroecology practices using a horizontal model (factors 2, 3, and 4); generating engaging discourses and articulating alliances (factors 5 and 6); designing and organizing strategies with consumers (factor 7); and outlining and demanding favorable public policies and/or making them effective (factor 8). In this work, we will focus on how these factors are joined, articulated and feed off each other in the PtPPs. Other experiences or areas in which we consider PtPPs to be important are approached from different angles in this special issue, on agroecology schools and training processes, (Rosset et al., Khadse and Rosset; Domené and 4 V. VAL ET AL. Herrera; Aldasoro et al.; Morales and Ferguson), and other organizational processes such as the recovery and strengthening of local seed systems (García et al., in this issue), peasant markets (Pérez and Mier y Terán, in this issue) and public policies (Giraldo and McCune, in this issue). Peasant to peasant: from methodology to dispositive The peasant to peasant methodology took its first steps in Guatemala, México and Nicaragua (Boege and Carranza 2009; Holt-Giménez 2006; Ramos 1998). In fact, it was in Nicaragua, in 1996, that a Cuban ANAP leader “discovered” PtP, noted its catalyzing potential and got excited about the possibility of integrating this methodology into the emerging Cuban agroecology process (Machín Sosa et al. 2010; Chirino, 2014). The development of agroecology in Cuba was closely tied to the deep crisis of the food and agriculture sector commonly called “the special period in peacetime” at the beginning of the 1990s. The fall of the socialist camp meant for Cuba the sudden loss of 85% of its export markets and an end to its supply of oil, machinery, agricultural inputs, and foodstuffs at subsidized prices (Figueras Matos et al., 2005; González Mastrapa and Susset Pérez, 2010; Doimeadios, 2011). In the countryside, the conventional “green revolution” model with its high dependence on inputs supplied by the Soviet Union collapsed and largescale agricultural production came to a halt. Against this background, it became apparent that the productive capacity of one sector of the rural population was not severely affected. Thus, the traditional peasantry became the focus of a forced pace reconversion of the conventional agri-food production model (Figueras Matos 2005; Machín Sosa et al. 2010). The ANAP, in coordination with universities, research centers, government institutions and NGOs, promoted and drove this transition toward small-scale agriculture,2 based on traditional peasant technologies, without external inputs and integrating agroecological production principles (Machín Sosa et al. 2010; Val 2012). In this context ANAP “discovered” the PtP methodology in Nicaragua. In 1997, a small project was launched in the province of Villa Clara, aimed at the agroecological adaptation and transformation of agri-food production.3 Two years later, the project was extended as a program to the country’s entire central region with the inclusion of the provinces of Sancti Spiritus and Cienfuegos (Figueras Matos 2005; Machín Sosa et al. 2010). The positive impact of this methodology and the recovery of productivity in participating farms, convinced the ANAP to convert the program into a nationwide mass movement. This is how the Movimiento Agroecológico de Campesino a Campesino ”(MACAC, Peasant to peasant agroecology movement) emerged in, 2001 (Machín Sosa et al. 2010; Rosset et al. 2011; Val 2012). AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 5 The MACAC is based on the emulation of peasants by other peasants; it is a “pedagogy of experience” and a “pedagogy of the example” (Barbosa and Rosset 2017) in which a peasant family visits another family that has found an adequate agroecological solution to a common problem. In such visits, families exchange experiences, learn from each other and both strengthen their knowledge (Machín Sosa et al. 2010; Val 2012; 2017). The core objective is to build territorial processes that support the scaling up of agroecology, by integrating many families in agroecological production together with an expansion of the territory and subjects involved in agroecological praxis (Machín Sosa et al. 2010; Rosset 2015a; Rosset and Altieri 2017; Rosset et al. 2011). Throughout the agroecological movement’s 20-plus years of existence, its scope and importance have grown within the ANAP, to the point that today this movement is central to its vision of peasant production. From a few more than 200 families in 1999, the movement grew to 110,000 families 10 years later, representing about one third of the peasant sector in Cuba (Machín Sosa et al. 2010). In 2009 the movement already had a solid structure at its different levels (cooperative, municipal, provincial, and national), with approximately 12,000 agroecological promoters, 3,000 facilitators, and 170 coordinators (Machín Sosa et al. 2010; Rosset et al. 2011). Today, we estimate that almost half of the Cuban peasantry participates in the MACAC, while the spillover effect of non-participating families who still have incorporated some agroecological practices means that the full impact is even greater (Rosset and Val 2018). The organizational experience of Cuba’s MACAC is being promoted among LVC’s organizations as a successful example for the scaling up and massification of agroecology (Machín Sosa et al. 2010; Rosset et al. 2011; Rosset and Val 2018; Val 2012). Through LVC, the ANAP is practicing broad peasant internationalism by collaborating with numerous peasant organizations of Latin America and the world. In addition, LVC organizes regular visits to Cuba for its member organizations, in order to participate in conferences and exchanges and training processes at the “Niceto Pérez García” Integral Training Center which is the ANAP’s training school.4 One of the most popular courses for the LVC peasant organizations is the PtP methodology workshop, in which the ANAP shares its methodology, achievements, challenges, and innovations in building the MACAC and scaling up agroecology in Cuba (Machín Sosa et al. 2010; LVC, 2015, 2017).5 Agroecology and PtP processes were redefined and given new meaning in the Cuban context in a sui generis manner. The PtP methodology was combined with the tactics and organizational forms of a grassroot mass organization, producing in a dynamic movement, with a high level of organization and a specific strategy for the massification of agroecology. A politically articulated movement articulated with Latin-American and 6 V. VAL ET AL. international peasant organizations supporting the transformation of the agri-food system with social and environmental justice as banners of struggle. The emergence of food sovereignty and the construction of a global strategy of defending territories, seeds and the commons represent some results of this articulation (Machín Sosa et al. 2010; Martínez-Torres and Rosset 2014; Rosset 2013; Rosset et al. 2011; Val 2012, 2017). The process of innovation initially sparked in Cuba became a reconfiguring of PtP as a multidimensional and complex dispositive for the assembly and integration of agroecologies, territories and subjects. Through the action of this dispositive, heterogeneous concepts of agroecology emerge and undergo (re)configurations, while the dispositive also articulates material and immaterial territorialities at the local level, articulates them with other territories and territorialities, and helps(re)construct both local peasant subjects and an emerging global peasant meta-subject, the “agroecological peasantry.” We use the term dispositive in the sense of an alternative and counterhegemonic power dispositive developed to counter the technologies of power and the structures of oppression of “disciplinary societies” (Foucault 1992, 2000), today transformed into control societies (Deleuze 2006). It is also a multidimensional mechanism for assembling different interrelated practices, discourses and representations that are put into play for a specific collective action (Svampa 2009; Tilly 1978; Zamora 2014). We are talking here about PtP as a flexible dispositive or mechanism, a set of concepts/actions/possibilities united by a kind of “gravitational force,” without a unique center of gravity, but rather with the relational dynamics of a polycentric gravity. We will call these different complementary forces that give coherence to the dispositive vectors. In what follows and in Figure 1 we present this complex dispositive by focusing on three basic vectors: (1) for assembling agroecologies; (2) for the (re)construction and articulation of territories; and (3) for facilitating the emergence of the peasant as subject. This separation in vectors is a stylized, abstracted representation for analytical purposes; in practice, these dimensions are interrelated and interpenetrate permanently with each other, so much so that it is hard to determine where one ends and the other begins. Vector 1: dispositive for assembling agroecologies This vector contains, in general terms, what we might call PtPPs sensu stricto, as in the well-known CaC methodologies and processes. That is, a horizontal process of collective training and promotion of agroecology, a space-time of interaction in alternative ontological, epistemic, and philosophical terms, from which emerge, and are (re)signified, knowledges, practices, and discourses that nourish the concept of agroecology. AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS Peasant subject(s) Organize/Enunciate Vector 3 PtPP Feedback Strengthen Organize Defends Interweaves resignifies (re)territorializes Assembles 7 Agroecology(ies) Recover transforms (re)territorializes Vector 1 Vector 2 Articulates/Connects Territory(ies) Figure 1. The three vectors in the peasant-to-peasant process (PtPP) dispositive for the construction of agroecology. We focus here on the PtP process as a mechanism for assembling different dimensions of agroecology that articulates technical-productive, politicalideological, and ontological-epistemic-experiential aspects. This is a process in which agroecology is built and legitimized as a field of existence possibilities for peasant lifestyles, a 21st-century update of “agri-culture” as a form of production and a way of living (Giraldo 2018). Agroecology is a polysemic term; a disputed concept (Giraldo and Rosset 2018). In specific contexts, agroecology is seen as a series of principles and a guide for agri-food production based on ecological principles without using any inputs from outside the system (Rosset and Altieri 2017). It refers to the shaping, dynamics, transformation, and management of agroecosystems around small-scale peasant, indigenous and family farm production, integrating local knowledge, traditional practices, and technological innovations.6 As an analytical proposition, agroecology is related to cultural ecology and its contemporary heir, political ecology. It is fed by heterodox marxism, postmodern debates and decolonial critiques and formulates new perspectives on the conceptualization of relations between human beings and nature (Calle Collado and Y Gallar 2010; Giraldo 2016, 2018; Sevilla Guzmán 2006). Furthermore, many peasant organizations and rural social movements conceive agroecology as more than a set of technical-productive principles, with the integration of social, cultural, and political principles (Calle Collado and Gallar 2010; Machín Sosa et al. 2010; Rosset and Martínez-Torres , 2016). Therefore, it can be said that agroecology has at least three intimately related and embedded fundamental dimensions: 8 V. VAL ET AL. (1) A technical-productive dimension (agronomic, scientific, and disciplinary: “material agroecology” or “agroecology as farming” [Rosset and Martínez-Torres ]) (2) A political-organizational dimension (a mobilization field: “immaterial agroecology” or “agroecology as framing” [Rosset and Martínez-Torres ]), and (3) An ontological-epistemic-experiential dimension (a way of being, knowing, living, and producing [da Silva 2014]). We are here referring to agroecology in a local but holistic sense, as a specific assembly in a given space-time and concrete reality, in dialogue with global realities. Doing, living, and producing locally are integrated into a broader political discourse with mutual feedback. Agroecology therefore becomes an articulating and legitimizing dispositive of alternatives for the rural worlds. A framework of political action, subjectivities, representations, and practices as alternatives to the hegemonic model of agribusiness and the project of capital (Borras, Edelman, and Kay 2008; Desmarais 2007; Martínez-Torres and Rosset 2008, 2010, 2013). It is a semantically updated agriculture; the constitution of a particular peasant emergence in the 21st century that is agroecological, organized, and antihegemonic. Vector, 2: dispositive for the (re)construction and articulation of territories The(re)construction of territory/ies here has two meanings: on the one hand, the recovery and/or (re)construction of specific territories based on peasant territoriality and (re)territorialization (Haesbert 2011, 2013); on the other, the invention (sensu Porto-Gonçalves 2014) of different immaterial territories for the defense of concrete territory (Fernandes 2009; 2017; Rosset and Martínez-Torres ; Rosset 2013). The fate of subjects in the rural world develops in particular contexts according to each cultural matrix and temporal-spatial coordinates. This space-time is one of the dimensions of a territory that is (re)constructed, appropriated and given meaning in the specific web of social, humanitynature, spiritual, and other kinds of relations in which the subjects are immersed. We argue here, following Arturo Escobar (1999, 2005, 2010), that the configurations of peasant space-times are ontologically different from those of hegemonic capitalist modernity – although not totally foreign to them. According to Giddens (1986), capitalist modernity produced an unmooring effect when it shifted social relations from contexts of local interaction and restructured them through undefined extensions of space-time. He identifies two main mechanisms for this unmooring: that of “symbolic tokens” (such as currency) that circulate without taking into account specific AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 9 environments, groups or particular contexts, and that of “experts,” whose specialized knowledge allows them to appropriate countless technologies and services in an exclusive manner. To a certain extent, PtPPs fight these “unmooring mechanisms.” On the one hand, their central values are cooperation and reciprocity (antagonistic to monetized exchange), and on the other, they contest the mechanism of expert systems, since knowledge-power is dispersed among different players and dynamic, rotational, and contextual roles. Thus, PtP can be understood as a “re-mooring mechanism” that recontextualizes social relations and (re) creates communities based on an alternative space-time that is antagonistic to that of delocalized globalized societies. Giddens (1986) asserts that the local is being stretched toward the global, while Harvey (1998) posits that the compression of space-time is a condition of postmodernity. These assertions may seem contradictory, but they should be seen as complementary and relational in the process of homogenizing the spacetime of human beings. In the sense that we are arguing here, peasants are resignifying and using this stretching of the global in order to stem the compression of modernity and revitalize local space-time through the (re)creation of social and convivial relations, and in this way (re)create community (Illich 2006; Giraldo 2016). Thus, in the process of maintaining their space-times of existence and avoiding being overrun by globalization, they act as antagonistic forces against the homogenizing inertia of capitalist modernity and post-modernity. A great dispute is raging around territory, displacement and changes in the relations between human beings and nature. Subjects produce their own territories, whose destruction means their demise. Dispossession (Harvey 2004) destroys subjects, identities, and social groups, and this is why territorial struggles and disputes are centered on it. Territory is intimately related to power and control over social processes through the control of space, which is why de-territorialization cannot be separated from reterritorialization (Haesbaert, 2013, 5). Since the end of WWII, and more aggressively over the last decades, transnational corporations (TNCs) have spread across the globe with a development model based on the appropriation and extraction of common goods, and their transformation into commodities. The peasantry, indigenous peoples and rural social movements have resisted this expansion because the territorialization of TNCs directly leads to the deterritorialization of rural peoples (Fernandes , 2009). In turn, the resistance of rural social movements can create multiterritoriality through struggles for the deterritorialization of TNCs. Peasant, afrodescendant and indigenous communities are disputing territories, based on their collective identities, as a sine qua non for their survival (Fernandes 2017; Martínez-Torres and Rosset 2010, 2013; Rosset 2013; Rosset and Martínez-Torres , 2016). 10 V. VAL ET AL. Immaterial territory crosscuts every dimension of physical territory. As power relations, it is also linked to control and domination of knowledgebuilding and representation processes (Fernandes 2017). In our view, PtP can be a dispositive for the creation and articulation of knowledge, practices and representations. But, paraphrasing Marx, in PtP there is no separation between intellectual work (creation of concepts) and manual work (concrete practices); nor is there a rigid hierarchical structure in which superstructures are conceived and then grounded in a particular praxis. Rather there is a dialogic and dialectic process between conceptualizations and practices. PtP processes act as dispositive that tie together different knowledges, territories and experiences through local, national and international exchanges, and they contribute to the (re)creation and (re)articulation of local and global peasant space-times. In what is called diálogo de saberes (dialogue of knowledges), peasants, activists, leaders, and organic intellectuals (sensu Gramsci) name and enunciate concepts that peasants themselves create based on their practices and representations (Martínez-Torres and Rosset 2014). In this sense, PtP is one of the most productive “concept kitchens” in the LVC universe. Thus, PtP acts as a transversal axis that links local territories (plot, farm, cooperative, community, etc.) to spaces of macro-articulation such as international meetings organized by LVC, South-South cooperation processes, and “peasant organization to peasant organization” processes (Rosset et al. 2011). It covers the entire network of micro- and macroarticulations that are woven simultaneously and acquire a certain degree of coherence through diálogos de saberes and intercultural translation processes (Santos 2010) that occur in different space-times and scales (Martínez-Torres and Rosset 2013, 2014; Rosset and Martínez-Torres , 2016). In summary, PtPPs represent a prime space for territorial (re)construction and articulation, and at the same time for (re)assembling the material and immaterial dimensions of territories. Vector 3: the emergence of the agroecological peasantry The peasantry has a long and complex history of struggle. Today a broad peasant movement exists, and there are many factors that are contributing to the (re)emergence of the peasantry as a historical-political subject. In this section, we will focus on a specific dispositive, PtPPs, and a particular emergent actor, the agroecological peasantry, as it takes shape through the articulated organizational processes within LVC. We argue that the PtPPs are catalyzing territorial processes and strengthening the construction of a social and political subject that articulates multiple dimensions of agroecology, as part of struggles, and for the production and reproduction of daily life.7 AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 11 We have before us a subject profoundly impacted by the globalization of capital’s logic and its advances in material territories, and by new (mainly information and communications) technologies and that has a very significant degree of supra-local political and territorial organization and articulation. All of this contributes to the configuration of a meta-subject as a dispositive for the creation of a more inclusive collective sense of belonging (Zemelman 2010), where the political is emerging as a facet of “agroecology as framing” for mobilization (La Vía Campesina 2011, 2012, 2013, 2015a, 2016; Rosset and Martínez-Torres , 2016). We suggest here that PtP processes act as dispositives and loci for the collective (re)construction of subjectivities; spaces in which these discourses, representations, and practices are developed and socialized based on the epistemes of the peasantry (Rosset 2015b; Rosset and MartínezTorres ). The dispositive is the place – not as a physical space, but rather as a field (Bourdieu 1998) – in which a set of meanings around agroecology as an alternative for both production and for life emerge and are shared. A PtP process provides an environment of trust in which these ways of being have a place where they can be expressed, and the transformational potential can advance toward concrete reality. In PtPPs, the agroecological peasantry is shaped in the bodies and minds of those who actively participate in the process, becoming a material force. Of course this is not the only space in which the peasant political subject is (re) emerging, but it is an important one. The PtPPs work as a transmission belt in the local-global circuit of constructing subjectivities. This is where one can observe how this assembling occurs in two directions: (1) in a “centripetal” movement in which local subjects organize and strengthen themselves; and (2) in a “centrifugal” movement, in the building of a peasant meta-subject that both contains and opens spaces for the existence of local projects. The articulation of different local subjects feeds into the building of the global meta-subject through the conscious use of strategic essentialism (sensu Spivak 1987; see also MartínezTorres and Rosset 2010) – designed for the dispute in an arena distinct from local space-times; a global entity that at the same time allows them to “download” defense tools to their territories. At the same time, the PtPPs provide more flexible and equitable reference models and mobilizing frameworks. Organization from this not totally hierarchical type of structure favors dehierarchizing political practices. The experience and praxis of nondominant groups can help generate nondominant forms of political and social organization (Rocheleau, personal communication). Furthermore, PtP strengthens autonomous processes and reduces the dependence on institutions and the state, reducing the risk that agroecology be bureaucratized and coopted by dominant powers (Giraldo and Rosset 2018; see Giraldo and McCune in this same issue). 12 V. VAL ET AL. In the PtPPs, alternative construction networks are being woven. They are spaces in which the solidarity mystique is recreated, common values are reinforced and a collective conscience for social mobilization for transformation is gradually built (La Vía Campesina 2011, 2012, 2013, 2015a, 2016; Rosset and Martínez-Torres , 2016). In addition, they are spaces for the (re) emergence of ancestral cosmovisions and territorialities, that are updated in dialogues with contemporary knowledge (Martínez-Torres and Rosset 2010, 2013, 2014), in which innovations and existing repertoires are recombined to generate new alternatives in the “art of cultivating and inhabiting the land” (Giraldo 2014, 2018). If capitalism is a system of multiple domination (Valdés Gutiérrez 2009, 2009), the peasant political project can be viewed as a dispositive of multiple emancipation: that is, an alternative project for life based on a new relationship between human beings (in terms of gender equity and complementarity, without exploitation, with solidarity, based on community and communality, etc.), and also between humanity and nature (coexistence, coproduction, etc.) (La Vía Campesina 2011; 2012, 2013, 2015a; La Vía Campesina 2016; Desmarais 2007; van der Ploeg, 2008; Martínez-Torres and Rosset 2010, Martínez-Torres and Rosset 2013; Rosset and Martínez-Torres , Rosset and Martínez-Torres 2016.) This phenomenon can also be thought of in the terms put forward in dispositive 2, that is, in the construction of a common immaterial territoriality to defend a concrete material territoriality, the space-times of peasant life. The construction of this peasant subject is a dispositive to wage the battle of ideas in immaterial territories, a weapon for the dispute of meanings. The peasant political subject builds a metaphorical wall or enclosure, a dike of contention to protect territories from the advance of capital (Rosset 2009), that permits the existence and re-existence of peasant and indigenous diversity, and of biodiversity and the commons (Fernandes 2017; Leff 2014). It is a dispositive for territorial defense in the context of what has been called the fourth world war, the war against peoples and for land and territory (SCI Marcos 1997 in ; Rosset 2009). The importance of PtPPs in La Vía Campesina for the scaling up of agroecology Humanity is facing an undeniable systemic crisis, particularly the socioenvironmental and agri-food crisis (Giraldo 2014, 2018; Hoetmer 2009; Rosset 2009). Agroecology, the struggle for food sovereignty, and the search for sustainability together represent an alternative to the hegemonic model of production. They articulate a political-epistemic community of struggle that disputes the productivist agri-food model, dominated by the logic of financial capital as materialized in agri-food empires (van der Ploeg, 2008; 2010). AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 13 As contemporary capital penetrates territories that until recently were considered “marginal”, peasants, indigenous peoples and other rural inhabitants represent the main line of resistance against the hydro-agro-extractivism of transnational corporations (Borras, Edelman, and Kay 2008; Desmarais 2007; Giraldo 2015; La Vía Campesina 2011, 2012, 2013, 2015a, 2016; MartínezTorres and Rosset 2008, 2013; Rosset and Martínez-Torres , 2016). Thus, in this context, the peasantry (re)emerges through resistance, renewing its potential as a radical and revolutionary historical-political subject (Barbosa 2013, 2016).8 In LVC, the contemporary peasantry is constructing the highest level of supranational articulation.9 With extended symbolic territories, a high capacity for organization and mobilization, and their own political and social projects, national, regional and international organizations have created a global peasant movement that is united in its heterogeneity, while their diversity of means, struggles and strategies has been one of their main strengths (Desmarais 2007; Martínez-Torres and Rosset 2008, 2010, 2014; Rosset and Martínez-Torres 2016). Agroecology as a defense, resignification and articulation of peasant ways of life, is front and center in the material and symbolic fight for land and territory (Rosset 2013, 2015). As we have indicated, PtPPs are key in weaving this unity, consolidating the peasant political project and promoting the scaling up of agroecology as an alternative project for both production and for life. In these processes, all of the dimensions described above and the analytically disaggregated vectors are joined and act simultaneously as a single systemic mechanism. In what follows we will briefly review a few concrete examples of how PtP processes work as dispositive in LVC. Among their varied impacts, PtP processes are important in the implementation of scaling up programs and strategies. In PtPPs, objectives and procedures are analyzed and developed together with the fostering of more fluid exchanges with the different allies of LVC (social movements, universities, NGOs, etc.) and institutions (States, local governments, FAO, etc.) (Altieri and Nicholls 2008; Giraldo and Rosset 2018; Rosset and Altieri 2017). We fully recognize that different and diverse actors are involved in the scaling up of agroecology processes, but in this paper we focus our analysis on the agroecological peasantry within LVC. In our opinion, the agroecological peasantry is a nonexclusive but central actor in the process of agroecological transformation that demands and encourages the involvement of other actors in each process. Examples include the active role it played in the emergence of important institutional programs such as the “Global Scaling Up Agroecology Initiative” of FAO (FAO 2018a, 2018b), in the demand for and implementation of public policies for the scaling up of agroecology in various countries,10 as well as in the “Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas” recently adopted by the United Nations General Assembly (UN, 2018). 14 V. VAL ET AL. A recent example of this was the 2nd International Symposium on Agroecology: Scaling Up agroecology to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), organized by the FAO.11 LVC succeeded in building a set of strategic alliances (and hegemony) in order for civil society to present a common position and contest meanings before the FAO and member states (Rosset, participant observation). In particular LVC and allies created a specific dispositive for a defense of agroecology from cooptation by “green” agribusiness, and in favor of the centrality of the small-scale producer of food as the subject of agroecology.12 The impact that this dispositive actually had will need to be critically assessed (FAO 2018a, 2018b; Giraldo and Rosset 2018), but just the fact that the peasantry has a place at the table already clearly represents progress achieved through organized struggle (Martínez-Torres and Rosset 2010). While LVC recognizes the importance of developing an institutional lobbying and dispute strategy, this is not the main focus of its political project, whose center of gravity is located in local territories and organizational processes (MartínezTorres and Rosset 2010). Current thinking in social movements suggests that they need to increase their degree of autonomy (territorial, food, productive, political, etc.) in order to consolidate the peasant political project. The central dispute is in and from the territories, positing food sovereignty, popular agrarian reform and agroecology as a means of production and as a way of life (da Silva 2014; Giraldo and Rosset 2018; Rosset 2013). An example is LVC’s “Global Campaign for Seeds, a Heritage of Peoples in the Service of Humanity,” whose objective is to defend seeds as a commons, and to oppose their privatization and corporate control, are essential for agroecological processes (LVC 2010; 2011c). The campaign articulates different territories and struggles, with women playing a leading role in the entire process (LVC, 2011, 2011c; 2018). The fight for the commons is fundamental to the reproduction of the peasantry, and in it, it is possible to see the localglobal dialectic that we argue is being built and structured in the PtPPs promoted by LVC. Another noteworthy example is that of Popular Peasant Feminism. Women from the countryside are carrying out actions and engaging in a series of collective theoretical reflections that critically describe and provide tools for transforming the conditions of oppression in which rural women live (LVC, 2007; Siliprandi and Zuluaga 2014; Seibert 2017a; 2017b). If patriarchy is a generalized phenomenon, the specific conditions of structural violence in the countryside are different from those of urban areas (Rocheleau et al., 1996; Siliprandi and Zuluaga 2014). Rural women are building a dispositive that shows how patriarchy manifests itself in their territories, in order to disarticulate the mechanisms of oppression and move toward more just gender relations. This is a powerful process in which rural women articulate their anti-patriarchal demands within a framework of class struggle and as part of the struggle for land, territory, seeds, and the commons. AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 15 Popular peasant feminism has renewed and strengthened the agroecological proposal within LVC, adding a key element for the construction of a new and different social project. Rural women are pushing the peasantry to play a leading role in this historical transformation, in this shift toward postpatriarchal and postcapitalist societies (La Vía Campesina 2007; Seibert 2017a; 2017b).13 It is equally important to pay attention to the participation of rural youth. Formation and training processes at the territorial level are already emerging as the main tool for the forming of critical subjects in the countryside, as well as the core strategy in the dispute of meanings (production, culture, identity, etc.) in the rural world (Barbosa 2013; Caldart 2004; Barbosa and Rosset 2017; McCune, Reardon, and Rosset 2014; McCune et al. 2016). The emphasis on generational succession and on strengthening the work with youth represents one of LVC’s main political efforts, and it is one of the central topics of our second contribution (see Rosset et al., in this issue). Finally, within LVC, PtP has transcended its methodological character to become a dispositive for agroecological transformation, the articulation of territories and the creation of a mobilizing historical subject for the peasant political project, for transforming agri-food systems, the various conditions of (class, patriarchal, ethnic, etc.) oppression and, in the long term, the process of realigning global social and environmental relations in a new paradigm for life. In these cases, as well as in several other processes driven by LVC, the scaling up of agroecology is fundamental. For LVC’s sociopolitical project, not only is scaling up agroecology essential for the fight against agribusiness and the capitalist system as the hegemonic organizer of social and environmental relations, but it is also emerging as the main, if not the only path for the socially and environmentally sustainable transformation of the agri-food systems. In summary, scaling up agroecology involves the expansion and territorialization of an alternative project that is being incubated in the international peasant movement; a political project to thoroughly transform the agri-food system, social relations and relations between human beings and nature toward a civilizational paradigm outside of the frameworks of hegemonic modernity and capitalist logic. Notes 1. Used sensu Foucault (1992, 2000) as explained further by Bussolini (2010). 2. In a new stage of the agrarian reform process that is still ongoing today, large farms, and other state-owned properties have been divided up and distributed in usufruct to peasants organized in various types of cooperative associations (Pérez Rojas and Echeverría León, 1998; Merlet 1995; 2011). 3. The Programa Productivo de Promoción Agroecológica (PPPA, Productive Program for the Promotion of Agroecology) started in the province of Villa Clara with 13 facilitators (one per municipality), and 27 promoters all of whom were peasants who, from their own farms and based on their own experience, spread and promoted agroecology (Figueras Matos 2005). 16 V. VAL ET AL. 4. It is no accident that Cuba has become a reference for peasant (as well as many other) anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist organizations and struggles. It is a model for the effective construction of counterhegemonic alternatives and offers popular social movements that are seeking to transform the reigning social and economic order the potent symbolism and moral legitimacy of the Cuban revolution. The ANAP has historically been a highly important space for the training of activists, cadre, and leaders of peasant organizations from around the world, especially Latin America and Africa. 5. Based on the participatory observations of two of the authors, one of which was a member of the LVC technical team (Rosset) and the other a volunteer supporting various LVC activities and processes (Val), we can assert that in the CLOC (Latin American Coordination of Rural Organizations, which is LVC in Latin America), the Cuban experience is being emulated in Brazil, Colombia, Chile, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Puerto Rico, and Venezuela, among others. In the last few years, its influence has extended to other regions, with various PtP processes initiated in South Asia (India, Sri Lanka, and Nepal) and Asia Pacific (Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand, and Korea); Africa (Democratic Republic of Congo, Ghana, Mali, Mozambique, and Zimbabwe); and Europe (Belgium, Spanish State, France, Norway, and the United Kingdom). 6. For more insight into the origin, development, and different perspectives of agroecology, see: Altieri (2000); Altieri and Toledo (2011), Ferguson (2015); Gliessman (2007; Gliessman 2015), Rosset and Altieri (2017), among others. 7. While there exists an enormous diversity of productive practices, cultural traditions, and ecological particularities, we can delineate some general agroecological characteristics of the emerging agroecological peasantry within LVC. Of course not all exhibit all of these characteristics, but still we can assemble some of the most characteristic traits. Among them we highlight: small-scale family and/or community production; high levels of agrobiodiversity and intercropping of crops and trees, plus livestock; significant use of resources with few purchased inputs; preparation and use of organic fertilizers and mulches; use of homemade natural repellents for pest control; high level of integration and synergy between production systems, as in crops, trees and livestock; high degree of organization and associativity (family, collective, communal, cooperative, etc.); practices of exchange, cooperation, and reciprocity; and organized spaces for training and transmission of knowledge; among many others (Altieri and Koohafkan 2009; Altieri and Nicholls 2008; 2012 da Silva 2014; Gliessman 2015, 2018; Holt-Giménez 2001; Machín Sosa et al., 2011; Pachicho and Fujisaka 2004; Perfecto, Vandermeer, and Wright 2009; Rosset and Altieri 2017; Rosset et al. 2011; Rosset and Martínez-Torres 2013; Rosset and Val 2018; Val 2012; Von der Weid, 2000). 8. It is important to emphasize that when we talk about the role of PtPPs in the conformation of a peasant political subject, we do so within the context of LVC processes and we are not suggesting that this extends to the entire peasantry. Furthermore, we do not think of the agroecological peasantry as the revolutionary political subject, but rather as a subject with specific demands and its own agenda, yet articulated in a broad front of struggle with other social sectors (feminisms, indigenous peoples’ organizations, other rural and urban social movements, workers living under conditions of precarity, trade unions, movements for sexual diversity, among many others). 9. The PtPP dispositive that we refer to articulates a great diversity of sectors (peasants, smallscale farmers, landless workers, rural workers, indigenous Peoples, hunters and gatherers, artisanal fisherfolk, nomadic pastoralist and transhumant peoples, forest dwellers, riverside and coastal peoples, and others) that self-identify with the international peasant movement (LVC, 2009, 2013; Martínez-Torres and Rosset 2008, 2010). The PtPPs open this space of AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 10. 11. 12. 13. 17 dialogue to form a global peasant movement based on unity in diversity (Martínez-Torres and Rosset 2008, 2014; Rosset and Martínez-Torres 2013). Some illustrative recent cases might include: Brazil (Sauer and Mészáro, 2017; Schmitt et al. 2017), Bolivia (Sabourin et al. 2017; Webber 2017), Cuba (Machín Sosa et al. 2010; Vázquez, Marzin, and González 2017), India (Khadse et al. 2017; Khadse and Rosset in this issue; Kumar 2017), Mali (Beauregard 2009), Nicaragua (Freguin-Gresh 2017), Venezuela (Sabourin et al. 2017; Domené and Herrera, in this issue), among others. For a critical analysis of the limits of institutional processes and public policies see Giraldo (2018) and Giraldo and McCune in this issue. http://www.fao.org/about/meetings/second-international-agroecology-symposium/en/. See “Declaration by organizations of small-scale food producers and civil society organizations at the II international symposium on agroecology convened by FAO,” April 2018, https://viacampesina.org/en/declaration-at-the-ii-international-sympo sium-on-agroecology/. The visibility and demands of sexual diversity in the countryside have recently been added to this major contribution. An important LGTBI movement is emerging (especially in Latin America) that is adding this new issue to the peasant political project. Although it is somewhat recent and is not clearly present in all regions, we believe that it will soon become an important and dynamic element in the construction of alternative ways of life within LVC. Acknowledgments We are grateful to the compañeros and compañeras of La Via Campesina, CLOC-VC and the Asociación Nacional de Agricultores Pequeños (ANAP) of Cuba, and in particular to the Cuban guajiros and guajiras from whom we learned so much. We would also like to thank Nathan Einbinder and Mateo Mier y Terán for valuable comments on an earlier draft. V. Val wishes to thank CONACYT for the graduate scholarship that made it possible to conduct part of this research. P. Rosset wishes to thank FUNCAP-CAPES for a PVE fellowship at the Universidade Estadual do Ceará. Funding This work was supported by the Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología [Graduate Fellowship awarded to Valentín Val]; FUNCAP-CAPES [PVE-65/2014 awarded to Peter Rosset] ORCID Valentín Val http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3680-3385 Peter M. Rosset http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1253-1066 Carla Zamora Lomelí http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4089-2659 Omar Felipe Giraldo http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3485-5694 Dianne Rocheleau http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0013-4397 References Altieri, M. A. 2000. Agroecology: Principles and strategies for designing sustainable farming systems. Agroecology in action. 18 V. VAL ET AL. Altieri, M. A., and C. Nicholls. 2008. Scaling up agroecological approaches for food sovereignty in Latin America. Development 51 (4):472–80. Altieri, M. A., and C. Nicholls. 2012. Agroecology scaling up for food sovereignty and resiliency. Sustainable Agriculture Reviews, 11: 1–29 Altieri, M. A., and P. Koohafkan. 2009. Enduring farms: Climate change, smallholders and traditional farming communities. Penang: Third World Network. Altieri, M. A., and V. M. Toledo. 2011. The agroecological revolution in Latin America: Rescuing nature, ensuring food sovereignty and empowering peasants. Journal of Peasant Studies 38 (3):587–612. Barbosa, L. P. (2013) Educación, movimientos sociales y estado en América Latina: Estudio analítico de las experiencias de resistencia contra-hegemónica en Brasil y México. Thesis (PhD). Mexico City: UNAM. Barbosa, L. P. 2016. Educação do Campo [education for and by the countryside] as a political project in the context of the struggle for land in Brazil. The Journal of Peasant Studies 44 (1):118–43. Barbosa, L. P., and P. M. Rosset. 2017. Educação do campo e pedagogia camponesa agroecológica na América Latina: Aportes da La Via Campesina e da CLOC. Educação e Sociedade, Campinas 38 (140):705–24. Beauregard, S. 2009. Food Policy for People: Incorporating Food Sovereignty Principles into State Governance: Case Studies of Venezuela, Mali, Ecuador, and Bolivia. 2009. http://www. oxy.edu/sites/default/files/assets/UEP/Comps/2009/Beauregard%20Food%20Policy%20for %20People.pdf Boege, E., and T. Carranza. 2009. La agricultura sostenible campesino-indígenafrente a la Mixteca Alta: La experiencia del Centro de Desarrollo Integral Campesino de la Mixteca Hita Nuni, AC (CEDICAM). In Agricultura Sostenible Campesino-Indígena, Soberanía Alimentaria y Equidad de Género. México City: PIDAASSA. Borras, S. M., M. Edelman, and C. Y Kay. 2008. Transnational agrarian movements: Origins and politics, campaigns and impact. Journal of Agrarian Change 8 (2–3):169–204. Bourdieu, P. 1998. Practical Reason: On the theory of action. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press. Brescia, S. 2017. Fertile Ground: Scaling Agroecology from the Ground Up. USA: Food First/ Institute for Food and Development Policy. Bussolini, J. 2010. What is a dispositive? Foucault Studies 10:85–107. Caldart, R. S. 2004. Pedagogia do Movimento. São Paulo: Expressão Popular. Calle Collado, A., and D. Y Gallar. 2010. groecología Política: Transición social y campesinado. Pernambuco: VIII Latin American Congress of Rural Sociology. Pernambuco. Chirino, L. (2014). Personal interview with leonardo chirino. Available from: https://agroeco logia.espora.org/2015/09/16/1-video-curso-de-metodologia-campesino-a-campesino/ da Silva, V. I. 2014. Clase Campesina. Modo de ser, de vivir y de producir. Porto Alegre: Instituto Cultural Padre Josimo. De Schutter, O. 2010 Countries tackling hunger with a right to food approach. Significant progress in implementing the right to food at national scale in Africa, Latin America and South Asia, Briefing Note 01, May. Deleuze, G. 2006. Post-scriptum sobre las sociedades de control. Polis 5 (13):277–86. Desmarais, A. 2007. La Vía Campesina. Globalization and the power of peasants. Halifax, London and Ann Arbor: Fernwood Publishing y Pluto Press. Doimeadios Reyes, Y. 2011. Situación económica actual: algunas reflexiones. Revista América Latina 465:7–10. Escobar, A. 1999. The invention of development. Current History 98 (631):382–87. AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 19 Escobar, A. 2005. El ‘postdesarrollo’ como concepto y práctica social. In Políticas de economía, ambiente y sociedad en tiempos de globalización, ed. D. Mato. Caracas: Universidad Central de Venezuela. Escobar, A. 2010. Territorios de diferencia: Lugar, movimientos, vida, redes. Popayán: Envión. FAO. 2018a. Scaling up Agroecology Initiative: Transforming food and agricultural systems in support of the SDGs (A proposal prepared for the International Symposium on Agroecology, 3–5 April 2018), http://www.fao.org/3/I9049EN/i9049en.pdf. FAO. 2018b. 2nd International Symposium on Agroecology: Scaling up agroecology to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 3–5 April 2018, Rome. Ferguson, B. G. 2015. Editorial: Agroecology as a transformative transdiscipline. Ciência & Tecnologia Social 2 (1):3–7. Available from http://periodicos.unb.br/index.php/cts/article/ view/20033/14196. Fernandes, B. M. 2009. Sobre a tipología de territorios. In Territórios e territorialidades: Teoria, processos e conflitos, ed. M. A. Saquet and E. S. Sposito. São Paulo: Expressão Popular. Fernandes, B.M. 2017. Territorios y soberanía alimentaria. Revista Latinoamericana De Estudios Rurales II(3):22–39. Figueras Matos, D. 2005. Innovación Social y Desarrollo Local. Potencialidades y limitaciones de los gobiernos locales para la promoción del desarrollo. Documentación y sistematización de experiencias. Santa Clara: Unversidad Central de Las Villas “Marta Abreu”. Foucault, M. 1992. El orden del discurso. Buenos Aires: Tusquets Editores. Foucault, M. 2000. Defender la Sociedad: Curso en el Collège de France (1975-1976). Buenos Aires: Fondo de Cultura Económica. Freguin-Gresh, S. 2017. Agroecología y agricultura orgánica en Nicaragua. Génesis, institucionalización y desafíos, In Red PP-AL Políticas públicas a favor de la agroecología en América Latina y El Caribe Brasilia, FAO, Red PP-AL. Giddens, A. 1986. Sociology: A Brief but Critical Introduction. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Giraldo, O. F. 2014. Utopías en la era de la supervivencia. Una interpretación del Buen Vivir. México City: Itaca. Giraldo, O. F. 2015. Agroextractivismo y acaparamiento de tierras en América Latina: Una lectura desde la ecología política. Revista Mexicana de Sociología 77 (4):637–62. Giraldo, O. F. 2016. Convivialidad y agroecología. Susan Street. Con ojos bien abiertos: Ante el despojo, rehabilitemos lo común, Guadalajara. Giraldo, O. F. 2018. Ecología política de la agricultura. Agroecología y posdesarrollo. San Cristóbal de Las Casas: El Colegio de la Frontera Sur. Giraldo, O. F., and P. M. Rosset. 2018. Agroecology as a territory in dispute: Between institutionality and social movements. The Journal of Peasant Studies 45 (3):545–64. Mier y Terán, M. O.F. Giraldo, M. Aldasoro, H. Morales, B. Ferguson, P. Rosset, A. Khadse, and C. Campos. 2018. Bringing agroecology to scale: key drivers and emblematic cases. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 42 (6):637–665. Gliessman, S. 2018. Scaling-out and scaling-up agroecology. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 42 (8):841–42. Gliessman, S. R. 2015. Agroecology: The Ecology of Sustainable Food Systems (3rd ed). Boca Raton: CRC Press/Taylor & Francis. Gliessman, S.R. 2007. Agroecology: the ecology of sustainable food systems. New York: Taylor and Francis. Gonsalves, J. F. 2001. Going to scale: What we have garnered from recent workshops. LEISA Magazine. Available from: http://www.agriculturesnetwork.org/library/63894 20 V. VAL ET AL. González Mastrapa, E. y Susset Pérez, A. (2010) “Desarrollo rural, descentralización y articulación de actores. La experiencia del desarrollo agrario municipal en Cuba”. Revista ALASRU, Análisis Latinoamericano del Medio Rural (5):209–233. Haesbert, R. 2011. El mito de la desterritorialización. Del “fin de los territorios” a la multiterritorialidad. México City: Siglo XXI Editores. Haesbert, R. 2013. Del mito de la desterritorialización a la multiterritorialidad. Cultura y Representaciones Sociales 8:9–42. Harvey, D. 1998. La condición de la postmodernidad. Investigación sobre los orígenes del cambio cultural. Buenos Aires: Amorrortu. Harvey, D. 2004. El nuevo imperialismo. Madrid: Akal. Hoetmer, R. 2009. Introducción. In Repensar la política desde América Latina. Cultura, Estado y movimientos sociales, 11–26. Lima: Universidad Mayor de San Marcos. Holt-Giménez, E. 2001. Scaling up sustainable agriculture lessons from the campesino a campesino movement. LEISA magazine, October. Holt-Giménez, E. 2006. Campesino a campesino: voices from Latin America’s farmer to farmer movement for sustainable agriculture. Oakland: Food First Books. Khadse, A. P. M., R. H. Morales, and B. G. Ferguson. 2017. Taking agroecology to scale: The zero budget natural farming peasant movement in Karnataka, India. The Journal of Peasant Studies 45:1–28. Kohlmans, E. 2006. Construyendo Procesos “De Campesino A Campesino”. Lima: Espigas y Pan Para El Mundo. Kumar, T. V. 2017. A.P Govt Initiative of Climate Resilient ‘zero Budget’ Natural Farming (ZBNF) for Enhancing Farm Livelihoods, Food Security, and Restoring Soil Health. Available from: http://www.mcrhrdi.gov.in/92fc/week8/27thOct-a.pzbnfexperience-final.pdf. La Vía Campesina 2007. Comprender el feminismo en l lucha campesina. Available from: https://viacampesina.org/es/comprender-feminismo-la-lucha-campesina/ La Vía Campesina 2009. La Via Campesina Policy Documents. Available From: https:// viacampesina.org/en/la-via-campesina-policy-documents/ La Vía Campesina 2010 Reunión de la campaña de semillas CLOC-Vía Campesina Quito. Available from: https://viacampesina.org/es/reunion-campana-semillas-cloc-via-campesina/ La Vía Campesina. 2011. Sustainable peasant and family farm agriculture can feed the world. Jakarta: La Via Campesina. Available from https://viacampesina.org/en/sustainable-peasant -and-family-farm-agriculture-can-feed-the-world/. La Vía Campesina. 2011b Shashe declaration: 1st encounter of agroecology trainers in Africa region 1. Available from: https://viacampesina.org/en/shashe-declaration-1st-encounter-ofagroecology-trainers-in-africa-region–1/ La Vía Campesina. 2011c. Peasant Seeds: Dignity, Culture and Life. The Bali Seed Declaration. Available from: https://climateandcapitalism.com/2011/03/20/la-viacampesina-the-bali-seed-declaration/ La Vía Campesina. 2012. Bukit Tinggi Declaration on agrarian reform in the 21st Century. Available from: https://viacampesina.org/en/bukit-tinggi-declaration-on-agrarian-reformin-the-21st-century/ La Vía Campesina. 2013. From Maputo to Jakarta: 5 Years of Agroecology in La Vía Campesina. Available from: https://viacampesina.org/en/from-maputo-to-jakarta-5-yearsof-agroecology-in-la-via-campesina/ La Vía Campesina., 2015a. Declaration of the international forum for agroecology. Available from: https://viacampesina.org/en/declaration-of-the-international-forum-for-agroecology/ La Vía Campesina. 2016 International Conference of Agrarian Reform: Marabá Declaration. Available from:https://viacampesina.org/en/international-conference-of-agrarian-reformdeclaration-of-maraba1/ AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 21 La Vía Campesina. 2018. Declaration of güira de melena: first global encounter of la via campesina agroecology schools and formation processes. Available from: https://viacampe sina.org/en/declaration-of-guira-de-melena-first-global-encounter-of-la-via-campesinaagroecology-schools-and-formation-processes/ Leff, E. 2014. La apuesta por la vida Imaginación Sociológica e imaginarios sociales en los territorios ambientales del sur. México City: Vozes Editora. Machín Sosa, B., A. Roque Jaime, D. Ávila Lozano, and P. Rosset. 2010. Revolución Agroecológica. El Movimiento Campesino a Campesino de la ANAP en Cuba. Ciudad de México: ANAP- La Vía Campesina. Marcos, S. C. I. 1997. 7 piezas sueltas en el rompecabezas mundial. In Rodríguez Lascano, S. (comp.) 2017. Escritos sobre la guerra y la economía política. 101–132. México: Pensamiento Crítico Ediciones. Martínez-Torres, M. E., and P. M. Rosset. 2008. La Vía Campesina: Transnationalizing peasant struggle and hope. In Latin American Social Movements in the Twenty-first Century: Resistance, Power, and Democracy, ed. R. Stahler-Sholk, H. E. Vanden Y, and G. D. Kuecker. Maryland: Rowman& Littlefield. Martínez-Torres, M. E., and P. M. Rosset. 2010. La Vía Campesina: The birth and evolution of a transnational social movement. Journal of Peasant Studies 37 (1):149–75. Martínez-Torres, M. E., and P. M. Rosset. 2013. Del conflicto de modelos para el mundo rural emerge la vía campesina como movimiento social transnacional. El Otro Derecho 44:21–57. Martínez-Torres, M. E., and P. M. Rosset. 2014. Diálogo de saberes in La Vía Campesina: Food sovereignty and agroecology. Journal of Peasant Studies 41 (6):979–97. McCune, N., J. Reardon, and P. Rosset. 2014. Agroecological formación in rural social movements. Radical Teacher 98:31–37. McCune, N., P. M. Rosset, T. Cruz, A. Saldívar, and H. Morales. 2016. Mediated territoriality: Rural workers and the efforts to scale out agroecology in Nicaragua. Journal of Peasant Studies 44 (2):354–76. Merlet, M. 1995 Consolidación y ampliación del programa de Campesino a Campesino Nicaragua. Comission des communautés europeenes. Institut de Recherches et d’amelioration des méthodes de développement. París. Merlet, M. 2011. Cambios en la política agraria en Cuba. Redistribución de tierras a gran escala a productores individuales. Pachicho, D., and S. Fujisaka. 2004. Scaling up and out: Achieving widespread impact through agricultural research. Cali: Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical. Parmentier, S. 2014. Scaling-up agroecological approaches: What, why and how?. Belgium: Oxfam- Solidarity. Pérez Rojas, N. y Echeverría Leon, D. (1998) Participación y producción agraria en Cuba. Las UBPC. Revista Temas (11): 5-15. Perfecto, I., J. H. Vandermeer, and A. L. Wright. 2009. Nature’s matrix: Linking agriculture, conservation and food sovereignty. London: Earthscan. Porto-Gonçalves, W. 2014. Del desarrollo a la autonomía.La reinvención de los territorios. América Latina En Movimiento. 445: 10–14. Available from https://www.alainet.org/sites/ default/files/alai445w.pdf Ramos, S. F. J. 1998. Grupo Vicente Guerrero de Españita, Tlaxcala, Dos décadas de promoción de campesino a campesino. Serie Estudios de Caso. México: Red de Gestión de Recursos Naturales – Rockefeller Foundation. Rocheleau, D., Thomas-Slayter, B. y Wangari, E. (1996) Feminist Political Ecology: Global Issues and Local Experiences. London: Routledge Rosset, P. 2015b. Epistemes rurales y la formaciónagroecológicaen la VíaCampesina. Cienciay Tecnología Social 2:1–10. 22 V. VAL ET AL. Rosset, P. M. 2009 La guerra por la tierra y el territorio. Primer Coloquio Internacional In Memoriam Andrés Aubry: planeta tierra: movimientos antisistémicos. San Cristóbal de las Casas: CIDECI-UNITIERRA Ediciones. Rosset, P. M. 2013. Re-thinking agrarian reform, land and territory in La Via Campesina and Agroecology. In La Via Campesina‘s Open Book: Celebrating 20 Years of Struggle and Hope, 1–22. Jakarta: La Vía Campesina. Available from https://viacampesina.org/en/la-via-campe sina-s-open-book-celebrating-20-years-of-struggle-and-hope/ Rosset, P. M. 2015a. Social organization and process in bringing agroecology to scale, Agroecology for food security and nutrition. In Agroecology For Food Security And Nutrition Proceedings Of The FAO International Symposium, 298–307. Rome: Food and agriculture organization (FAO) of the United Nations. Available from http://www.fao.org/ 3/a-i4729e.pdf Rosset, P. M., and V. Val. 2018. The ‘Campesino a Campesino’ Agroecology Movement in Cuba: Food Sovereignty and Food as a Commons, 251–265 London: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9781315161495. Rosset, P. M., B. Machín Sosa, A. M. Roque, and D. R. Ávila. 2011. The Campesino-toCampesino agroecology movement of ANAP in Cuba: Social process methodology in the construction of sustainable peasant agriculture and food sovereignty. Journal of Peasant Studies 38 (1):161–91. Rosset, P. M., and M. A. Altieri. 2017. Agroecology: Science and Politics. Manitoba: Fernwood Publishing. Rosset, P. M., and M. E. Martínez-Torres. 2013. La Vía Campesina and Agroecology. La Via Campesina‘s Open Book: Celebrating 20 Years of Struggle and Hope, Jakarta. Rosset, P. M., and M. E. Martínez-Torres. 2016. Agroecología, territorio, recampesinización y movimientos sociales. Estudios Sociales 25 (47):275–99. Sabourin, E., M. M. Patrouilleau, F. J. Vásquez, and L. Niederle, P. (org). 2017. Políticas públicas a favor de la agroecología en América Latina y El Caribe. Porto Alegre: REd PP-AlFAO. Santos, B. D. S. 2010. Descolonizar el saber, reinventar el poder. Montevideo: Ediciones Trilce - Universidad de la República. Sauer, S., and G. Mészáros. 2017. The political economy of land struggle in Brazil under Workers‘ Party governments. Journal of Agrarian Change 17 (2):397–414. Schmitt, C., P. Niederle, M. Ávila, E. Sabourin, P. Petersen, L. Silveira, W. Assis, J. Palm, and G. B. G. Fernandes. 2017. La experiencia brasileña de construcción de políticas públicas en favor de la Agroecología. In Políticas públicas a favor de la agroecología en América Latina y El Caribe, ed.FAO, Red PP-AL, 44–69. Brasilia: FAO. Seibert, I. G. 2017. Feminismo campesino y popular Feminismo campesino y popular. Una propuesta de las campesinas de Latinoamérica. Available from http://www.soberaniaali mentaria.info/numeros-publicados/60-numero-29/454-feminismo-campesino-y-popular Sevilla Guzmán, E. 2006. De La Sociología Rural A La Agroecología. Bases Ecológicas De La Producción. Barcelona: Icaria. Sevilla Guzmán, E., and M. Y González De Molina. 2006. Sobre la evolución del concepto de campesinado en el pensamiento socialista: Una aportación para Vía Campesina. Siliprandi, E., and G. P. Zuluaga, eds. 2014. Género, Agroecología y Soberanía Alimentaria: Perspectivas Ecofeministas. Barcelona: Icaria. Spivak, G. 1987. In Other Worlds. Essays in Cultural Politics. New York: Methuen. Svampa, M. 2009 Protesta, Movimientos Sociales y Dimensiones de la acción colectiva en América Latina. Conferences in honor of Charles Tilly, Madrid, Universidad Complutense de Madrid-Fundación Carolina. Tilly, C. 1978. From mobilization to collective action. USA: McGraw-Hill. AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 23 Unión Nacional de Agricultores y Ganaderos de Nicaragua 1999 Programa de Campesino a Campesino. La experimentación campesina; algo más que una parcela de ensayo. Managua. United Nations. 2018. United nations declaration on the rights of peasants and other people working in rural areas. New York. Available from: https://undocs.org/en/A/C.3/73/L.30 Val, V. 2012. Sembrando alternativas; cosechando esperanzas. (Re)campesinización agroecológica en las lomas del Escambray, Provincia de Villa Clara, Cuba. Thesis (Master’s) México: Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social. Available from: http://repositorio.ciesas.edu.mx/handle/123456789/176. Val, V. 2017. Hacer, conocer y ser. Agroecología en primera persona [Web Log Post]. Available from https://sites.google.com/site/agroecologiadesdesur/autores/el-cojo. Valdés Gutiérrez, G. 2009. Posneoliberalismo y movimientos antisistémicos. Havana: Editorial de Ciencias Sociales. van der Ploeg, J. D. (2008) The new peasantries: Struggles for autonomy and sustainability in an era of empire and globalization. London: Earthscan. van der Ploeg, J. D. (2010) The peasantries of the twenty-first century: The commoditization debate Revisited. Journal of Peasant Studies 37 (1):1–30. Vásquez Zeledón, J. I., and A. Rivas Espinoza. 2006. De campesino a campesino en Nicaragua. Managua: UNAG. Vázquez, L. L., J. Marzin, and N. González. 2017. Políticas públicas y transición hacia la agricultura sostenible sobre bases agroecológicas en Cuba. In Red PP-AL Políticas públicas a favor de la agroecología en América Latina y El Caribe. Brasilia: FAO, Red PP-AL. Vergara-Camus, L., and C. Kay. 2017. Agribusiness, peasants, left-wing governments, and the state in Latin America: An overview and theoretical reflections. Journal of Agrarian Change 17 (2):239–57. von der Weid, J. M. 2000. Scaling up, and scaling further up: An ongoing experience ofparticipatory development in Brazil. Sao Paulo: Assessoria e Serviços a Projectos emAgricultura Alternativa (AS-PTA). Available From http://www.fao.org/docs/eims/ upload/Q77 215152/AS-PTA.pdf Webber, J. R. 2017. Evo Morales, transformismo, and the consolidation of agrarian capitalism in Bolivia. Journal of Agrarian Change 17 (2):330–47. Zamora, C. 2014. Hacia la racionalidad liberadora en los movimientos sociales. Identidades y discontinuidades en un mundo donde quepan muchos mundos”. In Más allá de la racionalidad instrumental: Hacia el reencuentro con la reproducción de la vida y el respeto a la naturaleza. El Buen Vivir y la descolonialidad, ed. B. Marañón, 60–77 México: UNAM. Zemelman, H. 2010. Sujeto y subjetividad: La problemática de las alternativas como construcción posible. Polis 9 (27):355–66. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems ISSN: 2168-3565 (Print) 2168-3573 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjsa21 Agroecology and La Via Campesina II. Peasant agroecology schools and the formation of a sociohistorical and political subject Peter Rosset, Valentín Val, Lia Pinheiro Barbosa & Nils McCune To cite this article: Peter Rosset, Valentín Val, Lia Pinheiro Barbosa & Nils McCune (2019): Agroecology and La Via Campesina II. Peasant agroecology schools and the formation of a sociohistorical and political subject, Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, DOI: 10.1080/21683565.2019.1617222 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2019.1617222 Published online: 15 May 2019. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 174 View Crossmark data Citing articles: 1 View citing articles Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wjsa21 AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2019.1617222 Agroecology and La Via Campesina II. Peasant agroecology schools and the formation of a sociohistorical and political subject Peter Rosset a,b,c , Valentín Val d , Lia Pinheiro Barbosa e , and Nils McCune f a Agriculture, Society and Environment, El Colegio de la Frontera Sur (ECOSUR), San Cristóbal de las Casas, Mexico; bCrateús School of Education (FAEC) and Graduate Program in Sociology (PPGS), Universidade Estadual do Ceara (UECE), Crateús and Fortaleza, Brazil; cLand Research Action Network (LRAN), São Paulo, Brazil; dAgriculture, Society and the Environment, El Colegio de la Frontera Sur (ECOSUR), San Cristóbal de las Casas, Mexico; eGraduate Program in Sociology (PPGS), Intercampus Masters in Education (MAIE), and Crateús School of Education (FAEC), Universidade Estadual do Ceara (UECE), Fortaleza, Brazil; fSchool for Environment and Sustainability, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA ABSTRACT KEYWORDS Scaling up of peasant agroecology and building food sovereignty require major transformations that only a self-aware, critical, collective political subject can achieve. The global peasant movement, La Via Campesina (LVC) in its expression in Latin America, the Coordinadora Latinoamericana de Organizaciones del Campo (CLOC), employs agroecology and political training or formation as a dispositive or device to facilitate the emergence of a sociohistorical and political subject, the “agroecological peasantry,” designed to be capable of transforming food systems across the globe. In this essay, we examine the pedagogical philosophies and practices used in the peasant agroecology schools and training processes of LVC and CLOC, and how they come together in territorial mediation as a dispositive for pedagogical-educational, agroecological reterritorialization. La Via Campesina; CLOC; agroecology; education; scaling; political subject Introduction In a companion essay (Val et al. in 2019) we argue that peasant to peasant processes (PtP) as developed inside the global peasant movement, La Via Campesina (LVC), function as a complex dispositive, device or mechanism to forge a transnational sociohistorical and political subject, the “agroecological peasantry,” capable of leading major transformations – including but not limited to the scaling up of agroecology – of the global agri-food system and its localized manifestations in specific territories around the world.1 In this essay, we delve into peasant agroecological training schools and processes as a specific dispositive within this larger PtP process geared toward transformation. In this essay, we explore the philosophies and practices behind the dispositive made up of LVC’s peasant agroecology schools and training processes in Latin CONTACT Peter Rosset [email protected] Agriculture, Society and Environment, El Colegio de la Frontera Sur (ECOSUR), San Cristóbal de las Casas 29290, Mexico © 2019 Taylor & Francis 2 P. ROSSET ET AL. America, where the continental articulation of LVC member organizations is known as CLOC (Latin American Coordination of Rural Organizations). In the first section, we review the relationship between education, food sovereignty and the scaling of agroecology. We then address how, in the view of LVC and CLOC, building food sovereignty and scaling agroecology require the conformation of a critical sociohistorical and political subject capable of achieving such major transformations, and the role that education – specifically in peasant agroecology schools and training processes – plays as a specific dispositive for forging that subject. Following that we examine first the pedagogical philosophies that underpin these schools and processes, and then review specific pedagogical practice. This takes us to a discussion of pedagogical mediators related to territory as a key element in the larger dispositive, and we close with reflections on educational-pedagogical reterritorialization. Education, food sovereignty, and scaling agroecology Even beyond LVC, there is a growing interest in the relationship between education, agroecology, and food sovereignty (Meek 2015; Meek et al. 2017, Meek and Tarlau 2016). This is animated by the recognition that a large-scale transformation of food and agriculture systems based on the employment of agroecological methods and principles is only possible when food and agriculture become political issues around which society forms a new consensus. The widely documented negative impacts of Green Revolution technologies, industrial consolidation, and monopoly over seeds, grains and technology, and global trade systems that treat food and all of the nature as mere commodities, hint at a future of food and farming that is far from the currently dominant agribusiness/extractivist model. Across the globe, smallholder farmers, herders, fisherfolk and indigenous peoples are organizing to resist land and water grabbing, megaprojects and climate-related injustices. Movements of landless and land poor farmers demand popular agrarian reform, based not only on the redistribution of land but also on a territorial approach to public policy and a commitment by the State to sustainable local food systems. The diverse world of resistances to corporate domination of food and agriculture is reflected in the tapestry of educational initiatives carried out by and for rural popular movements that fight for food sovereignty (Batista 2014; Meek et al. 2017). At an international level, agroecology has emerged as a central pedagogical conception or dispositive used by popular movements, which understand agroecology as having intrinsic dimensions of feminist, anti-colonial and class struggle. As opposed to other versions of alternative agriculture, including organics, biointensive, and permaculture, which tend to be extended from exogenous sources, LVC sees agroecology as endogenous, analogous to “the recovery of our ancestral knowledge” (LVC2013; Rosset and Altieri 2017). AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 3 The scaling and amplification of agroecology has become one of the main objectives of the rural social organizations that form part of La Via Campesina (Mier y Terán et al. 2018; Rosset 2013; Rosset and Altieri 2017; Rosset and Martínez-Torres 2012). Simultaneously, in the last few years, diverse institutions, nation-states and transnational corporations have shown a growing interest in agroecology. Today, the type, objective and main actors of agroecology are all disputed between the interests of sectors of concentrated transnational capital and greenwashed agribusiness on one side, and the vast majority of small-scale producers on the other side (Giraldo and Rosset 2017; McCune and Sánchez 2019). For LVC, agroecology is an agriculture with a sociohistorical and political subject, the peasantry, that is at once deeply linked to concrete territories and to the construction of food sovereignty at a local or national level. The scaling or amplification of this form of agriculture depends not just on agroecology practices, as Mier y Terán et al. (2018) have argued, but also upon the success of educational efforts to form movement cadre as critical thinkers who understand their collective actions in the framework of food systems, and who build mobilization capacity for the agrarian reform struggle and territorial defense, as well as for the building of agroecology processes. The general question of how to scale up agroecology is under debate in the literature (Altieri and Nicholls 2008; Mier y Terán et al. 2018; Von der Weid 2000), and our arguments support the position of Holt-Giménez (2001, 2006) and Rosset (2015) that grassroots social methodology is the most effective way found to date, and of Altieri (2009) that rural social movements hold the key. Rosset and Altieri (2017) point out that to amplify agroecology it is necessary to overcome various obstacles: land grabbing, privatization and concentration; the loss and lack of appropriate knowledge; the ideological and educational barriers imposed by the dominant educational system; the lack of social fabric in many territories; the lack of support for transitions; the bias toward conventional monoculture and agro-exports in national agricultural public policies; and the lack of alternative markets. Getting past the obstacles to agroecological scaling requires getting organized, and mobilizing organized collective action. Only strong organizations can exercise fruitful, systematic pressure to change policies and recover territories. The same principle applies to changing educational curricula and constructing effective horizontal processes for sharing knowledge about agroecological practices (Mier y Terán et al. 2018; Rosset and Altieri 2017; Val et al. 2019). Thus, it should come as no surprise that the accumulated experience of rural social movements and peasant organizations indicates that the degree of organization (called “organicity” by social movements), and horizontal social methodologies with constructivist pedagogies based on the active, leading participation of the peasantry, are fundamental factors for taking agroecology to scale. The “campesino to campesino” or “peasant to peasant” processes 4 P. ROSSET ET AL. (PtPs) and agroecology schools directed by peasant organizations are key examples of these principles (Khadse et al. 2017; Machín Sosa et al. 2013; McCune, Reardon, and Rosset 2014; McCune and Sánchez 2019; Mier y Terán et al. 2018; Rosset 2011, 2015; Rosset and Martínez-Torres 2012; Val 2012; Val et al. in 2019). Rural social movements are actively creating these agroecological educational processes. LVC, its regional secretariats and its member organizations have created peasant schools and educational processes based on agroecology in Africa (Zimbabwe, Mali, Mozambique and Niger, among others) Asia (Indonesia, South Korea, Thailand, India, among others), Europe (Spain, Italy, France and Belgium, among others) and the Americas (Canada, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Venezuela, Chile, Brazil and Colombia, among others). These schools and processes reveal a great diversity, ranging from formal school education that runs from secondary school through higher education, as well as peasant trainings and “peasant to peasant” schools without walls. Table 1 shows four schools in Latin America and their relationship to territorial processes of knowledge exchange. There exists, especially in Latin America, a true effervescence of proposals, approaches, methodologies, and practices in agroecological education (Barbosa and Rosset 2017a, 2017b). Social movements take as a starting point their theoretical and practical accumulation of experiences with emancipatory political education, incorporating contributions from popular education, autonomous education, the concept of organic intellectuals, and visions of the “new woman” and “new man,” in the construction of training processes in agroecology (Barbosa 2015b, 2016, 2017; Guevara 1965; McCune and Sánchez 2019; Stronzake 2013). The formation of a collective subject One of the main objectives of these processes is to form a collective political subject – the agroecological peasant – who is capable of mobilizing consciousnesses, resources and processes towards both scaling up of agroecology and the larger political project of transformation of the food system, living conditions in the countryside and the periphery of the city, and social, gender and class inequalities in the larger society (Barbosa 2015b, 2016; Borras Jr, Edelman, and Kay 2008; Desmarais 2007; Val et al. 2019). Agroecology as such cannot be separated from the broader goals of transformation. In articulated political projects or dispositives, education and agroecology occupy ever more important spaces in the purposeful work of Latin American movements, as indispensable elements in the growing territorial dispute with transnational capital and the policies of a neoliberal State (Rosset and Martínez-Torres 2012). The CLOC, particularly, has consolidated an educational-political project of training and articulation of local, Table 1. Characteristics of four LVC schools in Latin America. Name of the school Organization/Country Centro Nacional de Capacitación ‘Niceto Pérez’ ANAP/Cuba Geographic Projection Type and scale of coordination Nacional Academic director, national Didactic structures Learning perspectives Role of agroecology Links to territorial processes Training of popular educators Response to the need to create educational opportunities for rural youth Nacional, international Political-pedagogical coordination (PPC), nacional Courses, certificate courses and Courses, certificate courses and events events Conferences, group work Encounters, seminars Cadre formation at the national level Primary, but as a social method, not as productive practices Strong Yes No Instituto Agroecológico Latinoamericano ‘Paulo Freire’ Ministry of People’s Power for Higher Education and LVC/ Venezuela Continental (Latin America) PPC, continental Agroecological Engineer University Program (5 years) Theoretical and practice-based productive classes Agroecological cadre formation at Cadre formation at the the continental level international level Secondary, but present in Primary, as productive practices learning content and object of collective reflection Strong Yes Yes Weak No Yes Escuela Obrera Campesina Internacional ‘Francisco Morazán’ ATC/Nicaragua Nacional, regional (Central America) Academic director for national courses, regional PPC for regional LVC courses Courses, certificate courses and events Group work and practical workshops Development of labor capacities, cadre formation at the regional level Secondary, but present as learning content Strong Yes Yes AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS Educational offering Escuela Nacional ‘Florestan Fernándes’ MST/Brazil 5 6 P. ROSSET ET AL. national, regional and continental experiences in agroecology (Barbosa and Rosset 2017b; Batista 2014). There are two simple ways to understand this continental educationalpolitical process. On one hand, the popular movements are using educational processes to better understand their own work – to develop a capacity for self-criticism, construct new strategies and systematize lessons using diálogo de saberes (Martínez-Torres and Rosset 2014; Roman and Sanchez 2015; Stronzake 2013). In this sense, education, organization, and action are three interrelated elements of praxis. On the other hand, by building their own processes of education, movements are creating a real alternative to the conventional educational system that reproduces the ways of thinking of the dominant culture (McCune et al. 2016). As such, the movement-built education system disputes the meaning of things as given by colonial, patriarchal and capitalist systems. Unlearning, re-meaning and re-imagining are necessary capacities for de-articulating the capitalist hegemony that threatens the planet (Barbosa and Rosset 2017a, 2017b). Philosophical underpinnings of emergent peasant political-agroecological pedagogies LVC and CLOC have identified the kind of agroecological and political training needed to strengthen their organizations, the links between them and the scaling-out of agroecology, as part of the construction of food sovereignty (Barbosa and Rosset 2017b; Val et al. in 2019). Peasant social movements are developing their own constructivist agroecological pedagogy, inspired by Brazilian educator and philosopher Paulo Freire, in articulation with elements of territoriality (Stronzake 2013; Meek 2014, 2015; McCune, Reardon, and Rosset 2014 ; Rosset and Martínez-Torres 2016; Rosset 2015; Hernández and Naranjo 2014; Barbosa and Rosset 2017a; 2017b; Mier y Terán et al. 2018). Several philosophical threads run through the pedagogical theory and praxis of LVC and CLOC, which we summarize in the following section. Educação do campo The first of these comes largely from Brazil, though its influence has spread through continental PtPs. In Brazil, the political praxis of the organizations was transformed by the emergence of an educational concept that articulates the formative process of sociohistorical and political subjects with a pedagogical dimension of struggle (Barbosa 2017). The paradigmatic example of this is what is called “Education by and for the Countryside” (Educacao do Campo – EdC), and is essentially a synthesis of the appropriation of the political dimension of education and the pedagogical dimension of the AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 7 peasant political struggle (Barbosa 2015b, 2017; Barbosa and Rosset 2017a, 2017b). EdC arose as the peasant movement disputed the content, style and pedagogical methodology used in public schools in peasant communities in the countryside. They argued that conventional school made students feel ashamed to be peasants, taught them nothing useful for peasant life, and basically encouraged young people to migrate to the cities. They developed the EdC proposal to be exactly the opposite of that, and to also have a strong political component, essentially acting as a dispositive to forge a sociohistorical and political subject out of the peasantry, reclaiming education as a right for rural peoples (Barbosa 2013, 2015a, 2016, 2017; Barbosa and Rosset 2017b). It is an implicit criticism of formal rural education as offered by the State, with the urban-centric discourse that legitimizes the city–countryside dichotomy: There emerges the proposal for a concept of education defended by the peasant movement, which is viscerally articulated with the sociocultural specificities of the countryside, articulator of a strengthened identity for rural people and which makes visible a human education of an emancipatory nature. For this reason, education should be thought of in and for the countryside; in other words, the category of the countryside should be the articulating axis of the concept of education, as a educative-political-cultural project. (Barbosa 2013, 21) EdC tries to revert the rural exodus by placing the peasantry and its sociocultural and political reality in the center of the educational process, through a co-management by social movements and the public sector, which highlights the strengthening of identity and combines technical contents with the capacity to understand the context of rural communities (Barbosa and Rosset 2017a, 2017b; Caldart 2008; McCune, Reardon, and Rosset 2014; Meek 2015). Agroecology is rapidly becoming ever more present in the educationalpolitical praxis of EdC, in its epistemic, theoretical and political dimensions. The movements see the countryside as a territory in dispute with transnational capital (Fernandes 2015; Rosset and Martínez-Torres 2012) and see the consolidation of peasant agroecology as a part of their political project and praxis of resistance (Barbosa and Rosset 2017b; Ribeiro et al. 2017). Pedagogy of the milpa Another thread or pedagogical axis, from the member organizations that profess indigenous cosmovision, is more decolonializing in nature, seeing agroecological and political education as a process of: [..]political awareness of decolonization for peasant, indigenous and afrodescendant youth of the Latin American and Caribbean continent. This materialization of the formative spaces, which produce dignity as part of an offensive filled with love, with revolutionary mysticism, with humility, with the recovery of community life and the ancestral methods that communicate with the cosmos, it is 8 P. ROSSET ET AL. a perspective that comes from critical education for resistance and popular struggle for liberation. (LVC 2016, s/p.) We can see here an educational dimension of political struggle in the defense of territory and agroecological production, that articulates the pedagogical appropriation of intersubjectivity and rationality, characteristic of the peasant, and indigenous worldviews situated in the sphere of community. For example, indigenous peasant organizations of CLOC in Central America recognize the ancient Mayan text, the Popol Wuj, as a reference for their educational-political praxis, which is combined with hands-on agroecological learning in what we have called the “Pedagogy of the Milpa” (Barbosa 2015a; Barbosa and Sollano 2014). The “milpa” is the traditional farming system of Mesoamerican peasants, composed of maize, beans, and many other cultivated plants. In the milpa, we find both a reference to indigenous peasant identity and a place for the educational and formative processes of children and young people with the concrete experience of agroecology. The way in which the cultural, linguistic and political legacy of Popol Wuj has been appropriated and disseminated expresses the conjugation of different elements in the recovery and strengthening of socio-cultural identity and in the conformation of a collective historicalpolitical subject (Barbosa and Rosset 2017b). Pedagogy of example and pedagogy of experience Pedagogy of Example is a constructivist pedagogical praxis proper to the PtP method (Machín Sosa et al. 2013; Val et. al., in 2019). The epistemic foundation of this perspective dialogues with the traditions of Latin American pedagogical thought, inspiring conceptions, educational projects, and educational subjects for a revolutionary future. The Cuban and Nicaraguan revolutions are important sources of inspiration for many of these organizations, seen, for example, in the idea of work as an educational principle (Castro 1974), and in the theoretical-political content of Che Guevara’s Pedagogy of the Example (Guevara 2004). This is an underlying pedagogical foundation in the elaboration and implementation of the PtP methodologies based on the horizontal socialization of knowledge. These are social methodologies for the construction of territorial processes to take agroecology to scale (Rosset 2015; Val et al. in 2019). The sense of scale that we use here is that of many peasant families that undergo an agroecological transformation of the farms, who are the subjects of the territorial expansion of peasant agroecological praxis (Machín Sosa et al. 2013). It is also a methodology based on the Pedagogy of Experience, in which a peasant family visits another family that is successfully practicing an agroecological solution to a problem common to all (Barbosa and Rosset 2017a, 2017b). AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 9 In the Pedagogy of Example, the exchange visit is the main activity. The host families are responsible for the transmission of knowledge of the experience visited, for its pedagogical mediation, and the classes take place in the plots (Barbosa and Rosset 2017a, 2017b; Holt-Giménez 2008; Machín Sosa et al. 2013). The same principle operates in the peasant agroecology training schools, which are not the formal scholastic education schools, nor are the aimed at youth per se, but are spaces in which peasants exchange knowledge among each other (McCune, Reardon, and Rosset 2014; McCune and Sánchez 2019). Pedagogy of the movement The Pedagogy of the Movement refers to the pedagogical and formative experiences and process that are inherent to participating in a social movement engaged in collective struggle (Barbosa and Rosset 2017a, 2017b). It is based on the conception that educational-pedagogical training takes place in all spaces of political struggle, whether a march, a barricade, a land occupation, a collective labor exchange to plant a crop, or the physical collective construction of a schoolhouse (Barbosa 2015b, 2017; Caldart 2004). For many of the organizations, the agroecology process is intimately related to the struggle for agrarian reform (Rosset 2013), and also relates to other struggles: the right to education, to health, to production, to the democratization of communication, the rights of children and adolescents, among others, all of which are also fertile territory for the conformation of the sociohistorical and political subject, forged in the dialectical movement of struggle. The pedagogical dialectic “is constituted as a pedagogical matrix of concrete practices of formation…, not creating a new pedagogy, but inventing a new way of dealing with pedagogies already constructed in the history of human formation” (Caldart 2004, 329). In this Pedagogy of the Movement, the peasant organizations themselves are the collective pedagogical subject by nature, and the educational process is placed beyond the school walls, being pedagogically strengthened in all the places and dynamics of the struggle for land and territory. In this Pedagogy of the Movement, agroecology is approached from the perspective of work as an educational principle, consolidating agroecological production in the territories where the schools and institutes are located, and in the realization of socio-productive labor in the neighboring communities, to promote and spread the materialization of the agroecological experience (Batista 2014). Pedagogical practices in formal education for peasant youth These philosophical threads come together in varied combinations in the concrete pedagogical practices deployed in the spaces that the CLOC has 10 P. ROSSET ET AL. built in Latin America for the formal education of peasant youth (among other kinds of training and formation where the same philosophical bases can be identified). Here agroecology is consolidated as conception, method and political project. An exemplary case is that of the Escolas do Campo (“schools of the countryside”) which are public schools in peasant communities in Brazil that were won through widespread peasant protest (Barbosa 2017). The struggle Movement of Landless Rural Workers (MST) was crucial for the consolidation of the National Policy of Education of the Countryside. These schools recognize agroecology as a curricular matrix, in addition to each of them having productive areas for learning agroecological practices (Barbosa 2017; Ribeiro et al. 2017). There are also CLOC and LVC schools of agroecological and political formation at the level of higher education, which might be called peasant universities. The most notable example is that of the Latin American Institutes of Agroecology (IALAs): IALA Guaraní (Paraguay), IALA Amazónico, and the Escuela Latinoamericana de Agroecología – ELAA (Brazil), IALA Paulo Freire (Venezuela), IALA María Cano (Colombia), IALA Mesoamérica (Nicaragua), IALA Mujeres Sembradoras de Esperanza (Chile), and the Universidad Campesina “SURI” (UNICAM SURI), in Argentina (LVC 2015b). These schools receive young militants from various LVC/CLOC organizations. In them, the formative process articulates the political dimension of agroecology; they are schools that seek to promote a formation of technical character or in a superior level, to form their own technicians and organic intellectuals, central in the theoretical-epistemic and political confrontation with the forces capital in the countryside. These instances of political formation are structured by common political-pedagogical principles: praxis as a principle of human formation, internationalism, work as an educational principle, organicity and the link with the community (LVC 2015b). The young militants or cadre who are trained politically and in agroecology are fundamental for the political project or dispositive of CLOC/LVC. Not only do they become active subjects in the construction of their own realities, but they become central actors in the whole process of agroecological transformation in their territories. These young people become the hinge that articulates the technical-political dimensions of agroecology with the territorial processes. They are key to the scaling up and territorialization of agroecology as a form of production and a peasant political project (McCune 2017; McCune et al. 2017). Although these schools have only been in existence for a few years – the first, IALA Paulo Freire in Venezuela – opened its doors in 2006, and the others over the following years, we have already seen an impact in this sense. The graduates of this first IALA already occupy key positions as cadres, militants, and facilitators of the agroecological and political processes of their organizations in Brazil, Colombia, Venezuela, Paraguay, and AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 11 Nicaragua. This extraordinary harvest is permitting the articulation of “peasant-to-peasant-style” processes in many places (McCune et al. 2016). The pedagogical practices of all of these schools or universities share certain common elements (Stronzake 2013; Meek 2014, 2015; McCune, Reardon, and Rosset 2014; Rosset and Martínez-Torres 2016; Rosset 2015; Hernández and Naranjo 2014; Barbosa and Rosset 2017a; 2017b; Mier y Terán et al. 2018). Among the elements of this emerging pedagogy (Rosset and Altieri 2017), we can include the following: ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● Horizontal dialogue among different ways of knowing (diálogo de saberes) and the horizontal exchange of experiences (as in PtP and others, such as community-to-community) Holistic integration of technical-agroecological education with politicalethic, humanist and internationalist education, including respect for Mother Earth and the concept of “living well” or Buen Vivir Alternation between time at school and time in the home community The design of all physical spaces and times of the pedagogical experience – reading times, field work, collective cleaning and maintenance of the school, collective preparation of meals and cultural activities – as components of the formative process (Barbosa 2017; McCune et al. 2017) Political struggle as pedagogical, in that subjects are as much formed during marches, in land occupations, in barricades, as they are in school (Barbosa 2016; Caldart 2004) Self-management, collective organization, school administration, and the design and application of the study plan, are also part of the formative experience The educational process is not designed to form “know-it-all” experts of agroecology, but rather to form facilitators of horizontal processes of knowledge exchange and collective transformation Agroecology is understood as a fundamental tool for peasant resistance, the construction of food sovereignty and a new relationship between people and nature Agroecology is understood as “territorial”: it requires organicity and is, above all, a tool for struggle and collective transformation of the rural reality These are elements that have been enriched through regional, continental and global processes in LVC, with the objective of consolidating a critical formation, through exchanges and dialogue, and agroecology as a politicaleducational project and principle. In essence, they represent the collective construction of a conception of human education and formation, articulated through upon a peasant, indigenous and popular epistemic basis. 12 P. ROSSET ET AL. The diverse epistemes of the member organizations of CLOC and LVC (Rosset 2015) bring many conceptions of agroecology together in a common vision, with food sovereignty as a political principle for the emancipation of people in the countryside. In the conflict with transnational capital, there is a necessary link between territories, subjects, education and agroecology, which is key in the advancement of a political agenda of peasant struggle (Barbosa and Rosset 2017b). In order to further understand the processes in which these young people are inserted and formed within the CLOC/LVC, we use the category of territorial mediators as a crucial specific dispositive (McCune 2017, 2017; McCune et al. 2016). Territorial mediators as a dispositive of transformation To understand what we refer to as “territorial mediators,” a key concept is that of the “pedagogical mediator” (Vygotsky 1978), as the one that culture provides us to be able to internalize the cultural forms of behavior historically constructed. Instead of the idea of tools directed out of the human being to dominate his environment, Vygotsky emphasized the psychological instruments that are directed from the cultural environment towards the interior of the individual to form and condition his mind. Learning is not something forced but the result of a process of internalization of meanings that exist in intersubjective relations; people often do not learn directly but through mediators. Pedagogical mediators can be people, acts, moments, actions or symbols that allow the approach between a content and the learning of the educational subject, through the culturally constructed meaning. They are the instruments that allow the socialization and interiorization of cultural content in individuals (McCune 2017; McCune et al. 2016). Like pedagogical mediators, who favor the interiorization of cultural contents, territorial mediators facilitate the transformation of territories with agroecology (McCune et al. 2016; McCune and Sánchez 2019). The transformation of territories is not a direct subject–object action. On the contrary, it is a mediated process, in which diverse subjects assume specific tasks in determined moments, creating social feedback and emerging principles, which imply new learning for social movements. The integration of young cadres to the territories as popular educators, as is the case of the graduates of the IALAs, who promote the pedagogical development of peasantmultipliers, is a kind of ‘ant work’ in agroecology that does not adhere to the conventional systems of planning and finance, but rather the logics of collective action. Transformative activity is at the heart of the pedagogical dispositive of agroecological training, both in the contexts of formal and university education and of social processes “from below” (McCune, Reardon, and AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 13 Rosset 2014; Sevilla Guzmán 2013). The main difference lies in the formative methods, not only in the construction of the personality and identity of individual subjects but also in the self-construction of an agroecological historical subject (Barbosa 2015b, 2017; Barbosa and Rosset 2017a, 2017b; Val et al. in 2019). The pedagogical mediators of agroecological training in LVC are translated into learning and subjectivism at the individual, collective and sociohistorical/territorial levels (see Table 2). The activity is the fundamental pedagogical mediator of the agroecological formation: both the agroecological activity as well as the organizational, creative and recreational activities, and the complementary relations with the workers of the formative center. However, the social struggle itself is the main experience forming political cadres of the organizations. The theory of situated learning (Lave and Wenger 1991) contributes much to the understanding of the gradual, peripheral participation of the subjects of formation in a community of practice-its social movement-that carries out organizational tasks in the socio-cultural contexts of the social reproduction of the peasant, indigenous and rural worker base. This is how the organizational culture becomes the second great pedagogical mediator of the social movements that are formed in agroecology (McCune 2017). It is the pedagogy of the movement explained above. Therefore, the transforming praxis of agroecological movements cannot be limited to school spaces but must assume a territoriality of collective action (Sevilla Guzmán 2013). The action of ‘learning-action’ does not merely refer to practical exercises, however, useful they may be, during ‘school-time’. The work of the social movements in the countryside is not limited to practicing agroecology, but also assumes the political-historical task of taking it to scale in the territories. If we take the example of the PtP method, in which the peasant becomes a promoter, capable of teaching his or her experiences in agroecology to his or her neighbors and peasants from other communities, we see clearly that it contributes to self-esteem and the revaluation of his or her way of life by the ecological vocation. The promoters reveal broad communicative skills while assuming a greater role in the territorial structures of the movement. These learning experiences are not limited to the cognitive processing of agroecological techniques or contents; this processing is rather a consequence of their conversion into agroecologists, in the ethical, cognitive, cultural, social, and political sense. The ability to imagine a different future is part of agroecological learning: for people who have become promoters of the LVC’s territorial agroecological processes, the design of the farm-level transition and the vision of change taking place on agroecological time scales are part of the transformation they experience as individuals (McCune 2017). 14 Table 2. Three levels of learning and knowledge mediated by distinct pedagogical activities. Permanent small groups with names and slogans for dividing chores at school Interpersonal: small groups and classroom Realization of diversity potential, rescue of historical memory Learning to work with different types of people Achieving fuller participation Individual subjects Sensitizing and motivating learner Gardening: double-digging, seed selection, soil preparation, Connecting practice with new information, Produces bonds among composting, thinning, transplanting, watering, mulching, building on previous knowledge, discovering “coworkers,” pride, combining crops, weeding, rooting, harvesting, tasting new interests, questions, and qualities in oneself recognition of previous knowledge Readings and analysis of texts Strengthening reading and synthesis skills Fomenting debate, stimulating zone of proximal development Physical-emotive games Motivations, stimulating creativity Stimulating self-esteem, collective bonds, interpersonal trust Exchanges with local peasant farmers and communities Developing protocol and methods for working Breaks out of the classroom dynamic, improves in communities reflection Theater created by educandos in small groups and Creative thinking, transforming course itself into Gaining fuller participation, performed for class and guests “performance” to observe critically trust within group, bringing “electricity” to group Interpretation of poetry and songs Use of figurative language, cultural codes Chance to share and compare taste in music and art Intergenerational and intercultural dialogue Gratifying experiences, listening skills More complete collective constructions and senses Oral and written self-, co-, and hetero-evaluation and Critical writing and thinking skills Distribution of synthesis of course responsibility for collective processes Socio-historical and territorial subjectivity Re-production of traditional culture, revaluing forms of knowing Generates more diverse “answers” or representations within unity of collective subject Gaining ability to be food selfreliant, and teach production methods for generating food sovereignty Reinforcing historical memory, employing relevant categories of analysis Creating new categories of meaningful fun, bonding Legitimizes course in eyes of the community; broadest contextualization of LVC courses Gaining a simple, flexible “tool” for critical reflection in communities Connection between historical moment and the art it produces Continuity, relevo Historical record P. ROSSET ET AL. Level ⋙⋙⋙ Activity \/ \/ Mística AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 15 Conclusions: toward an educational-productive reterritorialization In the process of consolidation of agroecology as a principle and political project and dispositive, traditional knowledge, experiences, and sociocultural identities are claimed as constitutive axes of learning (Barbosa 2014, 2015a; McCune et al. 2016; Meek 2015). The educational-pedagogical praxis also happens beyond the school and university space, incorporating other places for the construction of pedagogical and formative processes. There is an educational-pedagogical reterritorialization that articulates multiple places for the conformation of political subjectivity, cultural identity and the diálogo de saberes (Barbosa 2014, 2015b, 2017; Martínez-Torres and Rosset 2014), in which a logic of the educational process is affirmed that deconstructs the logic proposed by modern rationality, “where there is no place for everyday life” (Barbosa and Sollano 2014, 86). In this pedagogical matrix, knowledge is constructed in the different educational territories beyond the school space (school-time and community-time), linking theory and practice, giving a reflective function to schools and training institutes, and articulating them into the concrete life of the communities, territories, and spaces of political praxis. Outstanding examples of educational-pedagogical reterritorialization are the different spaces of knowledge construction, such as the pedagogy of the milpa that takes place in cornfields, in EdC and in the IALAs discussed above. In these concrete places, the indigenous and peasant rationalities of ancestral modes of production are articulated with the strengthening of the agroecological matrix as a territorial and political process. The agroecology of LVC is an agroecology with a sociohistorical and political subject, the medium through which the radical transformation of the productive, economic and social system is sought. To this end, a strong commitment is being made to the training of rural youth with technical capacities and effective agroecological practical ability, as well as political cadre who contribute to the organization and management of territorial processes – for example, the PtP processes – in pursuit of the political project of their organizations (BORRAS JR, Edelman, and Kay 2008; Desmarais 2007, 2015a; LVC 2011a, 2012, 2013, 2016; Martínez-Torres and Rosset 2010, 2013; Rosset and Martínez-Torres 2012, 2016). In order to overcome the barriers to agroecology (Rosset and Altieri 2017) and catalyze the scaling and massification, it is necessary to strengthen the dispositive of pedagogical-training and territorial processes of peasant organizations. In particular, the schools and institutes of agroecology are among the main tools for the formation of critical subjects, as well as the central strategy for disputing meanings in the countryside. The emphasis on generational renewal and the strengthening of work with youth represents one of the main political objectives of LVC in the long-term dispute (Barbosa 2013, 16 P. ROSSET ET AL. 2015b, 2017; Barbosa and Rosset 2017b; McCune, Reardon, and Rosset 2014; McCune et al. 2017). Agroecological consciousness in the peasantry is vital to build alternatives for the countryside, in rejection of the project of global capital that puts human survival at serious risk. It is a feminist, decolonizing and anticapitalist consciousness based on the observation of, and work with, nature, for the production and distribution of food. The graduates of peasant schools are people capable of transforming power relations and promoting structural changes that allow their societies to approach the realization of food and popular sovereignty. The constitution of critical subjects in and from the rural world (with specific characteristics of this twenty-first century) is perhaps one of the most revolutionary actions of our time. Examples such as Zapatismo and those presented here provide an account of this epistemic-ontological revolution that seeks to radically transform the ways of producing and co-inhabiting Mother Earth (Giraldo 2018). The schools and agroecological processes of the peasant movement are part of the PtP dispositives in territories as well as national and international spaces (Val et al. in 2019). They are important for taking agroecology to a territorial scale (Mier y Terán et al. 2018) with a political vision and transformational project that go far beyond just the productive sphere. Note 1. We use the term “dispositive” in the sense of an alternative and counter-hegemonic power dispositive developed to counter the technologies of power and the structures of oppression of “disciplinary” or “control” societies (Bussolini 2010; Deleuze 2006; Foucault 1992, 2000), today transformed into control societies, and a multidimensional device of mechanism for assembling different interrelated practices, discourses and representations that are put into play for a specific collective action (Val et al. in this issue). Funding This work was supported by the Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología [Graduate Fellowship awarded to V. Val]; Fundação Cearense de Apoio ao Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico [PVE grant awarded to P. Rosset]. ORCID Peter Rosset http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1253-1066 Valentín Val http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3680-3385 Lia Pinheiro Barbosa http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0727-9027 Nils McCune http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9040-9595 AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 17 References Altieri, M. A. 2009. Agroecology, small farms, and food sovereignty. Monthly Review 61 (3):102–13. doi:10.14452/MR-061-03-2009-07. Altieri, M. A., and C. Nicholls. 2008. Scaling up agroecological approaches for food sovereignty in Latin America. Development 51 (4):472–80. doi:10.1057/dev.2008.68. Barbosa, L. P. 2013. Por la democratización de la educación superior en Brasil: El PRONERA en el marco de la lucha de los movimientos campesinos. Universidades 56:20–31. Barbosa, L. P. 2014. As dimensões epistêmico-políticas da Educação do Campo em perspectiva latino-americana. Revista Reflexão E Ação, Santa Cruz Do Sul, UNISC 22(1) 2: 143–69, Disponível em https://online.unisc.br/seer/index.php/reflex/article/view/5105/3768. Barbosa, L. P. 2015a. Educação do Campo, movimentos sociais e a luta pela democratização da Educação Superior: Os desafios da universidade pública no Brasil. In Los desafíos de la universidad pública en América Latina y el Caribe, ed. Acosta Silva, et al., 147–212. Buenos Aires: CLACSO. Barbosa, L. P. 2015b. Educación, resistencia y movimientos sociales: La praxis educativo-pol ítica de los Sin Tierra y de los Zapatistas. México: LIBRUNAM. Barbosa, L. P. 2016. Educación, resistencia y conocimiento en América Latina: Por una teoría desde los movimientos sociales. Raíz Diversa 3 (6):45–79. julio-diciembre. Barbosa, L. P. 2017. Educação do Campo [Education for and by the countryside] as a political project in the context of the struggle for land in Brazil. The Journal of Peasant Studies 44 (1):118–43. doi:10.1080/03066150.2015.1119120. Barbosa, L. P., and M. G. Sollano. 2014. La Educación Autónoma Zapatista en la formación de los sujetos de la educación: Otras epistemes, otros horizontes. Revista Intersticios De La Política Y De La Cultura. Intervenciones Latinoamericanas 3 (6):67–89. Barbosa, L. P., and P. M. Rosset. 2017a. Movimentos sociais e educação do campo na américa latina: Aprendizagens de um percurso histórico. Revista Práxis Educacional, Vitória Da Conquista 13 (26):22–48. Barbosa, L. P., and P. M. Rosset. 2017b. Educação do campo e pedagogia camponesa agroecológica na América Latina: Aportes da La Via Campesina e da CLOC. Educação & Sociedade 38 (140):705–24. doi:10.1590/es0101-73302017175593. Batista, A. F. 2014. A formação e a organização política na territorialização contra-hegem ônica: A experiência da Via Campesina Sudamérica. Revista NERA 17 (24):51–71. Borras Jr, S. M., M. Edelman, and Y. C. Kay. 2008. Transnational agrarian movements: Origins and politics, campaigns and impact. Journal of Agrarian Change 8 (2–3):169–204. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0366.2008.00167.x. Bussolini, J. 2010. What is a dispositive? Foucault Studies 10:85–107. Caldart, R. S. 2004. Sobre Educação do Campo (pp. 67–86). São Paulo: Expressão Popular. Caldart, R. S. 2008. Sobre Educación del Campo. In Por uma Educação do Campo: Campo, políticas públicas, educação, ed. Fernandes et al. Brasília: INCRA/MDA. Castro, F. 1974. Educación y Revolución. La Habana: Nuestro Tiempo. Deleuze, G. 2006. Post-scriptum sobre las sociedades de control. Polis 5 (13):277–86. Desmarais, A. 2007. La Vía Campesina. Globalization and the power of peasants. Halifax, Canadá, Londres y Ann Arbor, Michigan: Fernwood Publishing y Pluto Press. doi:10.1094/ PDIS-91-4-0467B. Fernandes, B. M. 2015. Soberania alimentar como território. In Conflitos agrários: Seus sujeitos, seus direitos, ed. M. C. V. B. Tárrega and S. F. Schwendler, 29–52. Goiânia: Editora da PUC. Foucault, M. 1992. El orden del discurso. Buenos Aires: Tusquets Editores. 18 P. ROSSET ET AL. Foucault, M. 2000. Defender la Sociedad: Curso en el Collège de France (1975-1976). Buenos Aires: Fondo de Cultura Económica. Giraldo, O. F. 2018. Ecología política de la agricultura. Agroecología y posdesarrollo. San Cristóbal de las Casas: ECOSUR. Giraldo, O. F., and P. M. Rosset. 2017. Agroecology as a territory in dispute: Between institutionality and social movements. Journal of Peasant Studies. doi:10.1080/ 03066150.2017.1353496. Guevara, E. 1965. El socialismo y el hombre en Cuba. Marcha Accessed December 3, 1965. https://www.marxists.org/espanol/guevara/65-socyh.htm. Guevara, E. 2004. Obras escogidas. Santiago: Digital por Resma. Hernández, D. G., and R. A. Naranjo. 2014. La Resignificación Campesinista de La Ruralidad: La Universidad Rural Paulo Freire. Revista De Dialectología Y Tradiciones Populares 69 (2):285–304. doi:10.3989/rdtp.2014.02.002. Holt-Giménez, E. 2001. Scaling up sustainable agriculture Lessons from the Campesino a Campesino movement. LEISA magazine, October 2001, 27–29. Holt-Giménez, E. 2006. Campesino a Campesino: Voices from Latin America’s Farmer to Farmer Movement for Sustainable Agriculture. Oakland, CA, USA: Food First Books. Holt-Giménez, E. 2008. Campesino a Campesino: Voces de Latinoamérica. Movimientos de campesino a campesino para una agricultura sustentable. Managua: SIMAS. Khadse, A., P. M. Rosset, H. Morales, and B. G. Ferguson. 2017. Taking agroecology to scale: The Zero Budget Natural Farming peasant movement in Karnataka, India. The Journal of Peasant Studies 45:1–28. La Vía Campesina (LVC). 2011a. La agricultura campesina ostenible puede alimentar al mundo, LVC Views, núm. 6, 1-15. Consultado 19 de agosto de 2017. https://viacampe sina.org/es/publicaciones-mainmenu-30/1117-la-agricultura-campesina-sostenible-puedealimentar-al-mundo. La Vía Campesina (LVC). 2012. Declaración de Bukit Tinggi sobre la reforma agraria en el siglo XXI, LVC. Consultado 22 de agosto de 2017. https://viacampesina.org/es/declaracionde-bukit-tinggisobre-la-reforma-agraria-en-el-siglo-xxi/. La Vía Campesina (LVC). 2013. De Maputo a Yakarta: 5 años de agroecología en La Via Campesina. LVC. Consultado 22 de agosto de 2017. https://viacampesina.org/es/demaputo-a-yakarta-5anos-de-agroecologia-en-la-via-campesina/. La Via Campesina (LVC). 2015a. Declaration of the international forum for agroecology. http://viacampesina.org/en/index.php/main-825issues-mainmenu-27/sustainable-peasantsagriculture-mainmenu-42/1749-declaration-of-the-international-forum-for-agroecology. La Vía Campesina (LVC). 2015b. Agroecología campesina por la soberanía alimentaria y la madre tierra. Experiencias de La Vía Campesina. Cuaderno No. 7. Zimbabwe. La Vía Campesina (LVC). 2016. Declaración de Marabá. consultado 22 de agosto de 2017. https://viacampesina.org/es/acciones-y-eventos-mainmenu-26/17-de-abril-dde-laluchacampesina-mainmenu-33/2625-conferencia-internacional-de-la-reformaagrariadeclaracion-de-maraba. Lave, J., and E. Wenger. 1991. Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Machín Sosa, B., A. M. Roque Jaime, D. R. Ávila Lozano, and P. M. Rosset. 2013. AGROECOLOGICAL REVOLUTION: The Farmer-to-Farmer Movement of the ANAP in Cuba. Ciudad de la Habana, Cuba and Yakarta, Indonesia: ANAP and La Vía Campesina. Martínez-Torres, M. E., and P. M. Rosset. 2010. La Vía Campesina: The birth and evolution of a transnational social movement. Journal of Peasant Studies 37 (1):149–75. doi:10.1080/ 03066150903498804. AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 19 Martínez-Torres, M. E., and P. M. Rosset. 2013. Del conflicto de modelos para el mundo rural emerge la vía campesina como movimiento social transnacional. El Otro Derecho. Núm 44:21–57. Luchas agrarias en América Latina. Martínez-Torres, M. E., and P. M. Rosset. 2014. Diálogo de saberes in La Vía Campesina: Food sovereignty and agroecology. The Journal of Peasant Studies 41 (6):979–97. doi:10.1080/03066150.2013.872632. McCune, N. 2017. Os mediadores pedagógicos e a territorialicao de agroecologia. Praxis Educacional 13 (26):252–80. McCune, N., J. Reardon, and P. M. Rosset. 2014. Agroecological formación in rural social movements. Radical Teacher 98:31–37. doi:10.5195/rt.2014.71. McCune, N., and M. Sánchez. 2019. Teaching the territory: Agroecological pedagogy and popular movements. Agriculture and Human Values 1–16. doi:10.1007/s10460-018-9853-9. McCune, N., P. Rosset, T. Cruz Salazar, H. Morales, and A. Saldívar Moreno. 2017. The long road: Rural youth, farming and agroecological formación in Central America. Mind, Culture, and Activity 24 (3):183–98. doi:10.1080/10749039.2017.1293690. McCune, N., P. M. Rosset, T. Cruz, A. Saldívar, and H. Morales. 2016. Mediated territoriality: Rural workers and the efforts to scale out agroecology in Nicaragua. The Journal of Peasant Studies 44 (2):354–76. doi:10.1080/03066150.2016.1233868. Meek, D. 2014. Agroecology and radical grassroots movements’ evolving moral economies. Environment and Society: Advances in Research 5:47–65. Meek, D. 2015. Learning as territoriality: The political ecology of education in the Brazilian landless workers’ movement. Journal of Peasant Studies 42:1179–200. doi:10.1080/ 03066150.2014.978299. Meek, D., K. Bradley, B. Ferguson, L. Hoey, H. Morales, P. Rosset, and R. Tarlau. 2017. Food sovereignty education across the Americas: Multiple origins, converging movements. Agriculture and Human Values. doi:10.1007/s10460-017-9780-1. Meek, D., and R. Tarlau. 2016. Critical Food Systems Education and the Question of Race. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development 5 (4):131–35. doi:10.5304/jafscd.2015.054.021. Mier y Terán, M., O. F. Giraldo, M. Aldasoro, H. Morales, B. Ferguson, P. Rosset, A. Khadse, and C. Campos. 2018. Bringing agroecology to scale: Key drivers and emblematic cases. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 42 (6):637–65. doi:10.1080/21683565.2018.1443313. Ribeiro, D. S., E. V. Tiepolo, M. C. Vargas, and N. R. Da Silva. 2017. Agroecologia na educação básica: Questões propositivas de conteúdo e metodologia. São Paulo: Expressão Popular. Roman, R., and M. Sanchez. 2015. La Agroecología: Puntal de La Soberanía Alimentaria. En America Latina En Movimiento: Agricultura Campesina Para La Soberanía Alimentaria 501:21–23. Rosset, P. M. 2011. Food sovereignty and alternative paradigms to confront land grabbing and the food and climate crises. Development 54 (1):21–30. doi:10.1057/dev.2010.102. Rosset, P. M. 2013. Re-thinking agrarian reform, land and territory in La Via Campesina. Journal of Peasant Studies 40 (4):721–75. doi:10.1080/03066150.2013.826654. Rosset, P. M. 2015. Social organization and process in bringing agroecology to scale. In Agroecology for food security and nutrition, Food and agriculture organization (FAO) of the United Nations (pp. 298–307), Rome: FAO. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4729e.pdf. Rosset, P. M., and M. A. Altieri. 2017. Agroecology: Science and Politics. Manitoba. Canada: Fernwood Publishing. Rosset, P. M., and M. E. Martínez-Torres. 2012. Rural Social Movements and Agroecology: Context, Theory, and Process. Ecology and Society 17:3. doi:10.5751/ES-05000-170317. 20 P. ROSSET ET AL. Rosset, P. M., and M. E. Martínez-Torres. 2016. Agroecología, territorio, recampesinización y movimientos sociales. Estudios Sociales-Revista De Investigación Científica 25 (47):275–99. Sevilla Guzmán, E. 2013. La formación en agroecología y sus diferentes niveles de territorialidad: Pensando desde la aportación de José Antonio Costabeter. Presentation at VIII Brazillian Congress of Agroecology. Porto Alegre 25–28 November, 2013. Stronzake, J. 2013. Movimientos sociales, formación política y agroecología. América Latina En Movimiento 487:27–29. Val, V. 2012. Sembrando alternativas; cosechando esperanzas. (Re)campesinización agroecológica en las lomas del Escambray, Provincia de Villa Clara, Cuba. Master’s thesis, México: Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social (CIESAS). doi:10.1094/PDIS-11-11-0999-PDN. Val, V., P. M. Rosset, C. Zamora Lomelí, O. F. Giraldo, and D. Rocheleau. 2019. Agroecology and La Via Campesina I. The symbolic and material construction of agroecology through the dispositive of “peasant-to-peasant” processes. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems. doi: 10.1080/21683565.2019.1600099. Von der Weid, J. M. 2000. Scaling up, and scaling further up: An ongoing experience of participatory development in Brazil. São Paulo: AS-PTA Assessoria e Serviços a Projectos em Agricultura Alternativa. Vygotsky, L. 1978. Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems ISSN: 2168-3565 (Print) 2168-3573 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjsa21 MST’s experience in leveraging agroecology in rural settlements: lessons, achievements, and challenges Ricardo Serra Borsatto & Vanilde F. Souza-Esquerdo To cite this article: Ricardo Serra Borsatto & Vanilde F. Souza-Esquerdo (2019) MST’s experience in leveraging agroecology in rural settlements: lessons, achievements, and challenges, Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 43:7-8, 915-935, DOI: 10.1080/21683565.2019.1615024 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2019.1615024 Published online: 12 May 2019. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 87 View Crossmark data Citing articles: 1 View citing articles Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wjsa21 AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 2019, VOL. 43, NOS. 7–8, 915–935 https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2019.1615024 MST’s experience in leveraging agroecology in rural settlements: lessons, achievements, and challenges Ricardo Serra Borsatto a and Vanilde F. Souza-Esquerdo b a Center of Nature Sciences, Federal University of São Carlos (UFSCar), Buri, Brazil; bIntegrated Council of Planning and Management, College of Agricultural Engineering, State University of Campinas, Campinas, Brazil ABSTRACT KEYWORDS Since the mid-1990s, the Landless Workers’ Movement (MST) in Brazil has promoted agroecology in its settlements as a strategic guideline. Although agroecological production experiences have spread throughout settlements, MST has not yet succeeded in making agroecology the dominant paradigm within its settlements. Thus, the main purpose of this article is to understand the challenges faced by the MST in promoting the adoption of agroecological practices by its settlers. A framework consisting of eight drivers identified as crucial to bring agroecology to scale was used to analyze and discuss the advances achieved and the challenges faced by the MST. Our findings suggest that some structural characteristics of the MST and the Brazilian State impose unique and complex challenges for the project of scaling agroecology in rural settlements. Therefore, we suggest that some drivers must be better applied in a coordinated way, for example, a) investing in less hierarchical processes of rural extension such as campesino-a-campesino (peasant-to-peasant) methodology and participatory certification; b) implementing more demonstrative areas of agroecological production in settlements, and c) advancing actions and partnerships that bring farmers and consumers closer. peasant movements; scaling-out agroecology; MST; Brazil “Lutar! Construir Reforma Agrária Popular” (Struggle! Build People’s Agrarian Reform) MST’s motto Introduction As proposed in this special issue, this article addresses the challenge of scaling-out the adoption of agroecological practices in family and peasant agriculture. Rosset and Altieri (2017) and Mier et al. (2018) defined scalingout agroecology as the adoption of agroecological principles by an increasing number of families, over increasingly larger territories. CONTACT Ricardo Serra Borsatto [email protected] Center of Nature Sciences, Buri 18245-970, Brazil © 2019 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC Federal University of São Carlos (UFSCar), 916 R. S. BORSATTO AND V. F. SOUZA-ESQUERDO Agroecology offers fundamentals and principles that allow us to question the entire current food system (McMichael 2009a, Mier et al. 2018) and at the same time propose a new one, based on new principles (Altieri and Nicholls 2012; Altieri and Toledo 2011; Giraldo 2018; Gliessman 2015; Rosset and Altieri 2017). Thus, both theoretical and practical propositions drawn from agroecology have been increasingly embraced by social movements representing the interests of peasants, because it is the peasants who are most affected by the externalities of the current food system (Rosset and MartínezTorres 2014; Rosset and Maria Elena 2012; Desmarais 2008; La Via Campesina 2016). This paper is inserted in this field, by reflecting on scaling agroecology intending to build an agri-food system based on new values and social relations, where peasant agriculture plays a leading role. Therefore, its scope differs from the efforts that intend to institutionalize agroecology promoted by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and policy-makers around the world. As a general rule, the interests of these agents are from a reformist perspective, considering that agroecology may be a tool to help mitigate the negative externalities of the dominant food system. On the other hand, peasant movements view agroecology as the way to construct a new, more just, and equitable agri-food system (Giraldo and Rosset 2018; Rivera-Ferre 2018; Rosset and Altieri 2017). The Brazilian context offers a rich background to understand how these different perspectives on agroecology coexist and influence its scaling. Brazil stands out worldwide for having developed and implemented different policies explicitly aimed at family1 and peasant farming, which seek to promote the adoption of more sustainable production systems based on agroecological principles (Candiotto2018; da Costa et al. 2017; FAO, and IFAD 2017; Gliessman 2014; Petersen, Mussoi, and Dalsoglio 2012). On the other hand, the implementation of these policies has never threatened the growing state support to the agro-export sector of agricultural commodities (Sauer and Mészáros, 2017). Thus, Brazil is recognized as both a pioneer in the institutionalization of agroecology and simultaneously one of the world’s largest consumers of agro-chemicals and a huge exporter of agricultural commodities (Bojanic 2017; Jardim and Caldas 2012). In this setting of enormous contradictions, Brazil’s Landless Workers’ Movement (MST- Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra) is considered one of the most important social movements in the world. Throughout its history it has supported approximately 350,000 farm families who occupied land (Fernandes 2009; Wolford 2003). MST began to see agroecology as an important tool for the development of its settlements in the mid-1990s. Different drivers led the Movement to question the model it had defended until then, mainly a) the advance of the neoliberal wave in Brazil, which opened agricultural markets and AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 917 eliminated subsidies, and b) the formation and participation of the MST in La Via Campesina. This context created conditions for the MST to revise its guidelines, which opened room for the Movement to absorb new ideas, among them, agroecology (Borsatto and Do Carmo 2013; Frade and Sauer 2017). Although agroecological production experiences within rural settlements linked to the MST have multiplied and spread throughout different regions of the country in recent decades, the Movement has not yet succeeded in making agroecological principles the technical guideline of the majority of its settlers. Despite the lack of data, it is possible to infer that the conventional model of production, dependent on agrochemicals, sometimes with the use of transgenic seeds, is still predominant in most rural settlements. Based on this reality, this paper is a theoretical reflection about the challenges faced by MST in scaling-out agroecology in its rural settlements. The framework for our analysis and reflections was based on a set of eight key factors for understanding the scaling of agroecology proposed by Mier et al. (2018), based on the study of some emblematic cases: (1) recognition of a crisis that motivates the search for alternatives, (2) social organization, (3) constructivist learning processes, (4) effective agroecological practices, (5) mobilizing discourses, (6) external allies, (7) favorable markets, and (8) favorable policies. The data presented and discussed in this paper came from an extensive literature review about experiences with agroecology within the MST. Moreover, the authors have performed research with MST for approximately two decades, conducting field research, attending events, presenting courses, talking to leadership, among other activities that have provided them with privileged access, enabling direct observations. In addition to this introduction, we have organized this text into three sections. The next section presents a brief description of the MST and how the agroecology discourse has advanced in the Movement. In the following section, the key-drivers proposed by Mier et al. (2018) are used as a framework to analyze the advances and challenges of the MST in relation to agroecology. In the conclusions, we summarize our findings and point to actions that can help the MST in its effort to scale out agroecology in rural settlements. MST The MST was founded in 1984 and is considered one of the most important peasant movements in the world (Fernandes 2009; Wolford 2003). In its first decade of existence, MST advocated a model of rural settlement guided by an orthodox Marxist reading, inspired by the experiences of Soviet kolkhozes and the Cuban Cooperativas de Producción Agropecuaria (Agricultural 918 R. S. BORSATTO AND V. F. SOUZA-ESQUERDO Production Cooperatives – CPAs). The focus was on promoting highly productive settlements, heavily mechanized, with intensive use of agrochemicals, specialized in few crops, vertically integrated, and with all work activities collectivized (Diniz and Gilbert 2013; Fabrini 2002). Despite the presence of people inside the MST defending principles that are now part of the agroecological approach – such as food sovereignty, environmental preservation, use of alternative technologies, and valorization of peasant knowledge – the dominant political ideology within the Movement was headed in another direction (Andrade Neto 2015). At that time, MST advocated a model of cooperation that encouraged a rigid organization and specialization of labor, inspired by the industrial model. The Movement recognized in this model the path for economic viability of the settlements, as well as the political organization of its social base in developing a revolutionary consciousness (Borsatto and Do Carmo 2013). The guideline of MST was to eliminate, as far as possible, the peasant autonomy of its settlers by promoting the collectivization of all the activities in the settlements (Andrade Neto 2015; Borges 2010; Brenneisen 2002; Diniz and Gilbert 2013). MST indicated a uniform model for settlements, centered on a predominantly economic view. Following the Cuban example, the Movement encouraged the implementation of Cooperativas de Produção Agropecuárias (CPAs) in the settlements. More than 40 CPAs were organized in different regions of the Brazilian territory (Andrade Neto 2015; Diniz and Gilbert 2013; Scopinho 2007). However, both the Movement’s internal issues and the country’s economic situation led MST to recognize that the collectivist model of CPAs with production systems highly dependent on the Green Revolution technological package was not the best way, much less the only one for most of the settlements. Internally, it became clear that a more flexible approach on cooperation was needed, since a significant part of the MST’s social base desired greater autonomy and did not want to adhere to the CPAs project. Moreover, administration of the CPAs required management skills that were still scarce among the settlers (Scopinho 2007). Externally, the neoliberal reforms carried out by the Brazilian government in the 1990s ended with sectoral policies that protected the agricultural market. Subsidies were eliminated, the currency was devaluated, markets were opened, and credit lines for rural settlers were terminated. These reforms directly impacted the settlers and the CPA model. Gains in productivity were not enough to enable the settlements. In general, the settlers were indebted and confronting a severe financial crisis (Borges 2010; Brenneisen 2002; Diniz and Gilbert 2013). Considering this juncture, in the mid-1990s, the Movement began to consider and experiment with new forms of settlement organization. AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 919 Instead of emphasizing the formation of “cooperatives,” the Movement started to defend “cooperation” in different forms and intensities. In this new context, ideas close to the agroecological field began to gain relevance inside the MST (Borges 2007; Frade and Sauer 2017; Grossi 2017). Since then, MST has looked to new references to broaden its discourse on the agrarian question and its agenda. This can be seen in the Agrarian Reform Proposal of 1995 (MST 2005), which contains criticisms of the CPA model. Moreover, proposals were made for a new productive model for the settlers. Undoubtedly, the formation of La Via Campesina during the same period was of crucial importance for the reflections carried out by the MST. The MST’s participation in La Via Campesina expanded its range of institutional relations, by placing the Movement in contact with other international social movements that had already incorporated environmental issues into their agendas, and incorporated new theoretical references (Barcellos 2011; Borsatto and Do Carmo 2013; Picolotto and Piccin 2008). At its IV National Congress held in 2000, the MST centered its discussions on “organization of settlements” and explicitly assumed agroecology as a guideline. MST recognized that it was necessary to improve the settlement model, which was characterized by emphasizing dimensions related to work and production, which ended up prioritizing the economic aspects of existence and relegated other dimensions of life to the background. Since then, the guideline has become that the settlers’ production should primarily be focused on ensuring quality and abundant food for families (Barcellos 2011; Borges 2007; Frade and Sauer 2017). In line with the discussion promoted by La Via Campesina, the agroecological discourse gained strength within MST, not only as an agricultural practice less aggressive to the environment but conjugated with an intense political questioning about the agricultural policies adopted by the Brazilian State. Following the IV National Congress, the Movement carried out several measures designed to internalize agroecology within rural settlements. Of course, these actions were not implemented with the same intensity throughout the national territory; differences at the state level are easily observed. The state of Paraná is one of the regions in which the MST’s leaders have made significant efforts in scaling-out agroecology. For example, since 2002, the MST in partnership with other organizations linked to peasant causes has organized, once a year, an event named Jornada de Agroecologia, a meeting to discuss agroecology that assembles between 4000 and 6000 peasants, most of them settlers linked with MST (Meek 2015; Tardin 2009; Valadão and da Costa 2012). In addition to the Jornadas, the MST of Paraná also has advanced in the implementation of training and research centers dedicated to agroecology (Gonçalves 2011). In 2007 at its V National Congress, the MST adopted a sharp criticism of the capitalist agriculture model promoted by the large multinational companies, 920 R. S. BORSATTO AND V. F. SOUZA-ESQUERDO pointing to its dire consequences. Thus, it has advanced the defense of agroecology as a paradigm that must guide the production systems of its settlers (Rosset and Martínez-Torres 2012; MST 2007, 2009). Since its VI National Congress in 2014, the Movement has focused its forces in defense of the People’s Agrarian Reform. The proposal of the People’s Agrarian Reform reinforces the strategic role of agroecology. Framed under the food sovereignty discourse, agroecology is seen as a path to articulate the common struggle of both urban and rural popular forces. Thus, agroecology is considered more than a set of practices to support production processes in settlements; it is considered a priority policy line for the MST, fundamental for advancing its project of society (MST 2015). In short, in the last two decades, the agroecological discourse framed by the perspective of food sovereignty is on an upward curve within the MST. On the other hand, although numerous and important agroecological experiences can be observed, these experiences are still exceptions within the universe of rural settlements linked to the MST (Gonçalves 2011; Pahnke 2015; Valadão 2012). Thus, the Movement has focused its efforts on the construction of agroecological territories in its settlements, seeking to reduce the distance between its sociopolitical discourse (“agroecology as framing,” by Rosset and MartínezTorres 2012) and the adoption of agroecological production systems by its settlers (“agroecology as farming,” by the same authors). The MST’s advances and challenges in scaling-out agroecology MST’s social base reaches more than 350,000 families (approximately 1.5 million people), distributed in thousands of camps and rural settlements (MST 2018b). Estimates, based on interviews with leadership, indicate that at least 5% of this social base implements agroecological principles in their production systems, which means more than 10,000 farmers families (Pahnke 2015). Bear in mind that the MST is a peasant movement with a national dimension, geographically dispersed throughout Brazil, with a presence in almost all the states of that continental country. This diversity and scale are important starting points to understand the advances and challenges related to the massification of agroecology in the MST’s settlements. With almost 35 years of existence, settlements initiated at different times are part of MST, from those established in the 1980s and 1990s, including some CPAs that still exist, to recent settlements still lacking basic infrastructure, such as housing, sanitation, or water. There is also a wide diversity of types of rural settlements. Some are located in the Amazon region and follow an extractive model, with their settlers making their living from latex or fruit collections from the forest. Others have been established within regions characterized by the production AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 921 of export-oriented monocultures. Some settlements are on the fringes of highly urbanized areas, while the access to others is precarious and several days travel from the nearest city. There are settlements where all families live close together, and the production areas are set aside, as well as settlements where each family lives and produces on its own individual plot. Consequently, analysis of the MST’s efforts in promoting agroecology must discuss a scaling process that occurs in different cultures, biomes, histories, climates, soils, degrees of involvement, etc. This heterogeneity that makes up the MST is perhaps one of its most striking characteristics. Even with this significant heterogeneity the Movement has an organicity,2 which allows the MST to join its militants in a common struggle. From this organicity emerges the strength of the MST. Furthermore, the social base of the MST includes at least two different subjects, one that is still struggling to access a piece of land and another one that has already been settled. While for the former, MST offers means to solve their main problem – access to land, the second group has more diffused everyday demands such as housing, education, irrigation, credit, work tools, healthcare, and of course to produce – which are negotiated daily with or without the support of MST. Thus, a rural settlement, far from the ideological vision of being an isolated territory on which the MST has a strong influence, is a territory characterized by a political, ideological, and economic dispute with the bourgeoisie and other forces of capital for its control. Every moment, the promises of higher productivity of the agribusiness agricultural model and the charms of clientelist government policies seduce the settled families (Nunes, Marjotta-Maistro, and Santos 2016). Consequently, the influence that the MST has, while peasants are still struggling to gain access to a piece of land (camped), partially fades with the formation of the settlement. Considering this complex context, the lack of a simple answer to bring agroecology to scale within rural settlements is evident. Multiple paths must be traveled simultaneously for agroecology to become the dominant paradigm in settlements linked to MST. The research of Mier et al. (2018) presents some common key drivers in successful agroecology scaling processes that, despite being identified in much more homogeneous contexts, may be useful in identifying the advances and challenges faced by MST in this process. Driver 1: recognize a crisis that motivates the search for alternatives As occurred in the cases studied by Mier et al. (2018), MST began to internalize agroecology as a guideline after recognizing a crisis. The wave of neoliberal policies that plagued Brazil from the beginning of the 1990s called into question the model of agricultural production advocated by the 922 R. S. BORSATTO AND V. F. SOUZA-ESQUERDO MST because the indebtedness of the settlers prevented access to new resources for continuing the production model based on the technological package of the Green Revolution. In this context, isolated production experiences based on agroecological principles gained visibility and importance within the Movement. (Borges 2007; Borsatto and Do Carmo 2013; Guhur 2010). The analysis of specific cases where a significant number of settlers decided to adopt agroecological principles in their production systems also demonstrates that a crisis was the propeller of this process. For example, in the settlements in the Metropolitan Region of Porto Alegre that produce rice using agroecological principles on more than 3,600 hectares, involving 445 farm families, a profound crisis of rice cultivation was the driver that encouraged the first experiences of organic rice planting (Martins 2017). However, our inferences suggest if on the one hand, a crisis may be the triggering factor for scaling agroecology, on the other hand, its absence may be an inhibiting factor. Perhaps, the lack of perception of a crisis could be the main factor inhibiting the expansion of agroecology in Brazil and, consequently, in rural settlements. Beginning the mid-1990s and more intensively during the Lula and Dilma governments (2003–2016), a set of policies aimed at supporting family farming have been implemented in Brazil, which ends up creating favorable conditions, albeit minimal, for the social reproduction of this group of farmers (Grisa and Schneider 2015). This situation allows a significant portion of the Brazilian smallholder farmers, including the settlers, to gain access to subsidized credit lines, institutional markets, rural extension, and insurance. All these policies encourage the farmers to maintain their conventional production systems (Carneiro 1997; Grisa and Porto 2015). Obviously, when compared to policies aimed at the large agribusiness-exporter sector, these policies move volumes that can be considered derisory. Moreover, some of these policies are directed at inserting family farming into the agroindustrial chains of the corporate food system (Carneiro 1997; Gazolla and Schneider 2013). Driver 2: social organization and intentional social process According to Mier et al. (2018) “social organization is the culture medium upon which agroecology grows.” Successful experiences of scaling agroecology within settlements confirm the importance of social organization as a key driver in this process. Valadão (2012) identified, in the state of Paraná, 660 settled families that cultivated agroecological production systems in settlements which he classified “with a strong MST’s presence,” characterized by their high degree of involvement with the MST. AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 923 The case of Bionatur, a network of organic seed producers that brings together about 160 settlers, who produce more than 20 tons of seeds per year, corroborates the importance of social organization. Research that analyzed this experience evidenced that its organizational structure based on values of cooperation and commitment among associates is the main strength of Bionatur, and is a fundamental factor to overcome adversities (Silva 2015; Silva et al. 2014). A similar situation is observed among the farmers producing organic rice in the Metropolitan Region of Porto Alegre, where, through the MST’s coordination, several groups have been organized to help each other make the entire organic rice production and marketing process possible (Martins 2017). Our findings suggest that in settlements where the MST has little representation or where the settlers cannot organize themselves, agroecology does not advance. In such cases, farmers tend to follow a pattern that replicates the logic of the large business farmer as individualized and specialized forms of agricultural practice that strives to enter into the agribusiness chains of the corporate food system (Barcellos 2011; De’Carli 2013; Frade and Sauer 2017). Driver 3: effective and simple agroecological farming practices The implementation of demonstration areas cultivated following agroecological principles is a powerful tool to help in scaling-out agroecology within rural settlements. These areas can serve as “agroecological lighthouses” to encourage farmers to start agroecological transition processes, as they demonstrate the viability of another way of producing (Nicholls and Altieri 2018). Generally, rural settlements are established in areas with a high degree of environmental degradation caused by intensive farming based on the Green Revolution technological package. Moreover, these areas have environmental liabilities, degraded soil, scarce water sources, and poor access. This often inhospitable environment is where settlers have to start producing (Bergamascoand Norder 2003; Bueno et al. 2007). Another point to be considered is the propaganda perpetrated by agribusiness agents on settlers, with the promises of higher productivity of the agribusiness agricultural model. Based on these characteristics, the promotion of effective and simple agroecological farming practices by settlers is crucially important to build confidence in the farmers for moving in that direction. Production systems based on agroecological principles exist in a significant number within settlements, but apparently they are more concentrated in the southern region of the country. For instance, Gonçalves (2011) identified that 924 R. S. BORSATTO AND V. F. SOUZA-ESQUERDO approximately 8% of the families connected to the MST in the state of Paraná cultivated their agricultural systems based on agroecological principles. According to information provided by leadership, the MST’s Production, Cooperation, and Environment Sector3 has been striving to implement agroecological experiences in all the settlements, but the difficulties are immense. Considering the magnitude of the number of settlements, their distribution in different types of soil and climate, and the diversity of production systems and cultural heritage, MST is probably facing an unprecedented task in promoting effective and simple agroecological farming practices that fit all this diversity. However, successful experiences in bringing agroecology to scale in settlements have shown the existence of agroecological demonstration areas is an effective way to promote this process (Bezerra et al. 2018). Driver 4. constructivist teaching–learning processes Constructivist teaching-learning processes are widely used in the different instances and activities of the MST, which are influenced by the teachings of the pedagogue Paulo Freire (Caldart 2000). Furthermore, all the Movement’s teaching-learning activities are preceded by a mística, which is a process of sensitization that mixes spiritual, emotional, and ideological components, originating in the spiritual mysticism of Liberation Theology (Issa 2007). Horizontal teaching-learning processes that value peasant knowledge and consider different dimensions beyond a material one are widely used in the MST to promote agroecology. Furthermore, MST has established schools that offer agroecological training to its members. For example, the state of Paraná has five schools that offer long-term agroecology courses, which have already qualified more than 400 professionals. In addition, in this state, three research centers have been formed to develop agroecological technologies (Gonçalves 2011; Piresand Novaes 2016). However, many of the students trained in schools like these – most of them children of settlers – face resistance from their parents to implement the acquired knowledge when they return to their farms (Pontes et al. 2017). Moreover, these trained professionals often face difficulties to find a job as extension workers in rural settlements, since responsibility for providing rural extension services in rural settlements belongs to the public authority, which often hires providers without knowledge in agroecology or participatory approaches. Nevertheless, MST has room to advance in the promotion of activities based on less hierarchical processes that encourage agroecology and that have already demonstrated high effectiveness, such as the peasant-to-peasant (campesino-acampesino) methodology (Rosset et al. 2011). Successful cases in scaling agroecology demonstrate that the most effective way to spread the adoption of AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 925 agroecological principles by peasant farmers is to invest in processes in which farmers assume a central role in the dissemination of agroecological knowledge (Khadse et al. 2018; Mier et al. 2018; Rosset et al. 2011). Following a similar pattern, the experience of the Rede Ecovida, considered a Brazilian case of success in scaling agroecology, encourages constant exchange of knowledge among participating farmers (some of them, MST’ settlers), and demonstrates that when farmers are the main actors in the knowledge exchange process, adoption of agroecological practices advances faster (Perez-Cassarino and Ferreira 2016; Rover, de Gennaro, and Roselli 2016). Driver 5. mobilizing discourse As already discussed in this paper, MST adopted a political discourse in which agroecology is one of the central elements both for offering principles for the cultivation of more sustainable agricultural systems and for providing elements of resistance to the corporate-based agri-food system. MST’s discourse in defense of agroecology has followed an upward curve since the mid-1990s. This mobilizing discourse materializes in didactic materials, courses, occupations of agrochemical companies, and many other activities that promote agroecology. The propagated discourse plays a crucial role in raising awareness of the MST’s social basis for the importance of agroecology and in contesting immaterial territories with framing arguments (Rosset and Martínez-Torres 2012). However, adoption of this discourse by settlers is not necessarily reflected in the concomitant adoption of agroecological practices in their production systems. Research has pointed out that many of the settlers recognize the importance of agroecology and defend it, but adopting agroecological production systems on their land is another step. Doubts about the technical and economic viability of agroecological production seem to be the most significant resistance factor (Barcellos 2011; Veras 2005). Driver 6. external allies MST has made efforts to establish partnerships that help promote agroecology among its settlers. These partnerships take place with NGOs, universities, research institutes, other social movements, religious institutions, and other organizations. Historically, these partnerships have been the pillars that underpin many of the MST’s activities related to the promotion of agroecology. As described by Correa (2007), in the mid-1980s, when the debate on agroecology was not yet part of the MST guidelines, NGOs were on the frontline in promoting agroecological principles in settlements. Subsequently, establishment of La 926 R. S. BORSATTO AND V. F. SOUZA-ESQUERDO Via Campesina and contact of the MST with other international peasant movements helped agroecology enter into the MST’s political agenda. Nowadays, people from institutions, although not part of the Movement, support their struggle and staff many of the MST-sponsored courses, as well as its schools. On the other hand, these processes are permeated by conflicts that end up limiting the scope of these experiences (Freitas 2011). In cases where agroecology has become the dominant paradigm in settlements, the formation of networks with different actors that have supported this process is evident. For example, in the state of Paraná, MST is part of a collective of dozens of institutions working together to promote agroecology (Valadão 2012). In the case of organic rice production in the Metropolitan Region of Porto Alegre, the beginning of the rice harvest season is used as a political instrument to dialogue with society. During this period, settlers promote events in which urban sectors of the union movement, parliamentarians, representatives of political parties, as well as representatives of diverse public institutions participate. In 2015, President Dilma Rousseff participated in one of these events amid the offensive for her impeachment (Martins 2017). The cases of Sepé Tiarajú, Milton Santos, and Mario Lago settlements, located in the state of São Paulo, with 100, 70, and 264 settled families respectively, also reflect the importance of partnerships for the advancement of agroecology. These settlements are established in the middle of the country’s most important sugarcane region, surrounded literally by a sea of sugarcane cultivated by large landowners. Implementation of these settlements was only possible after a series of agreements that made it compulsory for the settlers to adopt sustainable practices. Thus, these farmers should cultivate agricultural systems that do not use agrochemicals and synthetic fertilizers. In all three settlements, partnerships with research institutes and universities support farmers to overcome the large number of problems they face on a daily basis to produce under agroecological principles in areas highly degraded and under different kinds of pressures from their neighbors (Marques et al. 2014; Nunes, Marjotta-Maistro, and Santos 2016; Souza et al. 2014). Studies have pointed out that these partnerships are not without tensions and conflicts (Barcellos 2011; Freitas2011; Meek 2015). However, settlements that have succeeded in making their members implement productions systems based on agroecological principles have been helped by networks of partners supporting this process. Driver 7. construction of markets favorable to agroecology In the last 15 years, the Brazilian government has created programs aimed at the development of institutional markets for family farming. Two national programs, the Food Acquisition Program (PAA) and the National School AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 927 Feeding Program (PNAE), receive funds to purchase food directly from family farmers, giving priority to agrarian reform settlers, and paying a 30% price premium for certified organic food. In theory, these programs assure that settlers who wish to produce following agroecological principles and obtain certification of their products have access to a guaranteed market that pays fair prices for part of their production (Belik and Fornazier 2017; Porto 2014; Rocha 2007). Nevertheless, research has found that different reasons (e.g., bureaucracy, budget cuts, poor organization by farmers, political persecution of leadership) contribute to the limited impact of these programs in scaling agroecology (Sambuichi et al. 2017;). However, the case of agroecological production of rice in the settlements of the Metropolitan Region of Porto Alegre, where settlers commercialize more than 90% of their production through these programs, points out that when the other drivers described in this section are present, public procurement can serve as an important support for scaling agroecology (Martins 2017). On the other hand, literature has increasingly shown that markets that place farmers and consumers in direct contact with each other may be more relevant for the promotion of agroecology than institutional markets (Ploeg, Jingzhong, and Schneider 2012). Farmers’ markets, consumer cooperatives, community supported agriculture (CSA), basket subscriptions, among other possibilities are ways in which farmers feel valued for producing healthy food. Proximity relationship between consumers and farmers creates incentives for agroecological production that go beyond the economic aspect (Perez-Cassarino and Ferreira 2016). Although still a recent effort, MST has invested in activities that bring its settlers closer to the consumers of their products. For example, it organized and promoted the National Fair of Agrarian Reform, with the third gathering held in 2018. Held in the central region of São Paulo city, the largest metropolis in the country, the fair brings together more than 900 settlers from all over the country to exhibit and sell their products, attracting a large audience. Moreover, the Movement has sought to promote similar fairs in all Brazilian states, in a quest to strengthen its dialogue with society (MST 2018a). Driver 8. favorable policies and political opportunities As we presented in the introduction of this article, Brazil stands out as one of the countries where institutionalization of agroecology has most advanced. The country developed a set of policies friendly to agroecology (for a reflection on the limits of the institutionalization of agroecology by the State see Giraldo and McCune, in this issue). Despite being considered a significant conquest by the Brazilian agroecological movement, research has pointed out 928 R. S. BORSATTO AND V. F. SOUZA-ESQUERDO that different factors determine that the strength of the Brazilian State in scaling agroecology may be limited. (Sambuichi et al. 2017). More research is required to understand better what the drivers are that determine the effectiveness of these policies in fostering agroecology. On the other hand, the funds put towards these programs are just a drop in the bucket compared to those aimed at supporting the corporate agri-food system and are used only to demonstrate the good intentions of the government. Thus, while currently there are policies that encourage settlers to start the agroecological transition processes, there is simultaneously a whole universe of policies aimed at this public that help them to maintain production systems based on the agrochemical package. The Brazilian case reinforces the thesis that institutionalization of agroecological discourse by State structures weakens and distances the Movement from its revolutionary perspective (Giraldo and Rosset 2018; Giraldo and McCune, in this issue). Thus, policies intending to promote agroecology, at least initially, serve as a support for actions that have already been carried out by other social agents (social movements, educational institutions, NGOs, etc.), or create minimum conditions for these agents to continue to exist. The Brazilian experience has shown that favorable policies isolated from the other drivers presented in this section have not been able to scale-out agroecology (Sambuichi et al. 2017). Furthermore, in the Brazilian case, policies that question the structure of the corporate agri-food system have not found room to advance in the Brazilian political agenda. Some emblematic examples are the failure to advance an agrarian reform policy and the ban on the use of transgenic seeds. Conclusions Currently, agroecology is a strategic guideline for the MST in its struggle for the People’s Agrarian Reform. Its massification through settlements can guarantee unprecedented social support for the project of society defended by the MST. Although significant advances are perceptible, a significant gap remains between the MST’s discourse and the observable reality in the settlements. In the face of these contradictions, reflecting on why MST has not yet succeeded in scaling-out agroecology in its settlements is crucial. To recapitulate, there is in the Movement: social organization, constructivist teaching-learning processes, the presence of agroecological practices, mobilizing discourse, external alliances, favorable markets, and policies. In this text, we argue that some structural characteristics of the MST and the Brazilian State impose unique and complex challenges for the project of scaling agroecology in rural settlements. The size of the Movement (350,000 families), the geographical dispersion of its settlements in different AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 929 edaphoclimatic conditions, and the heterogeneity of its social base are characteristics that must be considered in the MST’s scaling efforts. Moreover, in Brazil, a set of policies aimed at benefitting family farming and the provision of a social safety net through cash transfer (Bolsa Familia) offer some degree of security, albeit a minimum, for settlers to feel comfortable in maintaining their conventional production systems. Our perception is that these characteristics determine that: a) policies of social protection and support to family farming obfuscate the perception that there is a crisis, a fundamental driver according to Mier et al. (2018) in agroecology scaling processes; b) the size, heterogeneity, and geographical distribution of the MST make the dissemination of concrete agroecological practices through different territories a significant challenge. Based on these hypotheses, we suggest that MST needs specific strategies to advance its project of scaling agroecology in rural settlements, requiring a deeper reflection on how the drivers identified by Mier et al. (2018) interconnect in the Movement’s context. We have identified in the case of the MST some drivers that must be better implemented in a conjugated way, for example: (a) invest in less hierarchical processes of knowledge exchange such as campesino-a-campesino (peasant-to-peasant) methodology and participatory certification, since the MST has not extensively encouraged these processes or shown them to effectively promote agroecological practices in different situations; (b) implement in settlements more demonstration areas of agroecological production with the objective of showing the feasibility of agroecological production and reducing the distance between the leadership’s discourse and the settler’s practices. (c) advance partnerships with urban sectors based on the promotion of agroecology and in the construction of local markets (farmers markets, baskets, CSAs, etc.), since closer relations between producers and consumers of food have been shown to be an essential driver in promoting agroecology in Brazil. The recent election of an extreme right-wing President, Jair Bolsonaro, imposes a new context for Brazilian peasant movements like the MST. In this new context, an agenda of criminalization of social movements will advance, as well as cuts in public policies that benefit peasant agriculture. This juncture tends to accentuate the crisis already experienced by settlers and others in the peasant agriculture sector. Hence, the massification of agroecology tends to gain momentum within rural settlements, both as a peasant strategy of resistance and as an MST tactic to gain support from urban sectors for its struggles. 930 R. S. BORSATTO AND V. F. SOUZA-ESQUERDO Finally, our analysis suggests the MST can be considered a social movement at the forefront of promoting agroecology. Analysis of the difficulties faced by the Movement in this process, as well as the achievements reached, offer valuable lessons to better understand the factors that constrain or leverage the adoption of agroecological-based productive systems in contexts of high heterogeneity. Acknowledgments This work was supported by the grants #472738/2014-3 and #427726/2016-6, National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) - Brazil. Ricardo Borsatto was partially supported in this research by the grant #2017/04577-1, São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP). We would also like to thank Peter Rosset and Omar Giraldo for valuable comments on an earlier draft. Funding This work was supported by the Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo [#2017/04577-1];Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico [#427726/ 2016-6,#472738/2014-3]. Notes 1. In Brazil, family farming is defined by the Family Farming Law (Law 11,326/2006), based on four criteria: a maximum land tenure defined regionally; a predominant recourse to nonwage family labor; a significant part of the income originated from the farming activity; and a farm managed by the family. For La Via Campesina, “the term family farming is vast, and may include almost any agricultural model or method whose direct beneficiaries are not corporations or investors. It includes both small-scale and large-scale producers (with farms covering thousands of hectares), as well as small-scale producers who are entirely dependent on the private sector, through contract farming or other forms of economic exploitation […] This is why La Vía Campesina defends family farming in terms of peasant based ecological farming, as opposed to the large-scale, industrial, toxic farming of agribusinesses, which expel peasants and small farmers and grab the world’s lands.” (La Via Campesina 2014). 2. “Organicity is a term present in the MST and signifies the organic movement present in its organizational structures and the relations between them” (Babniuk and Camini 2012). 3. The Production, Cooperation, and Environment Sector is one of the MST’s coordinating bodies and is responsible for supporting issues related to organizing production within rural settlements. Other MST’s sectors are: Training, Communication, Finance, Education, Mobilization, Human Rights, Gender, and Health. ORCID Ricardo Serra Borsatto http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7594-479X Vanilde F. Souza-Esquerdo http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5015-1216 AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 931 References Altieri, M. A., and C. I. Nicholls. 2012. Agroecology scaling up for food sovereignty and resiliency. In Sustainable agriculture reviews, ed. E. Lichtfouse, 1–29. Dordrecht: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-5449-2_1. Altieri, M. A., and V. M. Toledo. 2011. The agroecological revolution in latin america: rescuing nature, ensuring food sovereignty and empowering peasants. Journal of Peasant Studies 38 (3):587–612. doi:10.1080/03066150.2011.582947. Andrade Neto, J. A. 2015. A Teoria e a Prática Do MST Para a Cooperação e a Organização Em Assentamentos Rurais. Revista NERA 18 (27):159–82. Babniuk, C., and I. Camini. 2012. Escola Intinerante. In Dicionário Da Educação Do Campo, ed. R. S. Caldart, I. B. Pereira, P. Alentejano, and G. Frigotto, 331–36. São Paulo: Expressão Popular. Barcellos, S. B. 2011. As Iniciativas e Experiências Em Agroecologia Como Estratégia de Desenvolvimento Local Em Um Assentamento de Reforma Agrária. Mundo Agrario 12 (23). http://www.scielo.org.ar/scielo.php?pid=S1515-59942011000200006&script=sci_art text&tlng=en. Belik, W., and A. Fornazier. 2017. Public policy and the construction of new markets to family farms: analyzing the case of school meals in São Paulo, Brazil. In Advances in food security and sustainability, 2:69–86. Elsevier. doi:10.1016/bs.af2s.2017.09.001. Bergamasco, S., M. P. P, and L. A. C. Norder. 2003. A Alternativa Dos Assentamentos Rurais: Organização Social, Trabalho e Política. São Paulo: Terceira Margem. Bezerra, L. P., F. S. Franco, V. F. Souza-Esquerdo, and R. Borsatto. 2018. Participatory construction in agroforestry systems in family farming : ways for the agroecological transition in Brazil. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 43 (2):180–200. Taylor & Francis. doi:10.1080/21683565.2018.1509167. Bojanic, A. 2017. The rapid agricultural development of Brazil in the last 20 years. EuroChoices 16 (1):5–10. doi:10.1111/1746-692X.12143. Borges, J. L. 2007. A Transição Do MST Para a Agroecologia. Master thesis, Universidade Estadual de Londrina. doi:10.1094/PDIS-91-4-0467B. Borges, J. L. 2010. Bases Históricas Do Cooperativismo No MST. Revista Fato & Versões 2 (3):157–73. Borsatto, R. S., and M. S. Do Carmo. 2013. A Construção Do Discurso Agroecológico No Movimento Dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem-Terra (MST). Revista De Economia E Sociologia Rural 51 (4). Sociedade Brasileira De Economia E Sociologia Rural: 645–60. doi:10.1590/S0103-20032013000400002. Brenneisen, E. C. 2002. Relações de Poder, Dominação e Resistência: O MST e Os Assentamentos Rurais. Cascavel: Edunioeste. Bueno, O., R. de Carvalho, L. V. Boas, D. M. Fernandes, and L. J. Gava Godoy. 2007. Mapa de Fertilidade Dos Solos de Assentamentos Rurais Do Estado de São Paulo: Contribuição Ao Estudo de Territórios. Botucatu: FEPAF/UNESP. Caldart, R. S. 2000. Pedagogia Do Movimento Sem Terra: Escola é Mais Do Que Escola. 2nd ed. Petrópolis: Vozes. Candiotto, L.P.Z. 2018. Organic products policy in Brazil. Land Use Policy 71 (December 2017):422–30. Elsevier. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.12.014. Carneiro, M. J. 1997. Política Pública e Agricultura Familiar: Uma Leitura Do Pronaf. Estudos Sociedade E Agricultura 8:70–82. Célia de Abreu, F. H. 2011. O Curso Técnico Em Agropecuária Da Escola 25 de Maio: Conflitos Em Torno Da Construção Da Proposta Agroecológica. Revista Brasileira De Agroecologia 6 (2):13–29. 932 R. S. BORSATTO AND V. F. SOUZA-ESQUERDO Correa, C. 2007. MST Em Marcha Para a Agroecologia: Uma Aproximação à Construção Histórica Da Agroecologia No MST. Master Thesis Universidade Internacional da Andalucía. doi:10.1094/PDIS-91-4-0467B. Da Costa, M. B. B., M. Souza, V. M. Júnior, J. J. Comin, and P. E. Lovato. 2017. Agroecology development in Brazil between 1970 and 2015. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 41 (3–4):276–95. Taylor & Francis. doi:10.1080/21683565.2017.1285382. De’Carli, C. 2013. O Discurso Político Da Agroecologia No MST: O Caso Do Assentamento 17 de Abril Em Eldorado Dos Carajás, Pará. Revista Crítica De Ciências Sociais, No 100:105–30. doi:10.4000/rccs.5245. Desmarais, A. A. 2008. The power of peasants: reflections on the meanings of La Vía Campesina. Journal of Rural Studies 24 (2):138–49. doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2007.12.002. Diniz, A. S., and B. Gilbert. 2013. Socialist values and cooperation in Brazil’s landless rural workers movement. Latin American Perspectives 40 (4):19–34. doi:10.1177/ 0094582X13484290. Fabrini, J. E. 2002. O Projeto Do MST de Desenvolvimento Territorial Dos Assentamentos e Campesinato. Terra Livre (19). http://www.agb.org.br/publicacoes/index.php/terralivre/arti cle/view/159. FAO, and IFAD. 2017. Overcoming hunger and rural poverty: Brazilian experiences. Rome: FAO/IFAD. Fernandes, B. M. 2009. The MST and agrarian reform in Brazil. Socialism and Democracy 23 (3):90–99. Routledge. doi:10.1080/08854300903155541. Frade, F., and S. Sauer. 2017. O MST e a Experiência de Agroecologia Em Assentamentos de Reforma Agrária. Revista Latinoamericana De Estudios Rurales 2 (3):64–95. Gazolla, M., and S. Schneider. 2013. Qual ‘Fortalecimento’ Da Agricultura Familiar?: Uma Análise Do Pronaf Crédito de Custeio e Investimento No Rio Grande Do Sul. Revista De Economia E Sociologia Rural 51:45–68. doi:10.1590/S0103-20032013000100003. Giraldo, O. F. 2018. Ecología Política de La Agricultura: Agroecología y Posdesarrollo. 1st ed. San Cristóbal de las Casas: El Colegio de la Frontera Sur. Giraldo, O. F., and P. M. Rosset. 2018. Agroecology as a territory in dispute: between institutionality and social movements. Journal of Peasant Studies 45 (3):545–64. Taylor & Francis. doi:10.1080/03066150.2017.1353496. Gliessman, S. 2014. Networking the national plan for agroecology in Brazil. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 38 (4):367–68. doi:10.1080/21683565.2013.873758. Gliessman, S. 2015. Agroecology: the ecology of sustainable food systems. 3rd ed. Boca Raton: CRC Press/Taylor and Francis. Gonçalves, S. 2011. “Campesinato, Resistência e Emancipação. O Modelo Agroecológico Adotado Pelo MST No Estado Do Paraná.” Revista Geográfica De América Central 2 (47E): 1–13. Grisa, C., and S. I. Porto. 2015. Dez Anos de PAA: As Contribuições e Os Desafios Para o Desenvolvimento Rural. In Políticas Públicas de Desenvolvimento Rural No Brasil, ed. C. Grisa and S. Schneider, 155–80. Porto Alegre: Editora da UFRGS. Grisa, C., and S. Schneider. 2015. Três Gerações de Políticas Públicas Para a Agricultura Familiar e Formas de Interação Entre Sociedade e Estado No Brasil. Revista De Economia E Sociologia Rural 52 (1):S125–46. doi:10.1590/S0103-20032014000600007. Grossi, M. 2017. Questão Ambiental, Reforma Agrária e Agroecologia : Desafios Políticos Ao MST. Revista Libertas 17 (2):17–28. Guhur, D. M. P. 2010. Contribuições Do Diálogo de Saberes à Educação Profissional Em Agroecologia No MST: Desafios Da Educação Do Campo Na Construção Do Projeto Popular. Master Thesis, Universidade Estadual de Maringá. AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 933 Issa, D. 2007. Praxis of Empowerment: Mística and Mobilization in Brazil’s Landless Rural Workers ’ Movement. Latin American Perspectives 34 (153):124–38. doi:10.1177/ 0094582X06298745. Jardim, A. N. O., and E. D. Caldas. 2012. Brazilian monitoring programs for pesticide residues in food - results from 2001 to 2010. Food Control 25 (2):607–16. Elsevier Ltd. doi:10.1016/j.foodcont.2011.11.001. Khadse, A., P. M. Rosset, H. Morales, and B. G. Ferguson. 2018. Taking agroecology to scale: the zero budget natural farming peasant movement in Karnataka, India. Journal of Peasant Studies 45 (1):192–219. Taylor & Francis. doi:10.1080/03066150.2016.1276450. Marques, P. E. M., M. F. Le Moal, and A. G. F. Andrade. 2014. Programa de Aquisição de Alimentos (PAA) No Estado de São Paulo: Agricultura de Proximidade Em Questão. Ruris 8 (1):63–89. https://www.ifch.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/ruris/article/view/1741. Rosset, P.M., and M.E. Martínez-Torres 2014. Diálogo de Saberes in La Vía Campesina: Food Sovereignty and Agroecology. Journal of Peasant Studies 41 (6):979–97. Taylor & Francis. doi:10.1080/03066150.2013.872632. Martins, A.F.G. 2017. "A Produção Ecológica de Arroz Nos Assentamentos Da Região Metropolitana de Porto Alegre: Territórios de Resistência.” Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul. McMichael, P. 2009a. A food regime analysis of the ‘World Food Crisis.’. Agriculture and Human Values 26 (4):281–95. doi:10.1007/s10460-009-9218-5. Meek, D. 2015. Learning as territoriality: the political ecology of education in the Brazilian landless workers’ movement. Journal of Peasant Studies 42 (6):1179–200. Taylor & Francis. doi:10.1080/03066150.2014.978299. Mier, Y. T., M. G. Cacho, O. F. Giraldo, M. A. Aldasoro, H. Morales, B. G. Ferguson, P. Rosset, A. Khadse, and C. Campos. 2018. Bringing agroecology to scale : an overview of key drivers and emblematic cases. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems. Taylor & Francis. doi:10.1080/21683565.2018.1443313. MST. 2005. Proposta de Reforma Agrária Do MST – 1995. In A Questão Agrária No Brasil: Programas de Reforma Agrária 1946-2003, ed. J. P. Stédile, 177–79. São Paulo: Expressão Popular. Nicholls, C. I., and M. A. Altieri. 2018. Pathways for the amplification of agroecology. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 42 (10):1170–93. Taylor & Francis. doi:10.1080/21683565.2018.1499578. Pahnke, A. 2015. Institutionalizing economies of opposition: explaining and evaluating the success of the MST’s cooperatives and agroecological repeasantization. Journal of Peasant Studies 42 (6):1087–107. Taylor & Francis. doi:10.1080/03066150.2014.991720. Nunes, P. J., M. C. Marjotta-Maistro, and R. V. Santos. 2016. Agroecologia No Movimento Dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra: Reflexões Acerca de Avanços e Limites Em Assentamentos Rurais Do Estado de São Paulo. In Anais Do VII Simpósio Sobre Reforma Agrária e Questões Rurais. Araraquara: Nupedor/Uniara. https://www.uniara.com.br/arqui vos/file/eventos/2016/vii-simposio-reforma-agraria-questoes-rurais/sessao1c/agroecologiamovimento-trabalhadores-rurais-sem-terra.pdf. Perez-Cassarino, J., and A. D. D. Ferreira 2016. Redesenhando Os Mercados: A Proposta Dos Circuitos de Proximidade. Espacio Regional 1 (13):49–65. Petersen, P., E. M. Mussoi, and F. Dalsoglio. 2012 October. Institutionalization of the agroecological approach in Brazil: advances and challenges. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture. Taylor & Francis Group, 121005074109006. doi:10.1080/ 10440046.2012.735632. Picolotto, E. L., and M. B. Piccin. 2008. Movimentos Camponeses e Questões Ambientais: Positivação Da Agricultura Camponesa? Revista Extensão Rural 15 (16):5–36. 934 R. S. BORSATTO AND V. F. SOUZA-ESQUERDO Pires, J. H. S., and H. T. Novaes. 2016. Estudo, Trabalho e Agroecologia: A Proposta Política Pedagógica Dos Cursos de Agroecologia Do MST No Paraná. Germinal: Marxismo E Educação Em Debate 8 (2):110–24. doi:10.9771/gmed.v8i2.18144. Ploeg, J. D. V. D., Y. Jingzhong, and S. Schneider. 2012. Rural development through the construction of new, nested, markets: comparative perspectives from China, Brazil and the European Union. Journal of Peasant Studies 39 (1):133–73. doi:10.1080/ 03066150.2011.652619. Pontes, F. A., V. L. S. B. Ferrante, L. A. Barone, and M. B. B. Costa. 2017. Transição Agroecológica a Partir Da Formação Técnica No Assentamento Gleba XV de Novembro Em Rosana - SP. Retratos De Assentamentos 20 (1):246–74. doi:10.25059/2527-2594/retratosdeassentamentos/2017.v20i1.265. Porto, S. I. 2014. Programa de Aquisição de Alimentos (PAA): Política Pública de Fortalecimento Da Agricultura Familiar e Da Agroecologia No Brasil. Master Thesis, Universidad Internacional de Andalucía. http://www.reformaagrariaemdados.org.br/sites/ default/files/2014DissertaçãoISECSilvioPorto.pdf. Rivera-Ferre, M. G. 2018. The resignification process of agroecology: competing narratives from governments, civil society and intergovernmental organizations. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 42 (6):666–85. Taylor & Francis. doi:10.1080/ 21683565.2018.1437498. Rocha, C. 2007. Food insecurity as market failure: a contribution from economics. Journal of Hunger & Environmental Nutrition 1 (January):5–22. doi:10.1300/J477v01n04. Rosset, P. M., and M. A. Altieri. 2017. Agroecology: science and politics. Black Point: Fernwood Publishing. Rosset, P. M., and M.E. Martínez-Torres 2012. Rural social movements and agroecology: context, theory, and process. Ecology and Society 17 (3):art17. doi:10.5751/ES-05000170317. Rosset, P. M., B. M. Sosa, R. J. Adilén María, and Á. L. Dana Rocío. 2011. The Campesino-toCampesino agroecology movement of ANAP in Cuba: social process methodology in the construction of sustainable peasant agriculture and food sovereignty. Journal of Peasant Studies 38 (1):161–91. doi:10.1080/03066150.2010.538584. Rover, O., B. de Gennaro, and L. Roselli. 2016. Social innovation and sustainable rural development: the case of a Brazilian agroecology network. Sustainability 9(1). Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute: 3. doi:10.3390/su9010003. Sambuichi, R. H. R., M. L. Ávila, I. F. Moura, L. M. Mattos, and P. A. C. Spínola. 2017. Avalização Do Plano Nacional de Agroecologia e Produção OrgâNica 2013-2015. In A Política Nacional de Agroecologia e Produção OrgâNica No Brasil : Uma Trajetória de Luta Pelo Desenvolvimento Rural Sustentável, edited by Regina Helena Rosa Sambuichi, Iracema Ferreira de Moura, Luciano Mansor de Mattos, Mário Lúcio de Ávila, Paulo Asafe Campos Spínola, and Ana Paula Moreira Silva,147–93. Brasília: IPEA. Sauer and G. Mészáros. 2017. The political economy of land struggle in Brazil under workers’ party governments. Journal of Agrarian Change 17 (2):397–414. doi:10.1111/joac.12206. Scopinho, R. A. 2007. Sobre Cooperação e Cooperativas Em Assentamentos Rurais. Psicologia & Sociedade 19 (Spe). Associação Brasileira de Psicologia Social: 84–94. doi:10.1590/S010271822007000400012. Silva, P. M. D. 2015. Processo Identitário Da Rede de Sementes Agroecológicas Bionatur: A Experiência Na Percepção Dos Agricultores. Universidade Federal de Pelotas. Silva, P. M. D., A. Gaiardo, A. Inhaia, M. G. Morales, and I. F. Antunes. 2014. Rede de Sementes Agroecológicas Bionatur: Uma Trajetória de Luta e Superação. Agriculturas 11 (1):33–37. AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 935 Souza, T. D. J., H. G. Nobre, J. C. Canuto, A. Da Costa Junqueira, and N. J. Aun. 2014. A Utilização de Ferramentas Participativas Na Construção Do Conhecimento Agroecológico Nos Assentamentos Pirituba e Sepé Tiarajú, No Estado de São Paulo. Revista Brasileira de Agroecologia9 (1):72–85. MST2007. Carta Do 5° Congresso Nacional Do MST. doi:10.1094/PDIS-91-4-0467B. MST 2009. A Reforma Agrária Necessária: Por Um Projeto Popular Para a Agricultura Brasileira. MST 2015. Programa Agrário Do MST: Natureza, Fundamentos, Proposta e Lema de Luta (2013). InSURgência 1 (1):247–79. MST 2018a. III Feira Nacional Da Reforma Agrária. http://www.mst.org.br/III-feira-nacionalda-reforma-agraria/. MST 2018b. Quem Somos. http://www.mst.org.br/quem-somos/#full-text. Tardin, J. M. 2009. Jornada de Agroecologia: Camponesas e Camponeses Em Movimento Construindo o Sustento Da Vida e a Transformação Da Sociedade. Revista Brasileira De Agroecologia 4 (2):382–86. Valadão, A.C. 2012. Transição Agroecológica Em Assentamentos Rurais: Estratégias de Resistência e Produção de Novidades. PhD Thesis, Universidade Federal do Paraná. doi:10.1094/PDIS-11-11-0999-PDN. Veras, M. M. 2005. Agroecologia Em Assentamentos Do MST No Rio Grande Do Sul: Entre as Virtudes Do Discurso e Os Desafios Da Prática. Master Thesis, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina. Via Campesina, L. 2014. Speech by La Via Campesina Delegation in the Closing Ceremony of International Year of Family Farming, Manila, Philippines. https://viacampesina.org/en/ speech-by-la-via-campesina-delegation-in-the-closing-ceremony-of-international-year-offamily-farming-manila-philippines/. Via Campesina, L. 2016. Annual Report 2016. Harare: La Via Campesina. https://viacampe sina.org/en/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2017/07/EN-Annual_Report_2016.pdf. Wolford, W. 2003. Producing community: the MST and land reform settlements in Brazil. Journal of Agrarian Change 3 (4):500–20. Wiley/Blackwell (10.1111). doi:10.1111/14710366.00064. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems ISSN: 2168-3565 (Print) 2168-3573 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjsa21 Situated agroecology: massification and reclaiming university programs in Venezuela Olga Domené-Painenao & Francisco F. Herrera To cite this article: Olga Domené-Painenao & Francisco F. Herrera (2019) Situated agroecology: massification and reclaiming university programs in Venezuela, Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 43:7-8, 936-953, DOI: 10.1080/21683565.2019.1617223 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2019.1617223 Published online: 20 May 2019. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 38 View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wjsa21 AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 2019, VOL. 43, NOS. 7–8, 936–953 https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2019.1617223 Situated agroecology: massification and reclaiming university programs in Venezuela Olga Domené-Painenaoa and Francisco F. Herrerab a Science in Ecology and Sustainable Development, El Colegio de la Frontera Sur, Chiapas, México; Ecology Center, Instituto Venezolano de Investigaciones Cientificas, Caracas, Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela b ABSTRACT KEYWORDS Throughout the process of transformation since 1999 known as the Bolivarian Revolution, harsh class and food system contradictions have unfolded in Venezuela, pitting against one another the forces of the pervasive consumer culture favoring imported foods, the input-intensive Green Revolution agricultural model that represents a state-led push toward food selfsufficiency, and an emerging agroecological paradigm pushed forward by grassroots movements who have seized political openings through the largely supportive policy environment. The Bolivarian University of Venezuela, itself a product of the revolutionary process, founded the Program Degree in Agroecology (PDA) in 2004 to expand agroecological practices and knowledge, based on alternative pedagogical approaches. Over the next decade, over a thousand PDA graduates have come to occupy institutional spaces and productive projects in urban and rural areas, contributing to vertical and horizontal agroecological scaling. PDA graduates and educators play a key role in the growing movement of urban agriculture that confronts the economic crisis. The PDA has created key mediators in the form of human talent for territorializing agroecology and institutionalizing pro-peasant policy in Venezuela. As a political outlier, Venezuela is an important case for studying the strategies for territorializing what we refer to as socially committed, situated agroecology. Agroecology; food sovereignty; Bolivarian Revolution; education; public policies; territory Introduction Oil dependency has characterized Venezuela’s cultural, political, and economic life since the beginning of the 20th century, resulting in extreme depeasantization pressures (Domené-Painenao, Cruces, and Herrera 2015; Felicien, Schiavoni, and Romero 2018; Herrera, Domené-Painenao, and Cruces 2017; Schiavoni 2015). By the late 1920s, the dominance of oil in the national economy created a strong Dutch Disease effect (Corden 1984), strengthening the currency, encourage importation of foodstuffs, and making CONTACT Olga Domené-Painenao [email protected] Science in Ecology and Sustainable Development, El Colegio de la Frontera Sur, Carretera Panamericana y Periférico Sur s/n, Barrio de María Auxiliadora C.P. 29290, San Cristóbal de Las Casas, Chiapas, México © 2019 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 937 domestic agriculture unprofitable for foreign and local stakeholders. A resulting high migration rate from rural areas to the cities led to a vast expansion of urban poverty. Both features, Venezuela’s condition as an oildependent country and small rural population have determined that Venezuela´s agricultural sector and food sovereignty were weak in the second half of the 20th century (Espinoza 2009). By the late 1980s, most of the population suffered a strong deterioration in the quality of life due to the structural adjustment of liberal policies established by the global financial system, leading to the 1989 Caracazo anti-neoliberal riots (Contreras 2004; Verger and Muhr 2007). Hugo Chavez’s election as president in 1998 marked the beginning of an attempt to shift from a rentier culture of petroleum and foreign agricultural supplies dependency to a different model, which at the time was still undefined but clearly against structural adjustment. The 1999 constitutional assembly process, culminating in a Magna Carta approved by 72% of voters, opened up deep discussions about the problems of national life, and identified food sovereignty as a fundamental right that the State has the responsibility to uphold. The transformation of many public institutions and the creation of new institutions were required to begin to guarantee the rights defined by the Constitution of 1999. Food access, health care, education, housing, and industrial development required rapid and sustained public investment. A less elitist university education system came to be identified as a need, in order to provide the new human resources that would fulfill the emerging demands. The Universidad Bolivariana de Venezuela (UBV) was founded in 2003 as a means to challenge the conventional, colonial structure of the university system (D Amario 2009; Chiroleu 2009). The UBV was founded not only upon the idea of extending conventional education to a greater share of the population, but indeed of discovering and recovering new kinds of knowledge to respond to the demands of a society undergoing a decolonization process (Giraldo and McCune 2019). To respond to the need for including indigenous and peasant knowledge on food production, the UBV offered the Program Degree in Agroecology (PDA). The PDA is an undergraduate major in universities nationwide, based on the explicit goal of scaling out agroecology. The PDA was designed upon the pillars of social inclusion, territorial pertinence, and community organization (Domené 2013; Steering Document 2003), from a participatory action-research conception of agroecology (Méndez, Bacon, and Cohen 2013). This article examines the concepts, trajectory and impact of the PDA in Venezuela during the period 2004–2016, using the agroecological scaling framework as defined by Mier Y Terán et al. (2018), as well as the extensive experience as situated participant-observers that the authors have had in this process. We use interviews with teachers and students to examine the relationship between the PDA and the major drivers of agroecological 938 O. DOMENÉ-PAINENAO AND F. F. HERRERA scaling, in the unique and highly politicized context of Venezuela’s twodecade-old attempt to carve out a path away from capitalism – and the diverse methods that Venezuelan elites and US imperialists have used to prevent the successes, limit the influence, and reverse the legacy of the Bolivarian Revolution. Agroecological “massification”: the Venezuelan context Several authors have contributed to the theoretical understanding of agroecology massification processes (Parmentier 2014; Rosset 2015b; Rosset and Altieri 2017; Mier y Terán et al. 2018). A set of main drivers have been suggested, primarily based on selected cases where rural organizations and movements represent transformed subjects and their goal is geographical expansion. These scaling-up drivers, defined by Mier y Terán et al. (2018), can act alone or associated, and include: 1) Crises that drive the search for alternatives; 2) Social organization; 3) Constructivist teaching-learning processes; 4) Effective agroecological practices; 5) Mobilizing discourse; 6) External allies; 7) Favorable markets; and 8) Political opportunities and favorable policies. However, Parmentier (2014) suggests a set of recommendations for agroecology massification through a vertical strategy to achieve an advanced stage. Recommendations are based mainly on institutional policies to help unlock ideological barriers; supporting farmer to farmer networks; providing an enabling public policy environment with specific actions for empowering women; and improving agricultural and food governance. Parmentier’s subjects are not strictly the farmer communities; the author suggests that scalingup agroecology implies radical changes in the current dominant agro-food system as a whole, including its industrial sector. Differences between both approaches may rely on the optimism about scaling efforts and recognizing tensions related to land, food, and power. The agroecology scaling-up process unfolding in Venezuela during the last two decades is characterized by legal and institutional frameworks promoted by the Bolivarian Revolution (vertical strategy) closely intertwined with a growing phenomenon of social organization in both rural and urban areas (horizontal strategy). It is worth mentioning that the vertical strategy developed thanks to the arrival of a new political wisdom by democratic means in 1998; this, however, was the consequence of a social, economic and political crisis (as mentioned in Mier y Terán et al. 2018) due to structural adjustment measures applied since the 1980s (Felicien, Schiavoni, and Romero 2018). As stated by Enríquez (2013) the aim of the new political proposal “was to ameliorate the negative social consequences of the prevailing neoliberal capitalism – or to bring an end to neoliberalism, entirely – and to restructure politics to be more inclusive of the poor and other marginalized sectors” (p. 612). In this sense, AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 939 access to food was a priority and agroecology (defined as Sustainable Agriculture in Art. 305 of the Venezuelan Constitution) was proposed as a complementary tool to gradually transform the agro-food system. Meanwhile, social movements were reaching higher levels in participation and deliberation, and in few years, diverse forms of popular organizations, from local communal councils and regional communes to farmers’ and fishers’ councils, provided the broad-based social organization, suggested as a key driver by Rosset (2015b), Rosset and Altieri (2017), Mier y Terán et al. (2018). Mobilizing discourses, as a key-driver, have played an important role in energizing the agroecological movement in the country. From President Hugo Chavez’s discourses (1999–2013) that clearly established an antiimperialist, anti-capitalist and anti-transgenic point of view along with his criticisms of the global food system, to the local narratives by many farmers, the country has provided strong discursive support for agroecology. Equally important has been the massive information access to the notions of food sovereignty and agroecological systems by diverse means. This aspect might be a key factor in the understanding of the agroecological expansion. In Latin America, it is widely recognized that successful farmer movements in agroecology were influenced by the Liberation Theology that “strongly questions both the dominant development paradigm and the technological path of the Green Revolution” (Mier y Terán et al. 2018, 13). Both mobilizing discourses (President Hugo Chavez’s and Liberation Theology) share non-capitalistic and non-imperialistic perspectives, as determinants of peasant exclusion and poverty. Therefore, scaling agroecology might consider stronger political discourses as a mean to achieve horizontal expansion. Undoubtedly, these mobilizing discourses menace corporative and imperialist interests in agro-food system and territories, provoking a dual power, where previous dominant classes are in conflict with emerging contending class aimed to capture power (Enríquez 2013; Schiavoni 2015). Another driving factor present in the Venezuelan case is the widespread belief among Venezuelans that the dominant system needs to be transformed, which is an ongoing form of decolonization. The demand for the diverse forms of knowledge of indigenous, peasant and Afro-Venezuelan communities to be given a more central role in national life, has driven much of the enthusiasm with agroecology since 1999. Agroecology’s class dimension, as a praxis for the survival and historical vindication of the peasantry, makes it especially important during processes of social transformation, in which despite holding political power, revolutionary forces continue as opposition to the dominant system, which is the globalized, white supremacist, and patriarchal capitalist system. As such, the presence of a broad, counter-hegemonic class project is a fundamental driver of agroecological scaling, in the Latin American context. O. DOMENÉ-PAINENAO AND F. F. HERRERA 940 The Bolivarian University of Venezuela and the program degree in agroecology: context and process Education is a key part of the strategy to replace the bourgeois State with communal power (D Amario 2009). To transform education into a right, the government has created new institutions, facilitated greater access to institutions and developed regionalized higher education (Sandoval 2010). Hugo Chávez’s speeches educated the public on the need for deeper transformation: “In capitalism, education is seen as a commodity to generate income to the detriment of the human being… In socialism, the State guarantees the freedom and democratization of the educational process at all levels, because it goes beyond the value or price of things and represents the integral formation of the future of the country” (08–08-2011). The creation of new institutions involved critical research on the forms, principles and teaching methods applied by traditional universities. The creation of the UBV in 2003 was a milestone in the transformation of Venezuelan university education, not only for its policies of educational inclusion, but also for the ideals and practices of university education methods. The first task was the territorial expansion of higher education (Chiroleu 2009; Sandoval 2010). From this perspective, the Bolivarian University (Steering Document 2003) declared the following principles for the “new” university: (1) (2) (3) (4) Education as a dialogical and transformative process; Education as contextualization; Interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary education, and Education without walls. These statements led to the design of a critical, dialectical and people’s knowledge-based from their social context pedagogy. In this sense, the PDA was created as an alternative proposal for traditional agronomical education. The PDA’s main goal is to “form professional citizens, with a global perspective that integrates people’s ancestral knowledge with modern knowledge in order to improve agricultural production factors, with ecological and community respect. This allows future generations to make new social and production relationships that stimulate the ecological sustainability of agricultural systems to give answers to felt and emergent needs from the country’s project, established in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela’s Constitution” (Universidad Bolivariana de Venezuela 2007, 19). The challenge to territorialize agroecology formation involved making a flexible curriculum that would allow the consideration of regional modifications constantly, as determined by the local realities (McCune 2016). This implied having teachers in various disciplines with the ability to AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 941 establish a dialogue with the communities, to allow for the understanding of local agroecosystem needs from a holistic perspective, including cultural, productive, and environmental features (Domené 2013). This curriculum assumes critical pedagogy principles based on epistemic categories (Freire 2006) to bring about a practical science. In this sense, PDA constitutes itself as a promising space to achieve integral human development and build communitarian projects, engaged to community–university relationships, based on knowledge, values, identity, and culture exchange. The PDA uses project-based learning as its core approach. It is structured in curricular units, as modules from diverse disciplines that are associated with educational needs, integrated into a common framework (Figure 1). A project becomes the central support that directs training needs in order to Figure 1. Main components of the agroecological project in the Program Degree in Agroecology of the Bolivarian University of Venezuela. 942 O. DOMENÉ-PAINENAO AND F. F. HERRERA build situated knowledge (Haraway 1995), developing upon a chosen collective problem considering social, historical, economic, political, ecological, cultural, and ideological context (Domené 2013). Projects involve methodologies such as participatory-action research and the systematization of experiences as critical ways of building knowledge from practice (Holliday 2012). Therefore, the project is grounded in the constructivist method as an epistemological proposal (Méndez, Bacon, and Cohen 2013); it deals with the individual and collective learning process based on life experiences, mental structures, and beliefs that interpret reality (McCune et al. 2017; Serrano and Pons 2011). Figure 1 shows the components of the project-based learning and its relations to the community´s demands and public policies (Domené 2013): ● ● ● ● The curriculum is subject to ongoing changes and contextualization. Activities are designed according to the productive, ecological, and environmental conditions of each community. This becomes more visible between rural environments and urban centers where the programmatic contents necessarily change. For example, the projects in Caracas were oriented to urban agriculture and with them appeared new topics such as urban farm cooperatives, school gardens, and artisan laboratories, among others (Alban et al. 2015). Project continuity across several academic years, with increasing complexity levels (Domené 2013; Universidad Bolivariana de Venezuela 2007). Public policies are considered in the fourth year. The inclusion of public policies in the formation process brings the opportunity to combine governmental strategies on local territories with community demands, through the practice of agroecology. In this phase, they study, collectively build and propose agroecological programs and projects for the communes, municipal governments, and other state structures. In the same way, it participates in the construction of new laws as well as other legal frameworks of interest.1 Participatory methods are put into practice, with action research and systematization present along the process. In these spaces, dialogues include theoretical inputs, and the community wisdom to actively participate in order to interpret reality. An example is the case of La Limonera in Miranda state, a project that started in 2009, and that consolidated, through agroecological participatory action research (Méndez 2013), a collective action plan, which culminated in a Popular School of Agroecology and management of a productive unit (Blanco 2015; Domené, Riaño and Perez 2009) ○ Capacities are developed, starting from theoretical encounters in a way that unwraps the community dynamics lived by participants. Project AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 943 contents allow a continuous cycle of “unlearning in order to learn” (McCune, Reardon, and Rosset 2014), giving new logic to the processes. The student is prepared to solve complex problems, to think critically, make decisions and interact with diverse forms of knowledge and wisdom. For example, one graduate has organized the residents of a large public housing project to surround their buildings with agroecological gardens (Blanco 2015). In another case, a group of students in the south of Aragua state organized a municipal school garden project for which they also produce organic inputs, supporting the public school lunch program (Interview with Professor Doriana Ríos, PFG Aragua). ○ Multiple levels and action scales are used, from plot sizes, settlements, social and bioregion with a complex perspective (Universidad Bolivariana de Venezuela 2007). ○ Projects become spaces of encounter, where dialogues and new meanings are built based on theory and local agroecological knowledge. Agroecology is constructed as a life alternative emerging from the social margins and concrete geographical spaces. A teacher at the campus located in Zulia state, in the west of the country, stated in an interview that the agroecology of the “borderlands” is very different from the center of the country. Likewise, in Bolivar state, students grow food in seasonal islands that form during summer in the Orinoco river, in a traditional indigenous practice. Project-based agroecological learning and action research are meant to be able to adjust to the phenomenal diversity of Venezuelan food cultures (Méndez, Bacon, and Cohen 2013). Project-based learning allows a process of “internalization and socialization of agroecological knowledges and logic” and place the territory at the center of the education process (McCune et al. 2016, 17), rather than the individual, as occur in the traditional system. In this regard, PDA learning tools share similarities with other Latin-American experiences in agroecological formation, such as LVC-IALA2 established in Brazil, Paraguay, Chile, and Argentina (McCune et al. 2016), and in contrast to the classical conception of agricultural extension activities practiced in traditional agricultural universities (Sánchez 2004). The educational proposal of the PDA is novel because it seeks the collective construction of the social-cultural and environmental-ecological bases of an agroecology located and committed to the transformation of social relations of production (Domené 2013; Herrera, Domené-Painenao, and Cruces 2017; Universidad Bolivariana de Venezuela 2007). And that is only possible by recognizing “other” social actors (peasants, rural women, people, fishermen, among others), through a dialogue of knowledge (Rosset 2015a). This implies a long-term challenge in a rentier oil country, particularly given the geopolitical, ideological, economic, and class tensions felt in Venezuela (Domené-Painenao, 944 O. DOMENÉ-PAINENAO AND F. F. HERRERA Cruces, and Herrera 2015; Herrera, Domené-Painenao, and Cruces 2017; Schiavoni 2015).Another important issue in this case study is to understand the territorial process of the PDA. One of the main challenges of the UBV is to break the logic of the traditional university as hegemonic, liberal, and capitalist institutions. In the founding document of the PDA, this is expressed as three goals: (1) To function across the national territory, as called for by the 1999 Constitution. (2) To incorporate territories into a equitable development model, reducing the contradiction between the city and the countryside and distributing public investment throughout the country. (3) To prioritize local spaces in inter-learning processes and establish the conditions for institutionalizing people’s power through the bottom-up organizing of communes as established in the Venezuelan Constitution (Universidad Bolivariana de Venezuela 2007). With these goals in mind, activities in rural areas began in 2005, in the communities of Barlovento (Miranda state). This area, mostly inhabited by people of African descent, became the first experience of an open space university, giving sense to the “University without walls” motto of the founding document (Steering Document 2003). Two distinct settings for PDA were thus created: campuses and ambientes. UBV campuses are spread in most regions located in almost all parts of the country (Figure 2), while ambientes, or schools with local community commitment, can be established either in communal houses or rural plots, based on local demands. Ambientes are created to satisfy a community need in the agroecological formation and become university spaces for the time required. Ambientes are co-managed by the university and communities. They provide decentralized teaching, both spatially and organizationally, in contrast to traditional universities centralized management. Indeed, the PDA ambientes act as new university spaces, since they create new local institutions (D Amario 2009). Ambientes, using projects as pedagogical tools, promote a new territoriality in rural spaces. PDA projects use the dialogo de saberes as “a method of exchanging historically constructed knowledge, know-how and senses in order to collectively produce new meanings and shared struggles” (McCune et al. 2016, 19). PDA projects can take place in communities that have organized to form communes, a political figure created to reflect a need for social transformations that build sovereignty at smaller scales (McKay, Nehring, and Walsh-Dilley 2014). Communal co-management of ambientes has encouraged the appearance of diverse initiatives, such as agroecological AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 945 Figure 2. (A). Distribution of central buildings and ambientes (rural schools) of the Program Degree in Agroecology in Venezuela. Circles suggest the area attended by the program (estimated in a radius of 50 km for central buildings, and 10 km for ambientes). Inlets show schematic population density (B), physical map (C), and agricultural territories (D) of Venezuela. brigades and popular schools of agroecology, among several forms of organization in each territory. The impacts of the program degree in agroecology University technical and licensed graduate population Three years after the program began, the first 195 agroecological technicians graduated and in the next 10 years 1045 technicians graduated (Figure 3). This figure gains relevance if it is considered that these graduates have been involved in local, urban, suburban, and rural community’s projects all through their career and they have had to deal with agroecological practices, public policies, and research projects. All these professionals become familiar with agricultural production, social-community differences, participative research methods and dialogo de saberes approach between the academic episteme and local knowledge. The number of graduates in time suggests that the first cohort, as a consequence of an accumulation process, showed a peak in the number of students. However, the number of students has dropped in recent years as 946 O. DOMENÉ-PAINENAO AND F. F. HERRERA Figure 3. Population of graduated students as Superior University Technicians (TSU) and Graduates between 2007–2016, in the Degree Program in Agroecology. the ongoing economic crisis took form. A combination of factors, including: i) the death of former president and undisputed leader of the Bolivarian Revolution, Hugo Chávez, which left socialists with a leadership vacuum; ii) the sudden and dramatic decline of petroleum prices, which left the Venezuelan state with less than a quarter of its anticipated earnings over the next five years; and iii) sustained geopolitical pressure, lead by the United States’ military, covert, diplomatic, economic, political and cultural efforts to destroy the Bolivarian Revolution, have combined to effectively stall the growth of the PDA. Students’ formation has undoubtedly suffered the consequences. The State capacity of response to cope with the described events did not maintain agroecological production among the national priorities, or recognize agroecology as an effective anti-shock policy to resist regime change attempts. However, programs like Manos a la Siembra have contributed to a vibrant urban agriculture movement based on agroecological principles (Alban, Arteaga, and Herrera 2017). Agroecology’s PDA territory coverage Strategies for inserting the rural population and other historically excluded social sectors into university studies have been diverse, at the same time specific goals are taken into consideration in rural agricultural, suburban and urban sectors. Expansion in the territory has been a gradual process since PDA creation in 2004, and has been subjected to continual adjustments. It began in four cities: Ciudad Bolívar, Caracas, Punto Fijo and Maracaibo (Figure 2). Through the following five years new campuses were incorporated and the first environment was created. In 2011, spaces were reorganized in territory axes, based upon regional criteria that included social and historical aspects as well as road connectivity (García and Santander 2011). The creation of rural or urban ambientes is dynamic; ambientes, as local schools exist as long as their needs are accomplished. New ambientes are continuously appearing in places where community demands formation in AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 947 agroecology. PDA activities have attended most populated areas of the country (Figure 2); especially main campuses with the support of some urban ambientes; and the impact on rural sectors have been through ambientes strategy. Although some ambientes have been closed as a result of the inability of students to find transportation, new ambientes have opened,3 often with a more local impact. Where ambientes have closed, several initiatives have been created in the form of groups and organizations (brigades, open schools, networks, etc.) that are maintained in the spaces where the PDA was present, as a result of students who, work in their own communities, apply agroecology as a strategy to mitigate the economic shocks being experienced by Venezuelans (Domené 2016). Post-graduation alumni pathways There is no official record for the careers that PDA graduates are pursuing. Nevertheless, as a strongly linked community, we used an interview sample to find their most common career choices. An interview with a PDA teacher confirmed that nearly 90% of graduated students from an urban campus in the period 2012–2014 are working in government institutions that advocate agricultural activities; most of the remaining 10% were dedicated to food production. The need to renovate narratives and procedures in national agricultural institutions in different areas like funding, management, and research, in the wake of transformations required by the Constitution required a large number of agroecology professionals within government management. It is possible that campuses settled in the country’s main cities have had a strong influence on this matter. By contrast, mostly of the graduates in the ambientes – created based on local population demands in agroecological training – wished to apply their knowledge in local productive spaces, generally of their own. In these cases, PDA graduates are peasants with agroecological formation – a form of “organic intellectual” for the agroecological movement. A PDA graduate from Sanare founded the largest local family business selling organic fertilizers produced by the earthworms he raises. Reconfiguration of a new professional and the discourse of social transformation PDA curriculum has been designed to develop a new profile of graduates – a far cry from the agronomic and veterinary professionals that are churned out of conventional university systems operating under the Green Revolution paradigm (Cruces 2000). PDA graduates articulate technical proposals in dialogue with local wisdom that emanate from a variety of community initiatives (de Sjostrand 2011; Núñez 2004; Rosset 2015a), in what the PDA 948 O. DOMENÉ-PAINENAO AND F. F. HERRERA refers to as maestro pueblo (the people as teacher) (Núñez 2004). The recognition is of another teacher (peasants, women who heal, among others) that the community sees as wise. The figure of maestro pueblo was built from the formative experience of action research with peasants and popular educators in Venezuela, in the context of the PDA. Graduates have contributed to construct a broader discourse that strengthens the agroecological point of view of the agro-food system as a whole and at the national level, not just food production but the political, economic, and cultural notions associated with framing this discourse into emancipative, anti-imperialist, and sovereign deeds. Discussion: situated agroecology in Venezuela Rosset and Altieri (2017) explore elements of an emerging pedagogy in agroecology formation. It is interesting to note that UBV and particularly PDA have applied some of these principles since 2004, embedded in constructivist teaching-learning processes. First of all, despite a preeminently conservative national university system, UBV adopted constructivism and Freirian approaches as alternative education methodologies. Project-based learning throughout the degree incorporates technical-agroecological training, social and political features based in local and global agricultural scenarios, and Latin American perspectives (as far as understanding the impacts of colonialism of knowledge). This approach provides holistic integration, identity, and a regional sense of sovereignty. Although PDA is an academic institution (with professors and instructors), it cannot be regarded simply as a technical or extensionist institution since a noteworthy effort has been made to dismantle this conventional practice from academy’s agricultural sector, in favor of a horizontal pedagogy. Ambientes as local schools provide the flexibility between formal and nonformal education, between classroom and farm work, and create conditions for horizontal exchanges of experiences and dialogues between different knowledges. Mutual recognition among academics, rural and urban communities, students, farmers benefits from these emerging relationships in PDA ambientes. PDA ambientes have been established in rural, suburban, and urban communities. Therefore, food sovereignty dimensions and a new social model construction through agroecology are not limited only to country people (Rosset and Altieri 2017). Farmers and poor citizens are living forces for transformation through their material condition and identity empowerment. PDA professors, besides training ecological practices, play a fundamental social and political role in order to deconstruct consumer identities and build a national identity built upon the struggle for food sovereignty. The need for food sovereignty in Venezuela has encouraged AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 949 a growing movement of urban agriculture, with plenty of spaces closely related to PDA (Alban, Arteaga, and Herrera 2017; Felicien, Schiavoni, and Romero 2018). The magnitude of this movement determined the creation of an Urban Agriculture Ministry in 2015, with agroecological standpoints and shaped by a high number of PDA graduates. The combination of factors such as student formation through projects, territorial strategies combining campuses and ambientes nationwide, graduates’ inclusion into government, graduates’ dedication to producing food and organic inputs, as well as regional and national encounters and debates, suggests that PDA has had an important impact in horizontal scaling of agroecology all around the country. These activities are making people conscious about the food crisis and importance of social organizations, helping them question the corporate agro-food model, building the structure for a critical mass that take part in today’s choices and construct alternative proposals (horticultural gardens or conucos, horticultural markets, barter systems, seed production, among them). As a result, Venezuela today is a mosaic of alternative experiences related to food production and consumption. The PDA experience has proven to be an effective strategy for bringing agroecology to scale from the educational platform. Since 2004, the program has implemented a dynamic and advanced educational system at a large scale, intertwined with initiatives of government institutions, academics and organized civil society. Inserted in this methodology, the 1st and 2nd Venezuelan Congress of Agroecology (2014 and 2016) and 1st and 2nd National Symposium of Agroecology (2015 and 2018) are notable. These have had diverse aims: first, they allow the students and PDA graduates to show their research project results, presented with inputs from academic, institutional, and peasant sectors, and second, as events covered in mass media, agroecology gains visibility and becomes legitimized. This exchange of subjective and methodological experiences, practical know-how, and theoretical complexity build creative acceptance of agroecological wisdom. A fabric between actors is built, giving agroecology in Venezuela a social movement character. The inclusion of new rural subjects has produced a form of “situated agroecology”, in which the place-based knowledge involved in agroecological production is understood as having a direct link to the historical and social process from which it emerges. In other words, the situated agroecology of the PDA acknowledges the vast diversity of experiences and forms of knowledge that inform agroecology in Venezuela, while also recognizing the commitment to social justice that emanates from their mega-diversity of historical experiences. The literature on political agroecology has recognized the theoretical possibility of a situated agroecology, albeit by other names (Giraldo 2019); the Venezuelan experience has shown strong evidence of situated agroecology in practice. O. DOMENÉ-PAINENAO AND F. F. HERRERA 950 Evidence is accumulating in Latin America of coups or abuses carried out by military forces against policies or grassroots movements in favor of alternative agriculture (particularly in Brazil, Paraguay, Colombia, and Honduras), showing how powerful the Green Revolution model remains, and how intricate its web of alliances (Giraldo and McCune 2019). In the context of the current political crisis, Venezuelans of all political stripes tend to suspect that a new government installed by foreign interests would reconsolidate agribusiness interests and repress social movements. This is particularly true of Via Campesina member organizations, which have made very strong calls for popular resistance against what they describe as a US-backed coup d’état (CLOC 2019). Agribusiness power is not local, but global. To defy corporate agribusiness and the industrial agro-food system, as suggested by Mier y Terán et al. (2018), agroecological wisdom has to reach higher levels of political and cultural consciousness, and needs its movements on national and global scales, if success is to be achieved. The understanding of key drivers and the implementation of strategies for agroecology scaling must be up to the task. Despite this, massification processes in Venezuela since 1999 have been both remarkable and also very poorly documented – a gap in the literature that this article attempts to begin filling. Agroecology’s expansion in Venezuela is not exempt from tensions and inner pressures from the conventional agricultural model, as well as national and international interests for a food import policy that causes dual power (Enríquez 2013; Felicien et al. 2018). In addition, there is the pressure from hegemonic powers that demand that the Bolivarian Revolution’s social and political experience be totally wiped-out and discredited, and with it the proposal of agroecology as an alternative model. The challenge of building an agroecological movement capable of being effective in the complex historical conditions of Venezuela and under threat of invasion is highly relevant to many parts of the world dealing with simultaneous effects of climate change and economic warfare. Perhaps these outliers, the “weakest links” in the chains of capitalist world-ecology (Moore 2015), are among the most fertile mediums for socially committed, situated agroecological transformations. Notes 1. https://notifalcon.com/v2/ubv-falcon-organizo-foro-sobre-propuesta-de-ley-nacionalde-semillas/ 2. Latin American Institute of Agroecology of Via Campesina. 3. http://www.radiomundial.com.ve/article/bachilleres-tendr%C3%A1n-nuevas-opcionesformativas-en-ubv-nueva-esparta. AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 951 Acknowledgments We are grateful to Nils McCune for comments on the manuscript. Also to Julieta Mirabal for language editing and proofreading of the manuscript. We are indebted to Robert Porras and Grisel Velázquez for assistance with the illustrations. References Alban, R., M. A. Arteaga, and F. F. Herrera. 2017. La agricultura urbana en Caracas: diagnóstico de los espacios agro-productivos desde una perspectiva socio-ecológica. Cuadernos de Desarrollo Rural 14 (80):1–19. Alban, R., O. Eriné, R. Ulloa, and L. Vásquez. 2015. Experiencias comunales en la construcción del laboratorio artesanal de bioinsumos Catia 5. Caracas DC: In V Congreso Latinoamericano de Agroecología-SOCLA (7 al 9 de octubre de 2015, La Plata). Amario, D. 2009. Cuestiones de la inclusión educativa: A propósito de la UBV y Misión Sucre. Revista Venezolana De Economía Y Ciencias Sociales 15 (1):187–223. Blanco, D. 2015. Experiencia en la Producción orgánica de Hortalizas en Casas de Cultivo, en el AVIVIR La Limonera, Baruta, Miranda, Venezuela. Cadernos de Agroecologia 9 (4). Accessed April 17, 2019. http://revistas.aba-agroecologia.org.br/index.php/cad/article/view/ 16613 Castellano, M. E. 2011. Educación universitaria en Venezuela, 2000–2010: Logros y compromisos. Espacio abierto 20 (2):343–365. Chiroleu, A. 2009. La inclusión en la educación superior como política pública: tres experiencias en América Latina. Población 9 (3.1):17–30. CLOC. 2019. La CLOC– Vía Campesina denuncia y rechaza la injerencia imperialista y exige respeto a la Soberanía de Venezuela. Accessed April 28, 2019. https://viacampesina.org/es/ la-cloc-via-campesina-denuncia-y-rechaza-la-injerencia-imperialista-y-exige-respeto-a-lasoberania-de-venezuela/. Contreras, M. A. 2004. Ciudadanía, Estado y democracia en la era neoliberal: dilemas y desafíos para la sociedad venezolana. In Políticas de ciudadanía y sociedad civil en tiempos de globalización, coord, ed. D. Mato, 111–32. Caracas, Venezuela: FACESUCV. Corden, W. M. 1984. Booming sector and Dutch disease economics: Survey and consolidation. Oxford Economic Papers 36 (3):359–80. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.oep. a041643. Cruces, J. M. 2000. La enseñanza agrícola superior en Venezuela ante los desafíos de la nueva agricultura. El caso de las escuelas de agronomía y producción animal. Doctor degree thesis, CENDES-UCV, Caracas, Venezuela. de Sjostrand, M. 2011. Educación universitaria en Venezuela, 2000–2010: Logros y compromisos. Espacio abierto 20 (2):343–65. Domené, O. 2016. Repensar el Programa de Formación en Agroecología: experiencias de proyectos hacia nuevas formas de re-construir lo alimentario en lo local. Cadernos de Agroecologia 10 (3). Accessed April 12, 2019. http://revistas.aba-agroecologia.org.br/index. php/cad/article/view/18985 Domené, O., A. Riaño, and O. Pérez. 2009. La limonera: una experiencia desde la organización comunitaria, para el desarrollo de una agricultura periurbana sustentable. Revista Brasileira de Agroecologia 4 (2):4311–4314. Domené, O. E. 2013. Aprendizaje por proyecto, un modelo para redescubrir la agroecología: Un avance en la evaluación de una experiencia campesina en Sabana de Uchire, Edo. 952 O. DOMENÉ-PAINENAO AND F. F. HERRERA Anzoátegui Venezuela. Master’s Thesis, FAGRO-UCV, Caracas, Venezuela. http://hdl. handle.net/123456789/3704. Domené-Painenao, O., J. M. Cruces, and F. F. Herrera. 2015. La agroecología en Venezuela: Tensiones entre el rentismo petrolero y la soberanía agroalimentaria. Agroecología 10 (2):55–62. Enríquez, L. 2013. The paradoxes of Latin America’s ‘Pink Tide’: Venezuela and the project of agrarian reform. Journal of Peasant Studies 40 (4):611–38. doi:10.1080/ 03066150.2012.746959. Enríquez, L. J., and S. J. Newman. 2016. The conflicted state and agrarian transformation in Pink Tide Venezuela. Journal of Agrarian Change 16 (4):594–626. Espinoza, A. M. 2009. La cuestión agroalimentaria en Venezuela. Nueva Sociedad 223:128–46. Felicien, A., C. M. Schiavoni, E. Ochoa, S. Saturno, E. Omaña, A. Requena, and W. Camacaro. 2018. Exploring the ‘grey areas’ of state-society interaction in food sovereignty construction: The battle for Venezuela’s seed law. Journal of Peasant Studies (On Line Version) 1–26. doi:10.1080/03066150.2018.1525363. Felicien, A., C. M. Schiavoni, and L. Romero. 2018. Food politics in a time of crisis: Corporate power vs. popular power in the shifting relations of state, society and capital in Venezuela’s food system. Paper presented at the ERPI 2018 International Conference Authoritarian Populism and the Rural World, The Hague, Netherlands, March 17–18. Freire, P. 2006. Pedagogía de la autonomía: saberes necesarios para la práctica educativa. México: Siglo XXI Editores. García, S., and J. Santander. 2011. Los ejes geopolíticos regionales y sus ejes municipales. Caracas, Venezuela: UBV. Giraldo, O. F. 2019. Political ecology of agriculture: agroecology and post-development. Cham: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-11824-2 Giraldo, O. F., and N. McCune. 2019. Can the state take agroecology to scale? Public policy experiences in agroecological territorialization from Latin America. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 1–25. doi:10.1080/21683565.2019.1585402. Haesbaert, R. 2013. Del mito de la desterritorialización a la multiterritorialidad. Cultura y Representaciones Sociales 8 (15):9–42. Haraway, D. 1995. Ciencia, cyborgs ymujeres: La reinvención de la naturaleza. Madrid: Ediciones Cátedra. Herrera, F. F., O. Domené-Painenao, and J. M. Cruces. 2017. The history of agroecology in Venezuela: A complex and multifocal process. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 41 (3–4):401–15. doi:10.1080/21683565.2017.1285842. Holliday, Ó. J. 2012. Sistematización de experiencias, investigación y evaluación: aproximaciones desde tres ángulos. F (X)= Educación Global Research 1:56–70. McCune, N. 2016. Family, territory, nation: Post-neoliberal agroecological scaling in Nicaragua. Food Chain 6 (2):92–106. doi:10.3362/2046-1887.2016.008. McCune, N., J. Reardon, and P. Rosset. 2014. Agroecological formación in rural social movements. Radical Teacher 98:31–37. doi:10.5195/rt.2014.71. McCune, N., P. Rosset, T. Salazar, A. Saldívar, and H. Morales. 2016. Mediated territoriality: Rural workers and the efforts to scale out agroecology in Nicaragua. The Journal of Peasant Studies 44 (2):354–76. doi:10.1080/03066150.2016.1233868. McCune, N., P. M. Rosset, T. Cruz Salazar, H. Morales, and A. Saldívar Moreno. 2017. The long road: Rural youth, farming and agroecological formación in Central America. Mind, Culture, and Activity 24 (3):183–98. doi:10.1080/10749039.2017.1293690. McKay, B., R. Nehring, and M. Walsh-Dilley. 2014. The ‘state’ of food sovereignty in Latin America: Political projects and alternative pathways in Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia. The Journal of Peasant Studies 41 (6):1175–200. doi:10.1080/03066150.2014.964217. AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 953 Méndez, V. E., C. M. Bacon, and R. Cohen. 2013. Agroecology as a transdisciplinary, participatory, and action-oriented approach. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 37 (1):3–18. Mier y Terán, M., O. Giraldo, M. Aldasoro, H. Morales, B. Ferguson, P. Rosset, A. Khadse, and C. Campos. 2018. Bringing agroecology to scale: Key drivers and emblematic cases. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 42 (6):637–65. doi:10.1080/21683565.2018.1443313. Moore, J. W. 2015. Cheap food and bad climate: From surplus value to negative value in the capitalist world-ecology. Critical Historical Studies 2 (1):1–43. doi:10.1086/681007. Núñez, J. 2004. Los saberes campesinos: implicaciones para una educación rural. Investigación y Postgrado 19 (2):13–60. Parmentier, S. 2014. Scaling-up agroecological approaches: What, why and how? Belgium: Oxfam Solidarity. Rosset, P. 2015a. Epistemes rurales y la formación agroecológica en la Vía Campesina. Ciência & Tecnologia Social 2 (1):4–1. Rosset, P. M. 2015b. Social organization and process in bringing agroecology to scale. Agroecology for food security and nutrition, Food and agriculture organization (FAO) of the United Nations, Rome: FAO. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4729e.pdf. Rosset, P. M., and M. A. Altieri. 2017. Agroecology: Science and politics. Manitoba, Canada: Fernwood Publishing. Sánchez de Mantrana, M. 2004. La extensión universitaria en Venezuela. Educere 8 (24). Sandoval, M. C. 2010. Las transformaciones de la educación superior en Venezuela: en búsqueda de su identidad. Revista Educación Superior Y Sociedad 15 (1):107–28. Schiavoni, C. M. 2015. Competing sovereignties, contested processes: Insights from the Venezuelan food sovereignty experiment. Globalizations 12:466–80. doi:10.1080/ 14747731.2015.1005967. Serrano, J. M., and R. M. Pons. 2011. El Constructivismo hoy: enfoques constructivistas en educación. Revista Electrónica de Investigación Educativa 13 (1):1–27. Steering Document - Bolivarian University of Venezuela. 2003. Documento Rector: Un proyecto educativo para la sociedad venezolana en pro del desarrollo integral del país, la trasformación del Estado venezolano y la creación de cultura democrática. Caracas: Venezuela. Universidad Bolivariana de Venezuela. 2007. Pensum PFG Agroecología. Caracas, Venezuela: Ministerio del Poder Popular de la Educación Superior. Verger, A., and T. Muhr. 2007. Educación Superior en Venezuela: Rompiendo con la ortodoxia liberal en política educativa. In Venezuela como laboratorio de políticas públicas: seis miradas a la sociedad, la economía y la educación bolivariana, ed. E. Merino, 67–103. Málaga, España: Centro de Ediciones de la Diutación de Málaga.