march 2016 volume 18 no. 1 leis india · 2018. 2. 10. · shubra aich, a.m. shamsuddula, practical...

Magazine on Low External Input Sustainable Agriculture INDILEISA

Mar

ch 2

016

vol

ume

18no

. 1

Co-creation of knowledgeCo-creation of knowledge

L E I S A I N D I A M A R C H 2 0 1 6

2

AMarch 2016 Volume 18 no. 1

INDILEIS Dear Readers

LEISA India is published quarterly by AME Foundationin collaboration with ILEIAAddress : AME FoundationNo. 204, 100 Feet Ring Road, 3rd Phase,Banashankari 2nd Block, 3rd Stage,Bangalore - 560 085, IndiaTel: +91-080- 2669 9512, +91-080- 2669 9522Fax: +91-080- 2669 9410E-mail: [email protected]

LEISA IndiaChief Editor : K.V.S. PrasadManaging Editor : T.M. Radha

EDITORIAL TEAMThis issue has been compiled by T.M. Radhaand K.V.S. Prasad

ADMINISTRATIONG.G. Rukmini

SUBSCRIPTIONSContact: G.G. Rukmini

DESIGN AND LAYOUTS Jayaraj, Chennai

PRINTINGNagaraj & Co. Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

COVER PHOTOFarmer Field Schools serve as a platform forknowledge co-creation(Photo: S Jayaraj for AME Foundation)

The AgriCultures NetworkLEISA India is a member of the global AgriculturesNetwork. Seven organisations that provide informationon small-scale, sustainable agriculture worldwide,and that publish:Farming Matters (in English)LEISA revista de agroecología (Latin America)LEISA India (in English, Kannada, Tamil, Hindi,Telugu, Oriya, Marathi and Punjabi)AGRIDAPE (West Africa, in French)Agriculturas Experiências em Agroecologia (Brazil).

The editors have taken every care to ensurethat the contents of this magazine are as accurate aspossible. The authors have ultimate responsibility,however, for the content of individual articles.The editors encourage readers to photocopyand circulate magazine articles.www.leisaindia.org

Board of TrusteesSri. Chiranjiv Singh, IAS - Chairman; Dr. Vithal Rajan - Member; Sri. B.K. Shiva Ram - Treasurer; Dr. M. Mahadevappa - Member; Dr. N.G. Hegde - Member;Dr. T.M. Thiyagarajan - Member; Prof. V. Veerabhadraiah - Member; Dr. A. Rajanna - Member; Dr. Venkatesh Tagat - Member; Dr. Smita Premchander - Member

MISEREOR founded in 1958 is the German Catholic Bishops’ Organisation for DevelopmentCooperation. For over 50 years MISEREOR has been committed to fighting poverty in Africa, Asiaand Latin America. MISEREOR’s support is available to any human being in need – regardless oftheir religion, ethnicity or gender. MISEREOR believes in supporting initiatives driven and owned bythe poor and the disadvantaged. It prefers to work in partnership with its local partners. Togetherwith the beneficiaries, the partners involved help shape local development processes and implementthe projects. This is how MISEREOR, together with its partners, responds to constantly changingchallenges. (www.misereor.de; www.misereor.org)

AME Foundation promotes sustainable livelihoods through combining indigenous knowledge and innovative technologies for Low-External-Input natural resourcemanagement. Towards this objective, AME Foundation works with small and marginal farmers in the Deccan Plateau region by generating farming alternatives,enriching the knowledge base, training, linking development agencies and sharing experience.

AMEF is working closely with interested groups of farmers in clusters of villages, to enable them to generate and adopt alternative farming practices. Theselocations with enhanced visibility are utilised as learning situations for practitioners and promoters of eco-farming systems, which includes NGOs and NGOnetworks. www.amefound.org

LEISA is about Low-External-Input and Sustainable Agriculture. It is about the technical and socialoptions open to farmers who seek to improve productivity and income in an ecologically sound way.LEISA is about the optimal use of local resources and natural processes and, if necessary, the safeand efficient use of external inputs. It is about the empowerment of male and female farmers andthe communities who seek to build their future on the bases of their own knowledge, skills, values,culture and institutions. LEISA is also about participatory methodologies to strengthen the capacityof farmers and other actors, to improve agriculture and adapt it to changing needs and conditions.LEISA seeks to combine indigenous and scientific knowledge and to influence policy formulation tocreate a conducive environment for its further development. LEISA is a concept, an approach and apolitical message.

ILEIA – the centre for learning on sustainable agriculture is a member of AgriCultures Networkwhich shares knowledge and provides information on small-scale family farming and agroecology.(www.theagriculturesnetwork.org). The network , with members from all over the world - Brazil,China, India, the Netherlands, Peru and Senegal, produces six regional magazines and one globalmagazine. In addition, is involved in various processes to promote family farming and agroecology.The ILEIA office in The Netherlands functions as the secretariat of the network.

There is increasing realisation worldwide that agroecological approaches is the solution forcreating healthy and wealthy nations, providing adequate food, ecological stability andsustainable livelihoods.Also, there is deep realisation that this knowledge is not entirely new – it has been available aswisdom in farmer communities, is transdisciplinary and interdisciplinary in nature, is not a topdown solution, and most importantly, constantly evolving through local adaptation and innovationby farming communities and those closely working with them. This issue examines some ofthe enabling processes and working strategies for co-creation of and scaling up such knowledge.International institutions like FAO are highlighting the importance of such processes throughregional dialogues and making efforts to influence national policies for creating enablingconditions for this critical knowledge. Hopefully, this issue would inspire intensification ofmultistakeholder bottom up knowledge creation processes.We thank all those who are contributing voluntarily for the printed copy of the magazine.We earnestly wish that many more join this group of kind hearted people.

The Editors

3L E I S A I N D I A M A R C H 2 0 1 6

6

24

36

14

GyanerHaatThe knowledge shopFaruk-Ul-Islam, Mohammad Kamrul Islam Bhuiyan, SaikatShubra Aich, A.M. Shamsuddula, Practical ActionDe-centralsied knowledge service is vitalfor empowering the knowledge deprivedpoor people. Aiming to providecontextualised and localised knowledge forthe poor communities and developing achannel of reliable information for itsvarious clients, Practical Action-Bangladesh promotes grass rootKnowledge Centres called GyanerHaat.

Co-creating knowledge collectivelyKees (C.J) Stigter and Yunita T. WinartoFarmers are learning to better prepare andcope with climatic variations by observing,learning and interacting with farmers andresearchers. Science Field Shops inIndonesia are serving as a response toclimate change, facilitating this processsuccessfully.

Farmer Field SchoolBuilding knowledge on the farmAbhijit Mohanty and Ranjit SahuFarmer Field Schools serve as a platformfor mutual learning among farmers andresource persons. Interactions, discussionsand hands on training provides anopportunity to revive and sustain traditionalknowledge while making improvementsthrough modern science.

Agroecology in Asia and the PacificA summary of outcomes of the regional consultationT M RadhaConscious of the need to embed agroecology within local andregional socio-ecological realities, the first MultistakeholderConsultation on Agroecology for Asia and the Pacific in Bangkokin November 2015 assessed the contributions of agroecology in acontext of climate change, the need to transform knowledgebuilding and research, and made suggestions for policy change,including the creation of appropriate markets to furtheragroecology in the region.

CONTENTSVol. 18 no. 1, March 2016

Including Selections from International Edition

4 Editorial

6 GyanerHaatThe knowledge shopFaruk-Ul-Islam, Mohammad Kamrul Islam Bhuiyan, SaikatShubra Aich, A.M. Shamsuddula, Practical Action

9 Participatory Guarantee SystemsA platform for knowledge exchangeCornelia Kirchner

14 Co-creating knowledge collectivelyNitya Sambamurti Ghotge

17 Interview: Victor M Toledo“Agroecology is an epistemological revolution”Diana Quiroz

20 Science Field ShopsLearning in response to climate changeKees (C.J.) Stigter and Yunita T. Winarto

24 Farmer Field SchoolBuilding knowledge on the farmAbhijit Mohanty and Ranjit Sahu

28 Participatory knowledge buildingVara Prasad Chittem

30 Co-creating the agricultural biodiversity that feeds us

34 New Books

35 Sources

36 Agroecology in Asia and the PacificA summary of outcomes of the regional consultationT M Radha


4

Edi tor ia l

‘Agro ecological farming can double the food production inten years while mitigating climate change and alleviatingpoverty’, said Olivier De Schutter, the UN SpecialRapporteur on the Right to Food, emphasizing the need toshift to more eco friendly farming for future sustainability.This view is also supported by several studies including theIAASTD report. Obviously, the challenge for the 21st centuryis not only about increasing food production but aboutstrengthening the resilience of our food production in theface of increasing stress on the ecosystem. In this backdrop,agroecological farming is increasingly being recognized asone of the ways in overcoming the challenge.

As an approach, agro-ecology aims to make agricultureeconomically, ecologically, and socially more sustainable.It is highly knowledge-intensive, based on the know-howof small-scale producers and on agro-ecological science andexperimentation.

Need for knowledge co-creationFood produced adopting conventional agricultural practiceslargely depends on a set of package of practices which arehigh external input based, directed towards monocultures.In this system, farmer is considered as a ‘recipient’ of newknowledge flowing from the lab or the scientists. It fails toaccount for the complexity of agriculture, local conditions,farmers needs and priorities or farmers increasing need toadapt to the challenges of climate variability. It does notrecognize farmers knowledge or their capacities to adopt,while completely ignoring the knowledge of women farmers.

On the other hand, agro ecology is highly context specificand knowledge intensive. It depends on the know-how ofsmall farmers, the agro ecological conditions andexperimentation. There are no fixed prescriptions inagroecology about how to produce, process, market or storefood, feed, medicine and fibre. Rather, different practiceswork in different ways depending on each specific contextand ecosystem. Farmers continuously build situation-specificknowledge that allows them to succeed under unpredictableand changing circumstances. Agro ecology also needs thesupport of knowledge based on evolving agro ecologicalscience and experimentation. All this makes co-creation ofknowledge, arising out of various forms of knowledgesystems, most essential.

Emerging initiativesKnowledge cocreation has been happening in various ways,especially with the efforts of the Civil Society Organisations.Various participatory processes like Participatory VarietalSelection (PVS), Farmer Field Schools (FFS) andParticipatory Technology Development (PTD) have beenlargely instrumental in co-creating knowledge. Otherinitiatives include, setting up of village knowledge centers,facilitating knowledge sharing meetings, multi stakeholderworkshops etc. This issue highlights some of them.

Farmer Field Schools have been considered an effectiveplatform for co creating knowledge among farmers,facilitators and researchers. Interactions, discussions andhands on training during FFS provides an opportunity torevive and sustain traditional knowledge while makingimprovements through modern science.(Mohanty and Sahu,p.24).

Science Field Shops similar to FFS, are serving as a responseto climate change, in Indonesia. Farmers are learning toprepare and cope with climatic variations better by observing,learning and interacting with other farmers and researchers.(Stigter and Winarto, p.20)

ANTHRA in Andhra Pradesh has promoted preservation oflocal knowledge on livestock rearing by documenting thepractices and wisdom of the tribals, pastoralists and thewomen in the communities, (Nitya Sambamurti Ghotge,p.14). The collective knowledge created in the form of books,photographs, publications and training materials is aimed toserve as a repository of local knowledge which could be usedin future.

In conventional knowledge management system, informationcontrol lies with conventionally educated groups. This createsknowledge banks, but not effective ‘knowledge societies’that engage poor people. In an effort to move towards creatingknowledge societies, Practical Action, Bangladesh has beenpromoting grass root Knowledge Centre called GyanerHaat,a knowledge service for generating, sharing, updating,disseminating, internalising and conserving knowledge.(Faruk-Ul-Islam, Mohammad Kamrul Islam Bhuiyan, SaikatShubra Aich, A.M. Shamsuddula, p.6)

Co-creation of knowledge


4


With farmers’ knowledge gaining more recognition, manyevents where farmers gather are increasingly serving asplatforms for knowledge sharing. PGS (ParticipatoryGuarantee Systems) meetings have been shown to hold greatpotential, to encourage knowledge sharing between farmers,and thus contribute to nurturing farmers’ knowledge. PGSinitiatives like Keystone in India and MASIPAG in thePhilippines have acknowledged that PGS functions as a keytool in preserving traditional knowledge or even re-establishing already almost-forgotten knowledge andpractices. (Cornelia Kirchner, p.9)

Support for knowledge co-creationAgroecological methods of food production have beenapplied and spread by many farming communities aroundthe world, primarily through a process of farmer- to-farmerknowledge sharing. The experience of farmers and food-producing communities around the world usingagroecological methods has provided a growing body ofevidence of the economic, social and environmental benefitsof these methods. Successful examples of scaling upagroecology show that there is a need to enhance humancapital and empower communities through training andparticipatory methods that seriously take into account theneeds, aspirations and circumstances of smallholders.

Greater investment in research on agroecological foodproduction methods which builds on traditional knowledge


and existing best practices is needed. Also increased supportfor the establishment and expansion of farmer-to-farmernetworks at local levels for the sharing of information andbest practices in agroecological food production is necessary.Enabling policy environments at national and internationallevels will go a long way in scaling up agro ecology. TheMultistakeholder Consultation on Agroecology for Asia andthe Pacific in Bangkok organized by FAO in November 2015(T M Radha, p.36) is definitely a positive step towards thatend.

Participatory processes like FFS enable knowledge exchange

Phot

o: A

MEF


6

GyanerHaatThe knowledge shopFaruk-Ul-Islam, Mohammad Kamrul Islam Bhuiyan, Saikat Shubra Aich,A.M. Shamsuddula, Practical Action

De-centralsied knowledge service is vital for empoweringthe knowledge deprived poor people. Aiming to providecontextualised and localised knowledge for the poorcommunities and developing a channel of reliableinformation for its various clients, Practical Action-Bangladesh promotes grass root Knowledge Centrescalled GyanerHaat.

With the changing context in the environment,farming systems and local-global trade, thevalue of a knowledge service and role of

knowledge centres in the development process is gainingpriority. People need more knowledge to act. Access toinformation alone, perhaps, is not enough.

Currently, there are many types of Knowledge Centresrunning in Bangladesh, such as, Ministry of Agriculture’sAICC – Agricultural Information and CommunicationCentre, Local Government Division’s UISCs – UnionInformation and Service Centres, Grameen’s CICs -Community Information Centres, D-Net’s ( NGO) PallyThthya Kendra. These are the widely known ones.

Practical Action started promoting grass root KnowledgeCentre called GyanerHaat (Knowledge Shop) in variouslocations. This is a knowledge access point havingknowledge entrepreneur, ICT internet facility, bookletsand 10-20 local knowledge actors (extension agents orservice providers). Back in 2000 to 2006, Practical Action,first promoted this kind of Knowledge Centres, attachedto local NGOs, managed by paid staff. There were severalchallenges and it didn’t finally sustain beyond the projectperiod, because of the limitations of a project drivenapproach.

Shifting focusRecommended by a study (Practical Action, 2007) in2007, Practical Action, shifted its focus from ‘informationdropping’ to a process of knowledge creation, sourcing,updating, sharing, influencing, internalizing andconserving, at the grassroot level. It establishedKnowledge Centre with one Union Council and a schoolwhere an entrepreneurship model has been explored. By2008-09, we tried to understand institutional capacity ofknowledge management, various contents for clients, roleof human knowledge agents for semi-educated clients,an operational model for knowledge centre, which finallyevolved into knowledge partnerships and an establishedCall Centre.

A woman calling the Krishi Call Centre seeking solutionfor her field problem

Phot

o: P

ract

ical

Act

ion


The studyDuring 2012, a study was conducted in 10 GyanerHaatslocated in northern and southern Bangladesh, tounderstand the nature of service and its effectiveness.These ten centres were located in six districts of Bagerhat,Jessore, Cox’s Bazar, Shatkhira, Sirajganj and Rangpur.The study captured regular monitoring data of the centres,made direct contact with entrepreneurs and RuralTechnology Extensionists (RTE) and associatedstakeholders such as government line departments, localUnion Council representatives. More than 4 informaldiscussions were conducted in each centre. Some of themost important insights of the study were captured fromour 4-5 years’ experience in two centres located at Atulia(under Shatkhira District) and Borokhata (underLalmonirhat district) and two years of working experienceof the authors with 10 more centres.

The modelThe GyanerHaats provide a place where communities canaccess technical and knowledge services and support. EachGyanerHaat has internet connectivity and is managed bya private entrepreneur who charges a small fee foradditional services (photocopying, letter writing etc.).Linkage to the wider community is assured through a teamof 8-20 Rural Technology Extensionists (RTEs), operatingas infomediaries. Having received technical training inagriculture and/or animal health, the RTEs generate theirown income by providing technical services and sellinginputs, vaccinations etc. It was observed that access toadvice, and provision of inputs and services togetherprovided an incentive for the community to utilise theGyanerHaat on a continuous basis.

GyanerHaats were established in coordination with arange of partners and in a variety of settings. In ourexperience, partnership with local government institutions(the Union Parishad) and national government agencies,such as the Ministry of Agriculture, provide the greatestpotential for long-term viability and impact. GyanerHaatsbased within existing Union Parishad (Council) buildingsreceived more visits from the local community andgreater support from local government. Practical Actionalso operated successful GyanerHaats attached with asecondary school where the knowledge shopattracted students, their parents and additional farmersthrough the RTEs and teachers for knowledgeinformation services. As of 2012, Practical Action wasmanaging around 30 Local Knowledge Centres (brandedas GyanerHaats) as a part of two nationwideprogrammes.

Knowledge interactionsEach centre responded to the enquires of farmers, bothat the centre and at the village level, through its RuralTechnology Extensionists. The study recorded that eachcentre could respond to around 1500 -1800 enquires peryear, through different means. Maximum enquires weremade during face to face visit of the RTEs and somewere over phone and at the centre. Most of the enquireswere about farm related problems.

Box 1: Solve small snail infestation problem in ShrimppondBishwajit Mandal is a shrimp farmer in Shyamnagar. Shyamnagaris an Upazila in the coastal district of Bangladesh, where most ofthe farming households are engaged in shrimp cultivation, usingsaline water.

Bishwajit’s pond was infested with small snails, which is notsuitable for shrimp cultivation. It is necessary to make the waterbody free from snails before starting shrimp cultivation. Heconsulted Noorun Nabi, an entrepreneur of the GyanerHaat whoin turn introduced him to Taposh Pal, a Rural Technology Extensionagent for Fisheries. Based on Taposh Pal’s advice, Bishwajitprepared a medicineusing tobacco dust andwater and spread it on theinfected pond. After 4days Bishwajit Mandalfound that all the smallsnails had died. He washappy to start shrimpfarming during thatseason.

Testing water for its salinity content for better pondmanagement in coastal areas

Phot

o: P

ract

ical

Act

ion


8

Box 2: Morjina, a successful goat rearerMorjina lives near AtuliaGaynerHaat. She bought twogoats to supplement herhusband’s petty earnings. Shykul,a livestock extension agent ofGyanerHaat provided them withinformation on how to managesmall goat farming includingfeeding and diseasemanagement. In an year, theyhad three mother goats with fivekids, with a market value ofaround 400 USD.

vaccine, animal treatment) made a big difference inknowledge services. Sustainability of such centres dependupon the capacity of local actors, legal and institutionalarrangements and local ownership of the centre. Subsidymay be required for running such a centre in very remotelocations.

References

Practical Action, “A Study on People’s Empowermentthrough Decentralized Knowledge Development andManagement”, 2007, Final Technical Report,Practical Action, Bangladesh.

Practical Action, “Program Document on knowledgeservice of Practical Action, Bangladesh 2012-17”, 2012,A strategic document of Practical Action.

Velden, van der M., “The end of diversity?”, 2002, Paperpresented at the ‘Third international conference oncultural attitudes towards technology andcommunication’, Canada.

Mohammad Kamrul Islam BhuiyanSr. Knowledge Officer (M&E)House # 28/A, Road # 05Dhanmondi, Dhaka – 1205BangladeshE-mail: [email protected]

It was found that a centre could reach around 15-24villages and 628 people per month (with overlaps)depending on the concentration of clients around numberof RTEs attached and also road connectivity. Usually oneRTE reached around 100 households which led to a totaloutreach of 1000 households per center (having 9-10RTEs). However, from our long working experience inCentre no. 5 (with 20 RTEs) and in a school based centre,the coverage of clients reached up to 2500 households.

One of the unique characters of the centre is its local expertpool of around 20 self-employed rural technologyextensionists, one self-employed knowledge entrepreneurwith one assistant, in each centre. They are well connectedwith the government, other NGOs and Practical Action’sexperts. The centre has a range of farm and non-farmtechnology booklets, leaf lets, CDs and fact sheets on localsolutions.

This apart, the other functions served by the centres were- providing e-services such as – skype, video chat, passportand visa processing, on line birth registration,downloading government forms, job search, sending emailetc. Services like photocopying, computer text work,printing, computer training, renting multi-media projectoretc., were also found to be very useful.

With varied startup investment cost from $2500 to $12500,a knowledge centre can run on its own, if it can earn $125-200 per month. The operational model does not requireproject based support. It can run independently followinga cost recovery method and local institutional support.This centre can be attached with a rural school, UnionCouncil or a NGO, a Community Based Organization(CBO) or a network.

Conclusion

In conventional knowledge management system,information control lies with conventionally educatedgroups. This creates knowledge banks, but not effective‘knowledge societies’ that engage poor people. Acomprehensive knowledge service is about generating,sharing, updating, disseminating, internalising andconserving knowledge. It requires technology, human andinstitutional support.

The GyanerHaat is capable of serving people, mostly fromlow and medium strata. However, the approach didn’tcompletely exclude the rich. It was found that advicecombined with the necessary inputs, skills and serviceswill facilitate action. Therefore, an effective workingmodel combining with advice (information, knowledge),input (e.g. quality seed, vaccine) and service (pushing

Morjina Begum a successfulgoat rearer


Local and traditional knowledge have been deniedlegitimacy over a long period of time, at least in thewestern world. Until the 1990s, only scientific

knowledge generated by researchers was recognized. Thiskind of knowledge was transferred mainly in a top-down,unilinear manner from the teaching scientists to the learningfarmers.

Today, the relevance of local and traditional knowledge hasgained broad recognition. Farmers are no longer seen aspassive recipients of information, but their practicalexperience and knowledge are now recognized and respectedas valuable sources of information and means of innovation.Not only in the organic but also in the entire agriculturalsector, processes involving various stakeholders in aparticipatory manner, such as farmer-to-farmer approaches,have been identified as indispensable tools for informationdissemination. Farmer-to-farmer approaches have shown tobe particularly useful in less industrialized countries amongfarmers in less privileged contexts.

Participatory Guarantee SystemsA platform for knowledge exchangeCornelia Kirchner

The significance and value of local and traditional farmers’knowledge on improving agricultural practices is gainingmore and more recognition. Participatory GuaranteeSystems have been shown to hold great potential, toencourage knowledge sharing between farmers, and thuscontribute to nurturing farmers’ knowledge.

A participatory exercise


10

Organic agriculture, which can contribute to addressingvarious challenges such as poverty, climate change orbiodiversity loss is knowledge intensive. Continuous learningand knowledge dissemination are crucial in order toimplement innovations and be able to react to new situationsand challenges. Today, there is recognition that organicagriculture needs to be supported by diverse knowledgesystems, which draw on both local and scientific knowledge.In order to enhance sustainable agriculture and environmentalmanagement, effective ways of exchanging knowledgebetween farmers and their stakeholders need to be identified.

PGS as a platform for knowledge exchangeFacilitating knowledge exchange can be a challenging task.To make it happen a number of prerequisites need to befulfilled of which trust is among the most fundamental ones.Only if farmers trust each other will they share their ideasand experience. Important is also the availability of toolsand opportunities to meet and to exchange knowledge. It isimportant to keep in mind that farmers represent diverseattitudes, capabilities and needs regarding the adoption ofknowledge. Practices to facilitate knowledge sharing anddissemination have to fit the respective conditions anddemands of the farmers.

Participatory Guarantee Systems (PGS), by definition, aresystems that build on a high level of collaboration andinformation sharing between the individuals involved. Itincorporates many components that can contribute to thecreation of a favourable environment for knowledgeexchange. Trust, horizontality, shared vision and transparencyrepresent key elements of PGS, which help to create a settingwhere stakeholders do not feel like competitors, but rathershow an attitude of supporting each other. A high level ofinteraction, knowledge exchange and a continuous learningprocess are key characteristics of PGS.

The core question behind this paper is whether these idealsas described in the PGS key elements and features are alsoreflected in reality. Does PGS lead to increased knowledgeexchange between farmers? The paper further analyses,which tools are used and provided in the different PGSinitiatives, what kind of knowledge is shared and the actualimpact on the farmers involved.

The paper is based on quantitative and qualitative datagathered by IFOAM – Organics International from PGSinitiatives on all continents. Quantitative data on knowledgeexchange was collected during the Annual Global PGSSurvey in 2013, a survey that involves all initiatives knownto IFOAM – Organics International. From theGlobal Comparative Study on Interactions between

Traditional Social Processes and Participatory GuaranteeSystems (PGS), carried out by IFOAM – OrganicsInternational between 2011 and 2014, qualitative data fromnine PGS initiatives in seven countries on four continentswas obtained. This data is complemented by a review of therespective literature, which includes material from past PGSprojects implemented by IFOAM – Organics International.

Local knowledge is particularly relevantPGS initiatives exist in many shapes and contexts. The sizeof PGS initiatives ranges from less than a dozen of farmersoperating in a small regional scale up to national PGSinvolving thousands of farmers. The existence of an organicregulation and a national plan to support organic agriculturein a country and the stage of development of the organicsector influence the implementation of PGS. PGS can beadministered by the farmers themselves, managed by a localNGO or by a wider range of stakeholders. This diversityalso applies to the practices of knowledge sharing adoptedby PGS initiatives.

All PGS initiatives that participated in the Annual Survey orin the Comparative Study on PGS reported an intensificationof knowledge exchange between farmers since theimplementation of the PGS. Some PGS initiatives evenpromote cooperative learning and knowledge sharing as akey benefit of their PGS (e.g. Sapphire Coast PGS inAustralia and Sistema ABIO in Brazil). From Nature &Progrès in France, which is the oldest PGS known and wasfounded in 1964, we learned that the desire to participate inknowledge exchange could be a main motivation for farmersto join the PGS. With regard to Nature & Progrès, it isimportant to mention that one of the main objectives for thecreation of the organization was the establishment of a forumto exchange knowledge on production techniques.

The most common kind of knowledge that is shared betweenfarmers participating in PGS is organic farming techniquesand practices, including both traditional knowledge as wellas innovations. Local knowledge and experience from fellowfarmers that consider the specific characteristics of the soil,the climatic conditions and the market is particularly usefuland relevant for farmers. Some PGS initiatives (e.g. Keystonein India, MASIPAG in the Philippines) mentioned that PGSfunctions as a key tool in preserving traditional knowledgeor even re-establishing already almost-forgotten knowledgeand practices.

By working together on different issues,farmers in the PGS network learn and

cultivate their knowledge together.


Besides technical farming knowledge being shared betweenfarmers, through joint activities in many PGS initiatives,farmers share their skills and knowledge on other practicalissues like marketing or food processing. Throughparticipatory workshops or by working together on differentissues, farmers in the PGS network learn and cultivate theirknowledge together. They also commonly share andexchange other practical information like suppliers of farminputs or recipes. Another kind of knowledge frequentlyexchanged through PGS structure, which is consideredcomplementary to other kinds of knowledge is, specializedand expert knowledge. It is provided either by experiencedfarmers in the group or specialists (e.g. technicians, scientists)who are also participating in many PGS.

Peer reviews as the most valuable tool for knowledgeexchangeThe creation of opportunities for farmers to share knowledgeis a key strength of PGS. Throughout the initiatives in whichdata was collected, the regular farm inspections by peerfarmers were referred to as the most valuable tool forknowledge exchange in PGS. During the peer reviews,farmers discuss problems and challenges and give advice to

each other. Being on the farm and taking time to have a closerlook at the applied techniques, allows identification of goodpractices as well as weaknesses with possible improvementsduring the visits. It was also mentioned that using a well-created evaluation sheet during the inspection can be helpfulin encouraging such discussions.

In many PGS initiatives farmers not only meet for the farmvisits, but also hold regular meetings within the local groups.These can be related to specific activities like the election ofrepresentatives for the PGS councils, development of amarketing plan or rather an informal socializing andknowledge sharing. The customs differ across the PGSinitiatives. In some PGS groups farmers do not come togetherin such meetings at all, while in some, farmers meet regularlyin their small groups. At the minimum, annual meetings areenvisioned by most initiatives. In some PGS groups wherefarmers practice joint marketing or sell their products togetherat a market, interactions can be even more frequent. In someinitiatives where farmers live close together they might evenhelp each other in regular farm work. For example in theMaendeleo farmer group in Tanzania, farmers who live inthe same village help each other to build terraces.

PGS meeting in progress


12

Apart from regular group meetings, many PGS conducttrainings or workshops. These trainings are often organizedto educate new members and to teach them both PGSprocedures as well as organic practices. However, it is alsocommon that trainings are organized for all farmersaddressing general issues and challenges. Some PGS haveestablished farmer field schools (e.g. Tanzania and India).Other tools that were mentioned by some initiatives to beuseful for the promotion of knowledge exchange are online/digital platforms and PGS manuals. Some PGS have an activeonline presence, using tools like newsletters or online forumsto exchange knowledge (e.g. Certified Naturally Grown inthe US or Sapphire Coast PGS in Australia). This isparticularly important for those initiatives with large distancesbetween the farms and few personal meetings. PGS manualsand procedures were mentioned as beneficial tools forproviding guidance to farmers and for exchanging knowledgeon efficient PGS implementation.

Wider benefitSharing of knowledge is most common and frequent betweenfarmers in the local PGS groups. A number of PGS initiativesreport that knowledge is shared not only between farmers inthe group, but also with other organic farmers who are not(yet) participating in the PGS and even with conventionalfarmers who live close by. That is how PGS can take overthe important function to increase knowledge and awarenessabout organic practices in the region. Among otherstakeholders who are frequently involved in the PGS, carrying

out various roles, and thus participating in knowledge sharingare consumers, NGO staff, traders, government officials,students and representatives from the media. The type andfrequency of involvement of these diverse stakeholdersdiffers between the PGS initiatives and depends on how thePGS is arranged, who conducts the inspection visits, howthe meetings are arranged and what marketing channels areused.

Farmer empowerment and improved organictechniquesThe Global Comparative Study on Interactions betweenTraditional Social Processes and Participatory GuaranteeSystems shows that farmer empowerment is one of the mostremarkable benefits of PGS. This empowerment involvespersonal growth, strengthening of individual self-confidenceand an increase in knowledge and skills. Women in particularare directly empowered through PGS, as they receiveequitable access to training and technical support. Knowledgesharing between farmers is one core component contributingto this farmer empowerment.

Furthermore, the study indicates that PGS initiatives allowthe development of organic practices by acting as platformsfor farmer-to-farmer knowledge sharing. At the same time,PGS contributes to traditional knowledge maintenance anddissemination and empowers farmers to make use of locallyavailable inputs and breeds, contributing to improved naturalresource management in the communities. The studyadditionally revealed that joining a PGS contributes to a wideradoption of different organic farming practices, resulting inimproved natural resource management within the concernedareas and communities. These practices include: use oftraditional seeds and breeding of local species, organic inputproduction and use, tree planting and sustainable agroforestry,increased biodiversity through the incorporation of greatervariety of cultivated species, vermicast production, contourplugging and mulching as well as crop rotation etc.

Challenges and limitationsThe top-down dissemination of scientific knowledge has beencriticized to reach only the privileged, better-educatedfarmers. While as a result of this study it can be clearlyobserved that PGS play an important role in facilitating andencouraging knowledge exchange between farmers and thatsome initiatives are successful in reaching out especially toless-privileged farmers. However, there are also limitationsin the reach of information in the different PGS initiatives.Some PGS reported an unequal distribution of knowledgebetween farmers in their network. In South Africa, forexample, it was reported that rural and less-educated farmers

Keystone Foundation began working with indigenous communitiesof Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve in 1995. Aiming at environmentconservation and livelihood enhancement of indigenouscommunities, one of the primary concerns has been to providesupport for marketing organic produce.

Various social processes were established in the localcommunities such as joint marketing, seed management andconservation, sharing information, techniques and use oftraditional knowledge and small-scale savings. The groups consistof both young and old members, which provide a wide scope formutual learning and respect. PGS served as a platform forknowledge sharing and exchange on various aspects ofagriculture such as soil and moisture conservation techniquesincluding water conservation.

The respondents in the survey found that PGS has increasedinternal interactions and provided space and time for counselingand economic assistance. One of the farmers participating in theKeystone PGS said: “Traditional knowledge should be transmittedfrom generation to generation and we see a key role of PGS inthis knowledge transmission”.


have little involvement in the knowledge sharing processes,as many of them are only involved during the peer inspectionof their own farms. This example shows that the reach ofPGS is limited and does not always benefit all farmers,equally.

In addition, it is important to keep in mind that all collecteddata derives from operational PGS initiatives. This meansthat cases where PGS failed, PGS is unknown or not beingconsidered as the most appropriate model as it is outside thescope of the study. It is possible and likely that there arecontexts where success of PGS in facilitating knowledgesharing between farmers is limited. This could be for examplein regions where competition of farmers is very high and thewillingness to cooperate low. Another example could be acultural background that does not favour the creation of trustin relationships between farmers and/or other stakeholders.Nevertheless, the result of this study is rather clear:PGS, though not a universal model appropriate for allcontexts, can provide useful tools to farmers and has shownto benefit farmers and other stakeholders in many regions ofthe world.

Core messages and conclusionsKnowledge dissemination is essential for farmers,particularly in the organic sector, in order to implementinnovations and to respond to new situations and challenges.Knowledge exchange enables farmers to learn from eachother and from past experience. There is much unsatisfieddemand from farmers to obtain more knowledge, informationand training. This refers to both expert knowledge as well aslocal/traditional knowledge. Farmers, farming practices,growth conditions and cultural backgrounds are diverse andso are the needs for information, the types of informationand information sharing and distribution practices betweenfarmers.

PGS is one tool that can provide a valuable contribution.Being easily adaptable to local conditions, it can create afavourable environment for the sharing of information. Itprovides a set of tools to facilitate knowledge exchange.While local technical knowledge is the most commonknowledge shared by PGS farmers, the setup can be used toexchange various other kinds of information. Knowledgesharing between the farmers in the local groups is mostfrequent, but PGS also has the potential to integrate a widerrange of stakeholders in the process and contribute to anincreased awareness about organic practices amongconsumers and other farmers in the region. Peer reviews werefound to be the tool most valued for information exchangebetween farmers by initiatives around the world. Most PGS

initiatives provide and implement a wider range of tools tobe used by the stakeholders.

Having a closer look at knowledge sharing practices in PGSis useful for the organic sector, particularly in two regards:firstly, it provides encouragement and inspiration to otherPGS initiatives, including the ones that are underdevelopment; secondly, most of the tools are not bound toPGS, but can also be adapted and implemented in othercontexts. This way, PGS can provide tools to intensifyknowledge sharing among farmers, on one hand, contributingto the development of the organic sector and on the other, tothe dissemination of good agricultural practices.

References

IFOAM, Organics International (2007): ParticipatoryGuarantee Systems. Shared Vision, Shared Ideals,http://www.ifoam.org/sites/default/files/page/files/ifoam_pgs_web.pdf

Ingram, Farmer-scientist knowledge exchange: an essay.Paul B. Thompson and David M. Kaplan (Eds.): 2012,Encyclopedia of Food and Agricultural Ethics,, Volume 1.Springer

Von Munchhausen et al., Lifelong learning for farmers:enhancing competitiveness, knowledge transfer andinnovation in the eastern German state of Brandenburg.2012, Studies in Agricultural Economics, 114/2

Cornelia KirchnerIFOAM - Organics InternationalCharles-de-Gaulle Strasse 553113 Bonn - GermanyE-mail: [email protected]


14

Twenty five years ago in the early nineteen nineties,agriculture and livestock rearing sustained over 70%of India’s population. A large livestock population

owned by several million small holders was widely dispersedacross the sub continent. Formal veterinary care was limitedand could not reach the large number of livestock owners -especially, in villages where there were no roads and couldonly be approached by boat or by walking for several hours,in villages which had no electricity to maintain refrigeratorsfor storing essential vaccines, in villages with no medicalshop for several kilometers to purchase fresh supplies ofmedicines, in villages with chronic water shortages whichmade sterilizing equipment difficult.

Despite these limitations, we observed that animals did notdie in large numbers as we expected. No doubt there wereepidemics of rinderpest and pox to which a large number ofanimals succumbed, but on the whole, the animals in severalvillages were lively and healthy and contributed substantiallyto lives and livelihoods. Exploring further, we stumbled uponlarge caches of knowledge spread across several domains,both public and private - from the written and codified textsof ayurveda, unani and siddha to the specialized knowledgeof healers and finally to the daily practices of the women oftribal and pastoral communities who tended to their animals

Co-creating knowledgecollectivelyNitya Sambamurti Ghotge

Livestock rearing practices have changed enormously inthe last 25 years. ANTHRA in Andhra Pradesh has takeninitiatives to preserve the local knowledge on livestockrearing by documenting the practices and wisdom of thetribals, pastoralists and the women in the communities,with the hope that they could be used once again whenthe climate is more favourable.

We documented over 500 varieties ofmedicinal plants for over a 100 conditions

affecting animals.

with care and affection. The large body of knowledge onlivestock care lay not only in thick text books housed in airconditioned libraries but more so in the every day practicesof these livestock rearing communities.

There were practices on important livestock breeds and howthe best animals could be selected. Experienced farmers andherdsmen could identify the best animals of different breeds.The knowledge on fodder varieties, grazing areas and grazingstrategies was immense. There was a wealth of knowledgeon animal health, both preventive and curative. Healers wereaware of minute details of plant harvesting and processing.Animal housing practices varied vastly from region to regionand across species. We observed ingenious and subtle waysin which different communities coped with challenges ofectoparasites and extreme weather conditions, heat wavesand cyclones. The choice of material for roofs, walls andfloor were made with careful consideration to the localconditions and problems. Livestock markets hummed withactivity and were bursting with a variety of traditionalproduce.

It was in response to this disconnect between the knowledgeof communities and the knowledge taught in universities thatthe project on Indigenous Knowledge on Animal Health

A livestock healer confident of healing certain diseases

Phot

o: A

utho

r


(IKAH) was born. The project ran for several yearsdocumenting, validating and disseminating knowledge onanimal health care alongside other similar projects todocument people’s knowledge and practices. This was alsosoon after the birth of the CBD (Convention on BiologicalDiversity) and many groups were eager to document thebiological diversity in different regions.

Ground realityAs fresh veterinary graduates, we at ANTHRA, a resourcecentre offering support in the areas of livestock, biodiversityand people’s livelihoods, wanted to address this gap andbegan a project on training para professionals. We wanted toreach out to tribal groups and pastoralists, landlesscommunities and dam oustees. Most importantly, we wantedto reach the women from these communities with our newlyacquired knowledge and skills.

The team members soon experienced that the knowledgelearned in the classrooms and laboratories of colleges anduniversities appear to have little relevance and applicationin the field. And it is not unusual for a new practitioner,armed with a degree to feel quite disheartened within a fewdays of commencing work. That is exactly how many of usfelt when we first began working with livestock rearingcommunities in rural India.

Coming from a modern knowledge system, in the beginning,traditional systems appeared to be superstitions and beliefswhich had no validity. It is only when we carefully observedand made an attempt to understand these systems, we foundout why they existed and what their relevance was.

Initially, 18 village youth, three each from six districts wererecruited as animal health workers and were trained todocument practices on different subjects. Each month theywould be trained by ANTHRA on documentation techniquesas well as on the practices to be asked. It was not alwayseasy for them to document, however, frequent visits of otherteam members, and frequent healers’ meetings and groupdiscussions helped.

Our team learnt to observe and document carefully in detail.They also unlearnt the positive bias they had to modernsystems of knowledge and became more accepting of othersystems.

Documenting indigenous knowledgeThis knowledge which existed in practices and not involuminous texts had to be realized and sustained. Weorganized healers meetings for the sharing and exchange ofknowledge. Contrary to popular perception, healers werehappy to share their knowledge at these forums as it alsoprovided a platform for learning new ideas and approachesfrom others. They shared a common concern that theirknowledge did not have the value and respect it had onceenjoyed. They were worried that their knowledge would belost forever when they passed away and were eager to shareit with others. Healers are also concerned that their knowledgemust not be misused and expressed the need to share it withgroups they could trust. Therefore, at all stages we werecareful to reassure the healers and others who sharedknowledge with us that the knowledge was being recordednot for the personal gain of an individual or a set of

Phot

o: A

utho

r

Traditional healers are a repository of local knowledge


16

individuals but rather for the benefit of a larger group orcommunity. Village youth were encouraged to apprenticethemselves to healers so that they could carefully observetheir methods.

Livestock breeds were carefully documented and importanttraits recorded. Fodder varieties, their use and grazingstrategies were documented. We documented over 500varieties of medicinal plants for over a 100 conditions,affecting animals. The healers, who commanded a great placeof respect within the communities, were extremely confidentabout curing certain diseases. However, they were also honestenough with our group to admit that they were not confidentabout a few of the diseases. They lacked knowledge andinformation on vaccinations and immunization schedules.But, they were happy to learn this from our team.

The most appropriate practices were carefully selected usinga procedure approved by a multi disciplinary technicalcommittee of veterinarians, botanists, practitioners ofayurveda, anthropologists and sociologists. These were thenvalidated using a protocol specially designed for the study.Housing practices were carefully photo documented andanalyzed. We visited livestock markets and documented theactivities there.

Almost all of what we documented was knowledge whichwas not written or documented anywhere. It was passed onfrom one generation to the other, with the younger generationcarefully observing how their elders practiced and learningfrom them.

Even as we were documenting the knowledge, severalvaluable species were dwindling as landscapes rapidlychanged in response to urbanization and industrialization.We soon realized that with changes in the environment, inpolicy and in livestock rearing practices as well as the passingaway of traditional healers many valuable pieces ofknowledge would get lost. There was an urgency to createcommon pools of knowledge which could be placed on thepublic domain for easy and open access. Systems ofknowledge which combined the best from traditionalknowledge systems along with modern science to come withsafe, affordable, easy to access and easy to use practices.The team at ANTHRA which consisted of veterinarians,farmers, healers, botanists, scientists, sociologists, computerprogrammers and development professionals workedcollectively to create these pools in a variety of subjects,animal health, feeding, nutrition, housing, management andbreeding.

Yet, in a world dominated by skewed patent laws andextractive and exploitative agencies, one had to be carefulthat this knowledge would not be appropriated by a few

Late one night, the buffalo of Nathu Walgude, one of the AnimalHealth workers, fell ill. It had bloat, a condition seen in ruminants.It was too late to summon a veterinarian and if the animal was notrelieved of its distress it would not be possible to milk it in themorning. It was also too dark to venture out and gather herbs.Fortunately, Nathu was part of the team who were then testingdried herbal powders for several diseases. He decided to use thepowder made from the dried leaves of black-honey shrub(Phyllanthus reticulatus), to treat his buffalo. He was delighted tosee the animal recover very quickly. By morning, he could milk theanimal. His father, an experienced farmer was very happy withthe results as he had seen many buffalos in the past suffering forseveral hours.

dominant groups. We have tried to address this by bringingout publications in local languages so that it is within easyaccess of rural communities. Training programmes have beenheld and continue to be held with community basedorganizations where this knowledge is regularly shared. Weare also in the process of creating a digital portal where thisknowledge will be uploaded.

Livestock rearing practices have changed enormously in thelast 25 years. Industrialized systems of livestock rearing haveentered and threaten to wipe out small farmers and back yardsystems. Livestock production systems, the bio diversityassociated with these systems, livestock products and byproducts, medicinal plants and fodder varieties have slowlyand quietly disappeared. Healers have passed on and withthem, the knowledge they once held. Grazing lands andpastures have been replaced with super express highwaysand industries.

We hope the collective knowledge that we have created inthe form of books, photographs, publications and trainingprogrammes will serve as a reminder of what once was andperhaps one day when the climate is more favorable, someof the systems which have not been irretrievably lost canonce again be used for society and the environment.

References

Ghotge N.S., Ramdas S.R et al., “A Social Approach to theValidation of Traditional Veterinary Remedies –TheAnthra Project”, 2002, Tropical Animal Health andProduction 34 ( 2002), p. 121-143

ANTHRA, “Indigenous Knowledge Applications forlivestock care”, 2004, Proceedings of a National Workshop,14-17 Sep 2004.


What is the role of knowledge in agroecology?

To answer this question, I would like to recallAlexander Wezel’s definition of agroecology. OurFrench colleague defined it, first, as a science. This

is obvious, since agroecology generates scientific knowledgein the strictest sense. However, agroecology, like many otherhybrid disciplines (for example, political ecology,environmental history, and ecological economics) is anepistemological and methodological leap that generates newways of doing science. That is, agroecology is already a newscientific paradigm. It is a politically and socially committedscience.

Second, agroecology is also a practice. That is, it involvespractical and technological innovation. But this is nottechnological innovation that arises in research centres, andthen is passed on to farmers. No. Here, technologicalinnovation results from both traditional peasant localknowledge and the knowledge of agroecologists, who areusually educated in the academic tradition.

Finally, agroecology is also a social movement. This is seen,for example, in the Latin American agroecology congresses,which are basically encounters between academia, producers,farmers’ organisations, and social movements.

What is the role of the (agroecological) farmer inspaces for social innovation?I would like to place my answer to this question in the contextof the incipient global environmental, social, and economiccrisis, and how some Latin American experiences areexamples of possible solutions to this crisis.

First, there is the example of Cuba. After the collapse of theSoviet Union, Cuba, who exchanged sugar for oil, wassuddenly confronted with a lack of both energy and a market

INTERVIEW – VICTOR M. TOLEDO

“Agroecology is anepistemological revolution”Interview: Diana Quiroz

Victor M. Toledo is a Mexican ethnoecologist and socialactivist at the National Autonomous University of Mexico.His work focuses primarily on the study of agroecologicaland knowledge systems. In this interview, Toledo explainswhy co-creation of knowledge is an integral part ofagroecology and discusses the changes that are neededfor this form of agriculture to gain ground in the globalarena. He argues that agroecology is in itself a major shiftin our relationship with knowledge.

Agroecologists engage in an interculturaldialogue that accepts that science is not the

only way of looking at, transforming, andemancipating the world.

Victor M. Toledo


18

for its most important agricultural product. The country wentthrough very difficult times. Being forced into self-reliance,people organised themselves in neighbourhoods, cityquarters, and cities, and found a way out of the food crisisthrough agroecology. The conversion to agroecology was sosuccessful that the government had no alternative but tosupport it. Similarly, the most important farmer movementsof Brazil (among them, the Landless Farmers’ Movement)are successfully addressing a serious social crisis (landgrabbing) also by adopting agroecology as their mainparadigm.

Another example that illustrates the role of farmers comesfrom Mexico and Central America, where farmers use the‘campesino a campesino’ (farmer to farmer) methodology.This methodology involves farmers sharing their knowledgeto help each other use agroecological principles in localconditions. Also in Mexico, coffee-producing indigenouscommunities carry millenary knowledge and, I dare say, arethe pioneers of organic coffee production worldwide. Becauseof the interest that this generated among agroecologicalscientists, Mexican agroecology is recognised to be firmlyrooted in the traditions of indigenous Mesoamerican cultures.Their experience has been one of the catalysts of theagroecological movement in the country.

What do agroecological scientists do to contributeto co-creation of knowledge?Overall, one fundamental principle of agroecology is therecognition of the value of traditional agriculture. Throughvaluing and learning from ancestral wisdom, innovationemerges. In agroecology we act through whatwe call a ‘dialogue of knowledges’. This hasto do with the decolonisation of the mind.Agroecological scientists do not think theyknow it all (as is the case in orthodox science).They are not like conventional agronomists,who approach peasants with an attitude ofsupremacy and arrogance. Agroecologists donot teach farmers or producers how things aredone. They engage in an intercultural dialoguethat accepts that science is not the only way oflooking at, transforming, and emancipating theworld.

In Latin America, for example, agroecologicalscientists are being influenced by what is calledthe ‘epistemology of the South’. This is aprocess of decolonisation from the cultural biaswe have inherited from European thought. This

is seen in the process of the decolonisation of the mind, wherethe region’s most critical thinkers question paradigms suchas ‘progress’, ‘development’, and ‘competition’. Theseparadigms are precisely those that support the agroindustrialfood production system.

Can you give us an example of an agroecologicalsystem created from this ‘dialogue of knowledges’?Take the example of coffee, which is arguably the world’smost important agricultural product. Under conventionalthinking, market demand drives the modernisation of coffeeproduction systems, that is, growing it as a monoculture andat a large scale, using machinery, pesticides, andagrochemicals. Coffee produced agroecologically, on theother hand, is grown by small farmers. In Mexico particularly,indigenous communities grow non-conventional coffee undershade in highly diversified agroforestry systems. There, acash crop was integrated in the traditional management oftruly anthropogenic forests. In other words, coffee, arelatively new product, was introduced into systems thatalready existed since pre-Hispanic times.

It is important to stress that agroecology does not try to avoidmodernity; rather, it posits an alternative modernity. Not amodernity that destroys tradition, but a modernity that departsfrom tradition; modernity that respects traditional wisdomsand cultures and that seeks the encounter of knowledge andexperiences. Nor can we afford the romantic thought of ‘allwe have to do is rescue tradition’. Tradition also has its ownfailures and limitations. This example of agroecological

Farming based on agro ecology sustains crop biodiversity


coffee production is a beautiful case of how the combinationof modernity and tradition can generate very advancedsystems of food production.

What is needed for this ‘dialogue of knowledges’ togain more recognition at universities and researchinstitutes?First, we must understand that when a dilemma involves twofundamental ways of producing food, a conflict will, ofcourse, arise. In science, agroecology challenges a wholesystem of research and dissemination of knowledge, therebygenerating a battle that takes place at universities andtechnology and research centres.

However, in my experience of the last twenty-five years, inLatin America there are increasingly more programmeswhere agroecology is either taught or researched. The forcethat drives this process is proof that this is not only anepistemological revolution, but also a cognitive and culturalone.

An example of this is that of the Andean region, particularlyBolivia, where an agroecology PhD programme was set up

Generating innovation througha dialogue of knowledge has to do with the

decolonisation of the mind

a few years ago by former graduates of the University ofCordoba’s (Spain) PhD programme on agroecology andsustainable development. The majority of these new Boliviangraduates are either farmers of Aymara origin or the childrenof these farmers. This programme was not only the first oneof its kind in Latin America, but it is one reputed for its highacademic level. In the meantime, agroecology programmeshave also started in Honduras, Colombia, and Mexico. I thinkthat agroecology should become as widespread in the worldas it has become in Latin America.

Moreover, I should also highlight another especiallyimportant counterforce (one which I belong to), that runs inparallel to the agroecological science-practice-movement:ethnoecology. By focusing on traditional knowledge,ethnoecology is expanding the paradigm of mainstreamscientific knowledge to one that includes traditionalknowledge. This is a force that increases at an impressiverate, especially among young researchers who promote theintegration of different types of knowledge for the future ofhumanity.

What do you think is needed for this paradigm shiftto occur at a global scale?In the coming years we will be entering a period where wewill need to define this new paradigm. This will imply thatwe need to discuss the role of science and research in termsof culture, ethics, and even politics. What we need is a sciencethat responds to a world in crisis, a science that effectivelyaddresses a very significant ecological and social emergency.

We are currently experiencing the breakdown of the greatdogmas, of the great myths of modernity, and although weare moving towards replacing them in our discussions, muchremains to be done in practice. We must be honest andrecognise that although traditional knowledge has gainedimportance, conventional science still treats the producersof this knowledge as mere objects of study. Through the‘dialogue of knowledges’, the researcher becomes involvedin the defence of knowledge and starts to accept the need fora new scientific paradigm.

This brings me back to the first question in this interview.The role that knowledge plays in agroecology as a science-movement-practice provides an example of what a paradigmshift could look like. Moreover, the different agroecologicalexperiences in Latin America provide examples of how torespond to this crisis. From this perspective, it can be saidthat agroecology is, in itself, an epistemological revolution.

Intercropping coffee with tomatoes


20

Science Field ShopsLearning in response to climate changeKees (C.J.) Stigter and Yunita T. Winarto

Farmers are learning to prepare and cope with climaticvariations by observing, learning and interacting withfarmers and researchers. Science Field Shops in Indonesiaare serving as a response to climate change, facilitatingthis process successfully.

Science Field Shops (SFSs) have been developed inIndonesia as a better alternative for Climate FieldSchools to train farmers and extension intermediaries

in tropical lowlands rice production. This is a continuationof response to climate change - a farmer led rural responseto climate change. No short term teaching but based on longterm field dialogues on climate services for agriculture. SFSsare monthly discussions throughout the year betweenfarmers, scientists and extension staff in which farmers aslearners report and compare their measurements andobservations, document and analyze on what happens in theirindividual fields.

This has two faces. For scientists, this new knowledge istraditional and for farmers it is more recent empiricalknowledge. Both learnings are used in the co-creation anduse of new practical knowledge in the farming environment.In the end, all farmers may be reached in a cascade involvingeven more farmer facilitators as additional extensionintermediaries. The latter, after some time, could begovernment extension officers and/or farmer facilitators,selected by the farmers from within their groups and trainedin additional SFSs.

Considering extension as bringing new knowledge to farmersin SFSs, these additional SFSs simply bring in additionalknowledge to farmer facilitators. The new knowledgecentered around weather, climate and agriculture is calledagrometeorological learning. Defining policy learning aschanges in beliefs, attitudes, behaviors, and goals due to(transfer of) new knowledge, agrometeorological learning

contains those changes due to (transfer of) newmeteorological and climatological knowledge.

Climate changeClimate change is the present driver of environmentalpressures, negatively influencing crops, animals and peoplein farmer communities. From a farming point of view, climatechange has three components that make it necessary toconsider it as a serious enemy: (i) global warming; (ii)increasing climate variability and (iii) more (and often moresevere) extreme events. Over the seven years that we workedwith farmers in Indonesia, we observed consequences ofthese three components with farmers in their fields. Ourstrategy is to bring in new knowledge for immediate use inco-creating new practical knowledge on-farm, in joint SFSs.

A farmer measures rainfall in his field

Phot

o: A

utho

r


We have learned that we should start our SFSs focusing onthe most needed and most recent knowledge on climatechange and its consequences for local farming.

Climate servicesWe distinguish seven initial climate services for agricultureof an organizational kind that bring farmers closer to theirecosystems, threatened by climate change. This includes whatcauses these changes and what these ecosystems yield underconditions of a changing climate. They are:

(i) guidance on daily rainfall measurements of allparticipating farmers in their plots

(ii) guidance on daily agro-ecological observations (soil,plants, water, biomass, pests, climate extremes)

(iii) focusing on measured yields and explanations for thedifferences

(iv) organization of the SFSs(v) development and exchange of monthly updated

seasonal climate predictions in the form of seasonalrainfall scenarios

(vi) delivery of new knowledge related to the above,including the provision and discussion of answers toall agricultural/climatological questions raised byparticipants throughout the year

(vii) guidance on the establishment of farmer fieldexperiments to get on-farm answers on urgent localquestions

Rainfall measurements

It appears that the consequences of increasing climatevariability are best understood by exchanging knowledge ondaily rainfall measurements by all participating farmers in

their own fields. That way they get new knowledge on rainfallvariability in time and space and their own field position.Our team produced documentaries on this progress byRainfall Observers Clubs that had been formed in Indramayu,NW coastal Java, and east Lombok, respectively. We usethese documentaries to show and discuss our approach withother stakeholders (government officers in the regions ofour farmers, SFS funding organizations, farmer groups withpossible interest to participate).

Agro-ecological observations

Farmers have been observing their agro-ecosystems, but nowdo so with a daily rhythm. They note their observations onthe daily rainfall measurements in their plots, to be discussedin the SFSs. This archiving is a completely new eye openingpractice. As our present trials in Indramayu and the Easternpart of the island of Lombok, have shown that these dailyobservations create an early alertness. What is happening inand with the crop’s ecosystem gives them earliest indicationsof unusualness. They discuss in the field or via SMSs withsome of their neighbors and other farmers in the region beforean SFS takes place. This way, local early warnings on badagro-ecosystem developments can be shared in real time andat monthly meetings. This is real progress. For example,communities were prepared better during the floods inJanuary 2014. The prolonged drought caused by El-Nino in2015 was envisaged but the predictions were not alwaysrationally used. This is part of the learning process.

Measured yields and explanations of their differences

Another major progress we made was to suggest our farmersto anticipate yields from the above ecosystem observationsand compare with the actual yields after harvesting. Farmersexchanged views during SFSs about the differences with thecomparable (rainy or dry) season last year and differencesbetween them. We expect that the farmers do all this bythemselves after some years. We consider this as a part ofthe continuing learning process using knowledge co-createdby the whole team.

Daily observations help farmers in knowingtheir crop ecosystem, giving them earliest

indications of unusualness, if any, thusalerting them early.

Science Field Shop

Phot

o: A

utho

r


22

Organization of the SFSs

Without climate change, the SFSs would have been lessnecessary. Present weather and climate realities force farmersto rethink their strategies by policy/agrometeorologicallearning. The scientists participating in SFS are ananthropologist and her students, an agrometeorologist andoccasional guests specializing in pests/diseases. The SFSshave particularly become a forum where farming problemsand policies are discussed.

Development and exchange of monthly updated seasonalclimate predictions in the form of seasonal rainfall scenarios

For more than three years now, the agro-meteorologist hasbeen sharing a monthly “seasonal rainfall scenario” whichis spread by SMS among farmers, most often through zonecoordinators and farmer facilitators.

We have chosen for an El-Nino Southern Oscillation basedprediction from NOAA/CPC (The Climate Prediction Centre(CPC) of the National Ocean and Atmosphere Agency) andIRI (International Research Institute for Climate and Society)sources. We deliver the scenarios in probabilistic terms ofdaily life such as rainfall will be below normal, normal orabove normal. Absorption and use of this prediction has beensteady, but slow.

A questionnaire of early 2015 learned that one of the mainreasons is that the “below normal, normal and above normal”

terminology appears difficult to grasp. We now pay additionalattention to this issue of co-creating acceptable knowledge.A positive result of the questionnaire was that the longerfarmers got and used the scenario predictions, the better wastheir understanding and use that is highly rated as (very)useful.

Delivering of new knowledge related to the above, includingthe provision and discussion of answers to all agricultural/climatological questions raised by participants throughoutthe year

Farmers have many questions about the new knowledge webring and about the new practical knowledge we co-create.The anthropologist, who has been examining farmers’engagements most of her academic life, replies in firstinstance during the SFS dialogues. Further questions aredelivered in writing and are sent to the agrometeorologist.His responses are discussed, where necessary, during theSFSs. An Australian colleague who occasionally is inIndonesia responds to pesticides related questions.Colleagues from other disciplines (e.g. soil scientist,entomologist, plant breeder) are available. This is thescientific knowledge “shopping” we do in SFSs.Deliberations of their questions in SFS dialogues are highlyrated by the farmers.

A farmer making observations in his rice field

Phot

o: A

utho

r


Guidance on the establishment of farmer field experimentsto get on-farm answers on urgent local questions

Simple demonstration experiments were set up in which somefarmers were highly interested. Some of them were interestedin finding out whether water and biomass could be differentlymanaged to reduce methane emissions without increasingcosts for the farmers. A few started to experiment withintermittent wetting and drying that is known to reducemethane emission without increasing costs. Some started tocompost rice straw with other waste and use it to co-fertilizetheir crop instead of ploughing the straw into the wet soilthat is responsible for methane emissions.

One farmer also compared yields with and without use ofpesticides. In a long dialogue on his results, we came to theconclusion that he had indeed harvested lesser yields to anextent of around 2 tons/ha, when pesticides were not used.The government expects that farmers make the choice ofhigher yields with pesticides but farmers’ health and soilhealth suffer in the process. This is all another co-creationof new knowledge.

Final remarksIn the coming two years, we will continue training farmerfacilitators and other extension intermediaries in Indramayu,

Lombok and possibly a few other places. We have developedRoving Seminars on “Science Field Shops with farmerextension intermediaries for climate services in agriculture”.We will further develop agrometeorological learning aspolicy learning of farmers in decision making. We willcontinue with this co-creation of new knowledge with morefarmers by establishing more farmer field experiments tosolve local questions. Also the use of new knowledge andco-created knowledge will be tested time and again.

Kees Stigter, Agrometeorologist, Visiting Professor indeveloping countries for Agromet Vision (Netherlands,Indonesia, Africa), Poncogati, Block Taman, RT8/RW11,Kec. Curadami, Bondowoso 68251 (or P.O. Box 16, 68208Bondowoso), Indonesia. E-mail: [email protected]

Yunita T. Winarto, Professor in anthropology, ClusterResponse Farming to Climate Change, Department ofAnthropology, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences,Center for Anthropological Studies, Universitas Indonesia(UI), Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Fl. 1 BuildingB, Kampus FISIP-UI, Depok 16424, Indonesia. E-mail:[email protected]

Call for ArticlesValuing underutilised cropsVol. 18 No. 2, June 2016

As family farming, nutrition and agro biodiversity are increasingly putin the spotlight, LEISA India focuses its attention on ‘underutilised’crops. These are plant species that have been used for centuries oreven millennia as food, fibre, fodder, oil or medicine, but are no longervery common. Many of these crops are of great value for nutrition,climate resilience and risk diversification. The globalisation of foodsystems, however, has led to a situation where currently a mere fifteencrops provide 90% of the world’s food, with three crops - rice, maizeand wheat - making up two-thirds of this total (FAO).

Different factors have pushed the revaluation of underutilised species.In rural and urban communities India, there is a revival of minor milletsas nutritious and climate resilient food. Andean chef cooks‘rediscovered’ a diverse range of potatoes, beans, tubers, andtraditionally used vegetables and grains which resulted in agastronomic boom that created new markets for small scale farmers.In Africa, the unique properties of crops such as dawa dawa, teff andleafy vegetables receive increased attention through food fairs andcelebrations. This calls for renewed attention to underutilised cropsby mainstream policy, research and extension, especially as manycountries struggle to address malnutrition.

The year 2016 is the International Year of Pulses. Pulses, such aslentils, beans or chick peas are a critical component of a balancedand nutritious diet, and they are important sources of fodder and soilfertility. Therefore, in honour of the Year of Pulses we are especiallyinterested in stories about the revival of pulses.

We are looking for stories that analyse how underutilised crops havebeen revalued. We seek examples of communities that continuedgrowing and processing them contrary to dominant trends. What werethe successful strategies and the challenges to reviving theknowledge and the use of the underutilised crop? How did production,processing and preparation of food change? What role did markets,policy, research or local food and farmers’ movements play? Whatchanges did this bring to rural and urban communities? What wasthe role of youth?

Articles for the June 2016 issue of LEISA India should be sent tothe editors before 30th April 2016. Email: [email protected]


24

various commercial purposes has severely affected thelivelihood of these communities. The changing pattern ofrainfall combined with persistence of shifting cultivation hastriggered extensive soil erosion and siltation in the low lands.

Excessive application of synthetic fertilizers, pesticides andinsecticides has reduced the natural fertility of the soil andincreased the cost of cultivation. Farmers are in a viciouscircle of indebtedness, especially when their crop fails. Tomake the situation worse, most agricultural developmentprojects launched by the Government in these regionsencourage cash crops over subsistence crops – ignoring thatthe latter is critical to reinforce local economy and ensurefood as well as nutritional security of the communities.Indigenous knowledge (IK) of farming and seed resourcesare now on the verge of extinction due to large scale use ofhybrid seed and mono-cropping.

Farmer Field SchoolBuilding knowledge on the farmAbhijit Mohanty and Ranjit Sahu

Farmer Field Schools serve as a platform for mutuallearning among farmers and resource persons.Interactions, discussions and hands on training providesan opportunity to revive and sustain traditional knowledgewhile making improvements through modern science.

Southern districts of Odisha State in India are mostlyhilly rainfed uplands with an average annual rainfallof 1200-1400 mm. Tribal communities in these regions

practice a combination of forest based livelihoods and shiftingcultivation for subsistence food crops which includestraditional millets, pulses, cereals, grams and oilseeds. But,in the last two decades, rampant destruction of forests for

A farmer displaying bottle gourd grown on his mixed farm

Phot

o: A

bhiji

t Moh

anty


The journeyAgragamee, a grassroot organisation committed for thedevelopment of tribal and other marginalised communitiesof Odisha, has been promoting agroecological modelsensuring livelihood, food and nutritional security of thecommunities and conserving bio-diversity. It has beenworking with the local communities in two blocks ofKashipur and Thuamulrampur through a knowledgeempowering process like Farmer Field School (FFS).

Through a series of interactive meetings with farmers thecritical issues of farming were identified and discussed.Several documentary films based on successful agroecologymodels and the “exposure visits” provided first hand fieldexperience, fostered close interactions and stimulated cross-cultural learning among farmers. These events led toincreasing exchange of information and debates on traditionalseeds, farming systems, diverse food and their culturalpractices.

Co-creating knowledge in farm schoolsFarmer’s Field Schools (FFSs) established at the village levelprovided a platform for knowledge building and sharing onagroecology where farmers of 4-7 neighbouring villagesmeet, interact and find solutions locally. They learn throughhands-on training on various topics like indigenous methodof soil, water and nutrient management, seeds varieties, cropcultivation, pest control, pasture and fodder managementwhile conserving biodiversity.

By interacting with farmers, many indigenous practices weredocumented. These were validated through a series of fieldtrials carried out by farmers during the FFSs. Farmersobserved the results and are convinced to practice theindigenous practices with some modifications on their fields.For example, traditional practice of mixing neem leaves tostored grains has been modified in FFS to include leaves ofkarnaj and amari to protect it from fungus and ants resultingin better and longer storage. The entire complex web ofinformation flow is depicted in figure 1 where learning is amulti-directional flow of information and knowledge

Realizing the pressing need to revive these age-old varieties,field trials on selected crops like paddy, millets, pulses, anda host of vegetables were undertaken by farmers. Farmerswere involved in seed multiplication of many varieties whichare close to extinction, through selection of ideal location

for trials, using ecological mapping, and selecting advancedlines.

The exchange of knowledge on agro-ecological experiencesduring ‘Farmers Fairs’ brought out systematic analysis ofvarious problems that bother certain classes of farmers. Thisknowledge exchange helped scientists to understand thefactors for success and failure. In turn, they modified thefield trials, which is now based on the availability of localresources, farmer’s ability and his economic status.

Of the 150 field trials taken up with different highlandindigenous paddy varieties like Matidhan, Bodhidhan,Pradhan and Tippadhan, Matidhan was found to be superiorto others in terms of high yield, short duration, pests anddisease resistance. Also, its combination with Arhar issuperior to other combinations. Farmers also found that invegetable mixed cropping, solanaceous vegetables mixedwith leguminaceae is superior. Among crop combination ofmaize and pulses, a second crop of mustard with the residualmoisture was successful. Scientists too learnt that involvingfarmers in field trials helped to convince farmers in adoptingsuperior varieties and follow successful crop combinations.

As women have a sound knowledge of seed preservation,they were involved in setting up Grain-cum-Seed Banks(GCSBs) in 15 villages. Women manage the GCSBs,deciding the amount of seed and selecting the varieties to bestored, resulting in preservation of varieties of paddy, pulses,millets, tubers, and vegetables. Efforts for linking theseGCSBs with plant breeding research institutes are on-going.

New learning for farmersFarmers learnt that pests and diseases thrive in monoculturesbecause of abundance of food and few or no natural enemies.They learnt about crop diversification and the importance of

The concept of land-to-lab-to-land approachcan be possible only when farmers and

scientists work together.

Phot

o: A

bhiji

t Moh

anty

Reviving traditional millets through mixed cropping


26

including some specific crops to avoid pest occurrence.According to Dr. Debesh Prasad Padhi, a horticulturistassociated with Agragamee, “domestic and wild grasses helpsignificantly to protect the crops by attracting and trappingthe stem borers. By including plants like Desmodium inbetween the rows of maize/sorghum, stem borer will berepelled owing to the chemical emitted by Desmodium.Scientists realized that a scientific explanation convincedfarmers to adopt suitable practices. Farmers are trained andsensitised on various beneficial insects, their role in foodproduction by way of pollination and controlling pest attacks.For example, farmers are happy to see Ladybird beetles(Coleoptrera) which feed on soft-bodied pests like aphids,whiteflies, mites and scale insects, and prevent crop damage.

Similarly, farmers who grew a second crop of mustard withthe residual moisture following maize and pulses crop foundit rewarding. On the other hand, scientists learnt the decisionmaking process of farmers which is based on need andexisting marketing demands.

Farmers are now growing live fencing with plants likeSimarouba glauca, Pinnata and Cassia tora, thus enhancingbiodiversity and access to fodder and fuel. They are gladthat these border plants serve as wind breaks, thus conservingsoil moisture.

Need for working togetherAgroecological systems are knowledge intensive. They callfor in-depth understanding of local conditions for building

on the indigenous knowledge already existing with thecommunities. The concept of land-to-lab-to-land approachcan be possible only when farmers and scientists worktogether, building sustainable linkages. Involvement offarmers in the research process is vital which helps thescientists acquire knowledge about traditional practices andredesign their strategies. The outcome of such a process isnot only relevant to farmers but is also sustainable in thelong run.

Acknowledgements

The author is grateful to Debesh Prasad Padhy, SeniorProgram Adviser, Agragamee for providing his technicalinputs and key insights to the earlier draft of the article.

Abhijit MohantyAgragameeE-mail: [email protected]: developmentalternativesblog.wordpress.com

Ranjit SahuResearch AssociateUniversity of Virginia, USA.E-mail: [email protected]

Phot

o: A

bhiji

t Moh

anty

Women preserve many indigenous seed varieties in the grain-cum-seed bank


28

The shift towards environmentally friendly farmingpractices, biodiversity based organic farming andlow-external-input sustainable agriculture has made

indigenous knowledge a critical resource for sustainableagriculture. There is a growing interest among thedevelopment practitioners and farm scientists to take a closerlook at the local traditions and build new models based onthe strengths of these institutions and technologies. Today,this global phenomenon has uncovered huge treasures oftraditional knowledge systems.

Deccan Development Society (DDS) has been working withthe poor dalit women farmers in Medak district in TelanganaState for more than two decades building their capacities tomake a dignified living through sustainable agriculture.While encouraging women to follow their traditionalknowledge, DDS has also documented the precious localknowledge for adaptation, demonstration and propagationthrough demonstrations and trainings.

Recognizing local traditional knowledgeIn order to harness traditional knowledge from experiencedfarmers for further sharing, local traditional knowledge onorganic methods of farming has been gathered throughinterviewing farmers and women farmers of this region andscientific knowledge is applied to the local content. Thetraditional knowledge from DDS women farmers likeSammamma of Bidakanne, Anjamma of Gangwar and

Participatory knowledge buildingVara Prasad Chittem

In an innovative effort to mainstream locally relevantknowledge to promote sustainable agriculture, DDS isbuilding the capacities of the grassroot professionals. Inthe process, there is a new knowledge being created andexchanged, wherein the scientific basis of local practicesare being explored and shared.

Anjamma showing the traditional method of seedpreservation

Phot

o: A

utho

r


Lakshmamma of Humnapur were identified, documented andenriched with scientific knowledge.

Sammamma, a Dalit women farmer of Bidakanne villagehas extensive traditional knowledge on eco friendlyagricultural practices and cultivating climate resilient crops.Lakshmamma in Humnapur village, a farmer with five acres,has a rare seed-bank of 60 to 70 varieties of native seedsstored in earthen pots. Anjamma of Gangwar, Nyalkal mandalhas a rich knowledge on seed storage methods.

The documented traditional knowledge of farmers issupported by scientific explanation, before it is disseminated.

Building capacitiesThe grassroot level extension personnel play a key role intransfer of agricultural technologies and knowledge to thefarming community. But when it comes to eco friendlyfarming practices, experience has revealed that the farmersthemselves hold good amount of indigenous knowledge thatimprove their livelihoods, but need motivation in adoptingsuch technologies. In this scenario, these grassroot extensionpersonnel simply require the platforms and resources toenable them to enhance their knowledge to act as a channelfor sharing information among farmers.

To enhance the knowledge of the grassroot extension workerson facilitating knowledge exchange among farmers on agroecological way of farming, three-day workshops wereconducted during November 2015 in Telangana State. Theseworkshops were organized for agricultural extensionpersonnel of all the 46 mandals of Medak district, in sevenbatches, at DDS Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Zaheerabad, Medak.Also included were ATMA (Agriculture TechnologyManagement Agency) staff, Indira Kranti Patham (IKP)coordinator and NGO staff directly working with the farmersin the district. The initiative was supported by AgricultureTechnology Management Agency, Medak district.

Participatory techniques were used in updating theirknowledge. For example, participatory tools were used foridentifying the most appropriate organic manures which areeconomical and locally available, based on certainparameters. Participants were asked to rank the various typesof manure. This exercise revealed that the farmyard manurewhich is easily available in the village is good for soil health,but does not supply adequate plant nutrients and scored 41.

The locally prepared liquid bio-fertilizers like Vermiwash,Panchagavya, Jeevamrutham etc., were found to scorehighest with 91, owing to multiple benefits. Interestingly,inorganic fertilizers, with its potential to supply plantnutrients in large quantity, scored the least with 19. The lowscore was owing to the fact that they are expensive, locallynot available, not eco friendly and do not help in improvingsoil health.

Overall, 205 extension staff from 12 divisions and 46mandals, who included the top level agriculture extensionpersonnel, as well, as the grass root level extension staff inthe district, were trained on local organic farming methods.

Spreading KnowledgeThe trained extension staff took active part in disseminatingthis knowledge on organic farming among the farmers ofthe district. And among the organic technologies shared,vermiwash is one technology, which fully caught the attentionof the farmers.

This initiative of strengthening the knowledge of agricultureextension staff in the district, has made the institution as theCentral Knowledge Hub for biodiversity based organicagriculture. It is also attracting the attention of farmers fromother districts.

Vara Prasad ChittemScientist-Agricultural ExtensionDDS Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Zaheerabad,Medak, TelanganaE-mail: [email protected]

Seed storage methodMs. Anjamma of Gangawar has a way of storing bengal gram,wheat or peas seeds. First of all the cane basket is sealed withthe mixture of cow dung and mud. Then bengal gram pods arefilled at the bottom and as the top layer, placing the main seed inbetween. Later the top layer is filled with neem leaves and sealedwith the mixture of cow dung, mud and ash. This prevents theseeds from post harvest damage and losses.

Generally, bengal gram pods are discarded after threshing, but inthis case they are used as a preservative medium for seed storage.The science behind using bengal gram pods is that they containMalic acids which cause irritation to the storage pests. This is howthe traditional practices are supported by scientific explanationwhile sharing with the farmers

Experience has revealed that the farmershold a good amount of indigenous knowledge

that improve their livelihoods.


30

Co-creating the agriculturalbiodiversity that feeds usThe co-creation of knowledge about agricultural biodiversityis an essential part of peasant strategies for survival andautonomy. Facing the threats of the industrial model ofproduction and consumption, peasants and socialmovements are defending agroecology and their dynamicmanagement of agricultural biodiversity. Together withothers, they are building collective knowledge aboutdeveloping localised, biodiverse food systems, aboutreclaiming access to their territories and about engagingin research and policy making as principal actors.

Our food is based on a great diversity of plants,animals, fish and micro-organisms. This diversityhas been developed through collective knowledge,

co-created between food producers and nature. It is the basisof all agroecological production systems. Through workingwith nature, peasants, including hunter-gatherers, artisanalfishers, livestock keepers, and other small scale foodproviders have learned about and innovated with ways toenhance and sustain agricultural biodiversity. The first to doso were women who innovated by collecting, sowing andselecting seeds. Food producers shared knowledge, togetherwith their seeds and breeds, with peasants in other territoriesacross countries and continents where, in turn, the co-creation

Sponsored content

Ippapally Tejamma, a farmer from India, is surrounded by the agricultural biodiversity that feeds her family

Phot

o: D

DS,

Indi

a


of knowledge greatly expanded agricultural biodiversitysuited to diverse ecologies, environments and human needs.The result is the evolution of many hundreds of thousandsof different plant varieties and thousands of livestock breedsand aquatic species which have been selected or adapted toserve specific requirements.

Common to the worldviews of many peasant food providersis the belief that all of nature is living and that human beingsare part of the family of living creatures and the environment,not outside of it. These worldviews have deep implicationsfor how peasants and other small scale food providers createknowledge. Nature shapes the possibilities of life for humansocieties. Culture, beliefs and our values, in turn, shape howwe take care – or do not take care – of nature. Awareness ofthe links between nature and culture are explicit in manysocieties. And in many others, where that awareness has beenlost, people are organising and taking action to reclaim thisawareness. Humans and other living beings have beenengaged in an ancient relationship of mutual interaction,

shaping each other’sexistence, in a process ofco-evolution.

This process of co-evolution has createdagricultural biodiversityand the agroecologicalsystems it supports. Itsdynamic management is anessential part of long-termpeasant strategies forsurvival and autonomy.Agricultural biodiversity isthe manifestation of thecreativity and knowledgeof peasants as they engagewith the naturalenvironment to satisfy theirneeds. It embodies adynamic and constantlychanging patchwork ofrelations between people,plants, animals, other organisms and nature, continuouslyresponding to new challenges and finding new solutions.

Agricultural biodiversity is the manifestationof the creativity and knowledge of peasants

as they engage with the natural environmentto satisfy their needs

Protesting investments inindustrial seeds outside the officesof the Gates Foundation, London

Phot

o: P

atric

k M

ulva

ny

Civil Society Delegates deciding their priorities for the Committee on World Food Security

Phot

o: F

AO

/Giu

sepp

e C

arot

enut

o


32

Threats and responsesAgricultural biodiversity, and the creativity and collectiveknowledge on which it is based, is threatened by the industrialmodel of production and consumption. In response, peasantsocieties and social movements are organising locally,regionally and internationally to defend agroecology andregenerate their dynamic management of agriculturalbiodiversity in the framework of food sovereignty. Togetherwith other relevant actors, for example NGOs and like-minded scientists, they are improving collective knowledgeabout how to respond.

This results in very diverse, multilayered strategies. Peasantsare developing their interlinked and localised models ofproduction and consumption and, especially women, areproviding biodiverse foods for autonomous food systems andlocal food webs served by local, and sometimes cross-border,markets.

Peasants are fighting to reclaim access to their territories,migratory routes and fishing grounds. Securing their controlover their territories allows them to regenerate agriculturalbiodiversity, above and below ground and in waters, through,for example, agroecology, agroforestry, artisanal fisheries,community management of mangroves, and mobilepastoralism. In Colombia, for example, peasants areproposing to regain control over their territory and renew arelationship with nature that does not lead to its destruction,as at present. They want food production based on thetraditional knowledge of respect for the natural environment,using agroecology. In Palestine, restrictions of access tocoastal waters are severely affecting the diverse fishery andthe food security of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.

Peasants are asserting their inalienable rights for collectivecontrol over seeds and biodiversity. They are developingMaisons des Sémences, supporting peasant seed networks,

Peasants give life to biodiversityThis 16 page brochure is based on a report prepared for the Agricultural Biodiversity Working Group of the IPC for FoodSovereignty. The report titled “Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture: the perspectives of small-scale food providers”, is aThematic Study for FAO’s report on the “State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture.” The brochure, in Arabic,English, French, Portuguese and Spanish, and the fully referenced paper in English, are available.www.foodsovereignty.org/biodiversity.


seed fairs and maintaining diverse breeds of livestockand diverse fisheries. Even in regions degraded byindustrial systems, local food providers are re-learning the importance of biodiversity. For example,French bakers cum seed breeders are regeneratingvarieties of wheat suited to the local environmentand artisanal baking, meeting local demands for high-quality breads.

Peasants are producing, and often processing, localfoods, feed, fuel and fibre for markets that supportbiodiversity. Community supported agriculture basedon agroecology, and associated processing, cansustain biodiverse production by selling a wide rangeof varieties of cultivated and wild plants, breeds oflivestock and fish species. For example, Andeanbreeds of alpaca, which produce a diversity of 11colours of alpaca fibre and are well adapted to theharsh environment, require a supportive market tofend off the lucrative but biodiversity-blind marketwhich demands uniform white alpaca fibre that issubsequently dyed artificially.

Peasants are engaging in research that increases agriculturalbiodiversity of plants, livestock and aquatic organisms. Theirresearch respects collective rights and encourages the co-creation of diverse knowledges. For example in Iran,evolutionary plant breeding, which is a strategy for rapidlyincreasing on-farm biodiversity, farmers cultivate verydiverse mixtures of hundreds or even a thousand or more ofdifferent varieties and allow these to evolve and adapt totheir local conditions. These evolutionary populations areliving gene banks in their own fields from which seeds fromthe most adapted varieties and mixtures are used for sowingcrops.

Autonomous and self-organised participation inpolicy formationPeasants are now included in policy formation. Democraticdecision making processes including peasants have now beenrealised as a result of pressure from peasant organisations.In the UN Committee for World Food Security (CFS), forexample, peasants can now debate issues with the same rightsto express their views as other actors, including governments.A critical issue under discussion is the oversight of thegovernance of agricultural biodiversity and agroecology, interms of their contributions to food security. This is a priorityof peasant organisations for the agenda of the CFS. Peasants’representatives are urging similar forms of engagement inthe International Seed Treaty and the Commission on GeneticResources for Food and Agriculture so that they can moreeffectively champion the policies needed to sustain

agricultural biodiversity and realise Farmers’ Rights, andchallenge policies that serve monopoly interests in the foodsystem.

Peasant knowledge is key, but it must be in dialogue withother knowledges. Yet, recognition by many internationaland national institutions of the importance of peasantknowledge rarely means giving priority to it. In reality, wheremultiple knowledge systems are concerned, the supremacyof positivist (modern) science is tacitly assumed by thoseserving monopoly power. Attempts to incorporate indigenousor peasant knowledge and public or citizen science ofteninclude only those aspects that are consistent with positivistscience.

Given the substantial economic and political investment inresearch that undermines the development of knowledge insupport of agricultural biodiversity, an urgent issue is to giveprecedence to the co-creation of knowledge, by peasantproducers and other like-minded actors, which will challengethe dominance of positivist science. It is crucial to identifyhow, together, we can develop the knowledge needed toreclaim research for the public good; to realise changes ingovernance that will ensure the implementation of researchthat is directed towards enhancing a wide range of agriculturalbiodiversity, sustained ecologically in the framework of foodsovereignty. This, perhaps, is one of the greatest challengesfor the co-creation of knowledge.

This article is based on a report prepared for the WorkingGroup on Agricultural Biodiversity of the InternationalPlanning Committee for Food Sovereignty (email: IPC RomeSecretariat - [email protected]).

Phot

o: Il

se K

öhle

r-Rol

lefs

on

Pastoralists - like this Kuruba shepherd from India - know how to combinefood production and care for the environment


34

NEW BOOKSCommunity Seed BanksOrigins, Evolution and ProspectsRonnie Vernooy, Pitambar Shrestha,Bhuwon Sthapit (Eds), 2015, Routledge, 270 p., £29.99

ISBN: 9780415708067

Community seed banks first appeared towards the end of the 1980s, established with thesupport of international and national non-governmental organizations. This book is the firstto provide a global review of their development and includes a wide range of case studies.

Countries that pioneered various types of community seed banks include Bangladesh, Brazil,Ethiopia, India, Nepal, Nicaragua, the Philippines and Zimbabwe. Over time, the numberand diversity of seed banks has grown. In Nepal, for example, there are now more than 100self-described community seed banks whose functions range from pure conservation tocommercial seed production.

Surprisingly, despite 25 years of history and the rapid growth in number, organizationaldiversity and geographical coverage of community seed banks, recognition of their roles andcontributions has remained scanty. The book reviews their history, evolution, experiences,successes and failures (and reasons why), challenges and prospects. It fills a significant gapin the literature on agricultural biodiversity and conservation, and their contribution to foodsovereignty and security.

The System of Rice Intensification: Responses to Frequently Asked QuestionsNorman Uphoff, 2015, CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 226 p., ISBN-13: 978-1515022053

The System of Rice Intensification, known as SRI, represents a paradigm shift in agriculturalthinking and practice toward agroecological farming that can be used by even the poorestsmallholding farmers in ecologically fragile regions of the world to achieve food security inthe face of the climate-change challenges ahead.

When the author Norman Uphoff first learned about SRI in Madagascar in 1993, thisproduction system which offered higher yields with reduced inputs seemed implausible tohim. But the professor put aside his skepticism after seeing farmers who had been gettingrice yields of just two tons per hectare produce four times more rice—for three years in arow—on their very poor soils, not changing their varieties or relying on agrochemical inputs,and using less water. Now, he’s helping to disseminate this dramatically effective methodologywith this accessible, easy-to-use sourcebook. It offers explanations, research references, vividpictures, and concrete examples of the award-winning SRI methodology to anyone interestedin the development of practicable sustainable food systems.

Agroecology: A Transdisciplinary, Participatory and Action-oriented ApproachV. Ernesto Méndez, Christopher M. Bacon, Roseann Cohen, Stephen R. Gliessman (Eds.),2015, CRC Press, 268 pages, ISBN: 9781482241761

Agroecology: A Transdisciplinary, Participatory and Action-oriented Approach is thefirst book to focus on agroecology as a transdisciplinary, participatory, and action-orientedprocess. Using a combined theoretical and practical approach, this collection of work frompioneers in the subject along with the latest generation of acknowledged leaders engagessocial actors on different geo-political scales to transform the global agrifood system.

The book is divided into two sections, with the first providing conceptual bases and thesecond presenting case studies. It describes concepts and applications of transdisciplinaryresearch and participatory action research (PAR). Six case studies show how practitionershave grappled with applying this integration in agroecological work within differentgeographic and socio-ecological contexts.

An explicit and critical discussion of diverse perspectives in the growing field of agroecology,this book covers the conceptual and empirical material of an agroecological approach thataspires to be more transdisciplinary, participatory, and action-oriented. In addition toillustrating systems of agroecology that will improve food systems around the world, it laysthe groundwork for further innovations to create better sustainability for all people, ecologies,and landscapes.



SOURCESHarnessing the Power of Collective LearningFeedback, accountability and constituent voice in rural developmentRoy Steiner, Duncan Hanks (Eds.), 2016, Routledge, 260 p., £29.99, ISBN: 9781138121126

What were new ideas 30 years ago, such as the concepts of participatory developmentand systems thinking, are now accepted norms in international development circles. Themajority of professionals engaged in rural development accept the proposition that thepeople who participate in development should play an active role in defining, implementing,and evaluating projects intended to improve their productivity and lives. However thisgoal remains unrealized in many development programs.

Harnessing the Power of Collective Learning considers the challenges and potential ofenabling collective learning in rural development initiatives. The book presents 11 casestudies of organizations trying to develop and implement collective learning systems asan integral component of sustainable development practice.

This book is a useful resource for academics, practitioners and policy makers in the areasof international development, sustainable development, organizational development,philanthropy, learning communities, monitoring and evaluation and rural development.

Innovation Platforms for Agricultural DevelopmentEvaluating the mature innovation platforms landscapeIddo Dror, Jean-Joseph Cadilhon, Marc Schut, Michael Misiko, Shreya Maheshwari(Eds.), 2016, Routledge, 190 p., ISBN: 9781138181717

Innovation Platforms (IPs) form the core of many Agricultural Research for Developmentprogrammes, stimulating multi-stakeholder collaboration and action towards the realizationof agricultural development outcomes. This book enhances the body of knowledge of IPsby focusing on mature IPs in agricultural systems research, including the crop and livestocksectors, and innovations in farmer cooperatives and agricultural extension services.

Resulting from an international IP case study competition, the examples reported willhelp the many actors involved with agricultural IPs worldwide reflect on their actionsand achievements (or failures), and find tools to share their experience. Chapters featurecase studies from Central Africa, Ethiopia, India, Kenya, Nicaragua and Uganda. Authorsreflect critically on the impact of IPs and showcase their progress, providing an importantsourcebook and inspiration for students, researchers and professionals.

Participatory Action ResearchTheory and Methods for Engaged InquiryJacques M. Chevalier and Daniel J. Buckles, 2013, Routledge, 496 p.,ISBN: 9780415540322

This book addresses a key issue in higher learning, university education and scientificresearch: the widespread difficulty researchers, experts and students from all disciplinesface when trying to contribute to change in complex social settings characterized byuncertainty and the unknown. More than ever, researchers need flexible means andgrounded theory to combine people-based and evidence-based inquiry into challengingsituations that keep evolving and do not lend themselves to straightforward technicalexplanations and solutions.

In this book, the authors propose innovative strategies for engaged inquiry building oninsights from many disciplines and lessons from the history of Participatory ActionResearch (PAR), including French psychosociology.

The book contributes many new tools and conceptual foundations to this longstandingtradition, grounded in real-life examples of collective fact-finding, analysis and decision-making from around the world. It provides a modular textbook on participatory actionresearch and related methods, theory and practice, suitable for a wide range ofundergraduate and postgraduate courses, as well as working professionals.


36

The relevance and urgency of the agroecologicalapproach is felt acutely in Asia and the Pacific, wherethe challenge to meet the food and nutritional needs

also demands protection of agroecosystems from furtherdegradation and damage. In this region, the Green Revolutionhelped to increase production, but this was, and still isassociated with the destruction of landscapes, soil and watercontamination, high farmer debts and loss of traditionalfarming systems and traditional knowledge. Combined withthe challenges of climate change, it is clear that a newagricultural paradigm is needed, and that the search for analternative approach is vital. Agroecology was brought intothe international arena as a pathway out of this situation in2009 by the prestigious International Assessment ofAgricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology forDevelopment (IAASTD).

Agroecology emerged as an existing but undervaluedapproach that focuses on the harmony and vitality of naturalsystems, while improving food security and building theautonomy and agency of family farmers. Agroecology, beingknowledge intensive, locally-rooted, and relying on familyfarmers’ management of local resources, demandsappropriate support through practice, policy and research atvarious levels.

From Rome to Bangkok“Agroecology offers win-win solutions: increasedproductivity, improved resilience and more efficient use ofnatural resources” said José Graziano da Silva, Director-General of the Food and Agriculture Organization of theUnited Nations during the International Symposium onAgroecology for Food and Nutrition Security in Rome,hosted by FAO in 2014. The aim of the MultistakeholderConsultation in Bangkok was to continue and expand uponthese discussions in Rome.

The public sector, academia, farmer delegates, andorganizations behind social movements from more thantwenty countries across the region were present. Followingthe consultation, they agreed on a set of recommendationsto take agroecology forward in the region. Below, wehighlight some of the most relevant contributions andsuggestions made at the consultation.

Agroecology in the Asia- Pacific regionVarious agro-ecological practices have existed in the region,primarily as an alternative to conventional ‘chemical-intensive farming based on Green Revolution prescriptions.

Agroecology in Asia and the PacificA summary of outcomes of the regionalconsultationT M Radha

Conscious of the need to embed agroecology within localand regional socio-ecological realities, the firstMultistakeholder Consultation on Agroecology for Asia andthe Pacific in Bangkok in November 2015 assessed thecontributions of agroecology in a context of climate change,the need to transform knowledge building and research,and made suggestions for policy change, including thecreation of appropriate markets to further agroecology inthe region.

Phot

o: F

AO

Civil Society delegates deciding on the priorities, to influence thework of FAO and governments, to support agro ecology in Asia and

the Pacific region


These alternatives are often directed at enhancing soil fertility,through organic matter management and water conservation.Throughout Asia and the Pacific, different terms are usedfor specific practices including: Integrated Farming,Integrated Pest Management, SRI, Conservation Agricultureand agroforestry. Shimpei Murakami of the Asian FarmersAssociation shared a telling example of yet another name:“Around 3 lakh farmers in 549 villages in Bangladesh arefollowing the Nayakrishi method, which includes tenprinciples of farming that are largely based on agroecology”.

Agroecological approaches are being practiced in fishing andpastoralism, embracing similar values underlyingagroecology. “Fishing has a social aspect, a cultural aspectand is also a religion to us,” said Gilbert Rodrigo from WorldForum for Fisher People (WFFP). He stressed that artisanalfisherfolk are very conscious of the need to sustain the aquaticecosystem as they “don’t cultivate but only harvest”.Pastoralists play a similar role: “We take care of commonresources like grazing lands and mountain lands throughsustainable pastoralism, which we have practiced for ages“,said Dinesh Desai (MARAG) from India. Unfortunately,since these lands are increasingly being acquired for non-agricultural purposes, such agroecological systems are underthreat, he added.

Social movements and farmer networks in the region, suchas La Via Campesina and the Asian Farmers Association seekto amplify agroecology as a path towards food sovereignty.In this light, social movements presented the Declaration ofthe international Nyéléni Forum on Agroecology held inFebruary 2015, which defines agroecology as not just a setof practices, but rather a political tool to transform society.

Agroecology in the context of climate change“Agroecology is a powerful tool to reduce greenhouse gasesand attain food security”, said Vili A Fuavao, DeputyRegional Representative for Asia and the Pacific of FAO.Agreeing that conventional agricultural production causesmany problems, especially in a changing climate, participantsat the consultation emphasized the positive contributionsagroecology can make. Agroecological practices that buildprimarily on local knowledge and short chains can result inenhanced productivity, food and nutrition security, foodsovereignty, biodiversity, more resilient farms andpreservation of the environment.

A number of initiatives were discussed through whichfarmers adapt to the impacts of climate change: farmerselection of hardy varieties for sowing, changing the time ofplanting, managing water more efficiently, and agroforestry,among others (box 1). These agroecological practices and

systems can enable family farmers to continue producingafter extreme weather events, and play a role in mitigatingthe effect of climate change as they increase options forcarbon storage through enhanced biodiversity, increasedorganic content in the soils and reintroduction of trees to thelandscape.

The final recommendations of the Bangkok consultation callfor greater support of traditional management practices, forlocal varieties of food crops, and for neglected and under-utilised or drought-resistant crops. Devoting more means toresearch on the link between agroecology and climate change,with an emphasis on on-farm selection of varieties andspecies, was also recommended.

Building knowledge in agroecologyAgroecology is highly location specific and knowledge-intensive, so any agroecological strategy must be based onthe local know-how, experimentation of family farmers, andmay be further supported by science. Knowledge buildingneeds to be decentralised, interdisciplinary and include socialtechnologies, participants stated. Fundamentally, ‘people-to-people learning’ was identified as key in facilitating thespread of knowledge. Farmer Field Schools (FFS) can be an

Box 1Adapting to climate change through farmer-led actionresearch in IndonesiaThe rice production center of Indramayu is located in the NorthCoast of Java Island, Indonesia. Long dry seasons, hottemperatures and irregular water availability affect rice productionwhich leads to explosions of pests and diseases and causes slowand stunted crop growth. In response, Ikatan Petani PengendaliHama Terpadu Indonesia Indramayu (IPPHTI), a local organisationof Farmer Field School alumni, works on an integrated pestmanagement program, while increasing farmers’ understandingof the impacts of climate change and developing strategies foradaptation.

IPPHTI facilitates processes in which farmers record their ownobservations. Currently, hundreds of farmers in 24 sub-districts ofIndramayu are observing their rice fields and collecting data onrainfall, pest and disease and plant growth. Their observationsare carried out once a fortnight and the data is collected andevaluated monthly as source of information for learning processes.Farmers organise monthly meetings, discuss their observationsand problems and arrive at solutions. They develop their ownadaptive responses such as selecting varieties based on location,delay in planting time etc. Recently, farmer leaders from 28 districtsin Java and Lampung have formed the Gerakan Petani Nusantara(GPN), a national farmers network on agroecology, where theresults of this farmer action research are being shared for wideradoption.


38

effective means to build knowledge at the local level, asvoiced by participants. However, participants stated, FFSneeds to be reoriented away from the present commodityprograms towards the broader concept of agroecology.

Education, and the way we educate, needs to be transformed.The present agriculture education system is highly specialisedand does not recognise the cross-sectoral nature ofagroecology, and the multiple ‘ways of knowing’.“Agroecology is clearly multidisciplinary andtransdisciplinary. Understanding such complexity calls fora different type of thinking, a paradigm shift”, said DamayantiBuchori of Bogor Agriculture University in Indonesia. Inorder to effectively support agroecology, “FAO needs to takeeducation more seriously and develop a strategy with abudget for restructuring education extension and knowledgesharing”, said Wayne Nelles from Chulalongkorn Universityin Thailand.

Several positive examples of building local knowledge andinnovations were presented. One initiative was presented bythe International People’s Agroecology Multiversity (IPAM),which is an online initiative of Pesticide Action NetworkAsia-Pacific and provides a grassroots-oriented and network-based alternative educational environment to promoteagroecology and related issues in relation to land,agrochemicals, food cultures, food sovereignty, genderequity, and community empowerment.

Participants called attention to the difference between formaland informal education and the need to have public supportto complement both models. The informal system is basedon the experience and knowledge of the smallholderproducers, which is transferred through generations. Informaleducation is one of the most important vehicles to moveagroecology forward in different parts of Asia and the Pacific.This is particularly relevant for women and youth. Protectingfuture generations as well as women’s inherent knowledge,values, vision and leadership, requires proper considerationfor the particular needs of women and youth in allagroecological education. The final declaration stronglyemphasised the need to recognise, support and documentproducers’ knowledge while designing educationalinterventions on agroecology.

The role of researchThe need for collaboration for knowledge building inagroecology was emphasised. Various speakers advisedcaution with regard to the sustainability of action researchand the potential domination by the scientific agenda overlocal knowledge. “The scientific community is new to theconcept of agroecology and lacks the culture of working with

other partners in development. More openness is required”,said Abha Mishra from the Asian Centre of Innovation forSustainable Agriculture Intensification (ACISAI). Researchshould be based on farmers’ needs. It should be location andculture specific and should recognize farmers as co-researchers and innovators. Current research driven bymultinational corporations should be replaced withcommunity oriented research that is inclusive and has theagenda of farmers at the center. Hence research should beconducted on the field and not only in University campuses,opined the participants and recommended building a regionalnetwork of agroecology researchers, involving civil-societyand small-scale food producers, facilitating learning fromeach other.

The final declaration recommends that agroecology beintegrated in the curricula in primary and higher educationand in all farm educational programmes, and that contentand focus should be derived from the knowledge generatedby small-scale food producers.

Agroecology and marketsMarkets are both a challenge and a solution for agroecology.It is therefore important to create specific market channelsfor agroecological products of small scale family farmers.Markets can perform an important role in creating sustainableshort value chains for agroecology by making agroecologicalpractices more visible; allowing small-scale farmers to createtheir own ‘brand’; ensuring reasonable selling prices in shortchains where middlemen are generally avoided or scarce;and could be used to communicate and promoteagroecological practices directly to supportive consumers.

Short chains boost the local economy and ensure thateconomic benefits remain inside the region. The short valuechains are often more sustainable cutting their carbonfootprint with less food miles. In addition, they enableconsumers to access fresh food that is culturally appropriateand in tune with local food habits. The region has goodexamples of how markets can enhance agroecologicalproduction (box 2).

‘Scaling up’ agroecology with better policiesAgroecology is, by definition, an innovative, creative processof interactions among food producers and their naturalenvironments. As these innovations often take place on asmall scale, achieving wider impact calls for ‘scaling up’efforts. This means spreading a way of farming that alsoimplies a transformation in the ways that farming issupported, not just spreading technologies but changingsystems.


Some suggestions for scaling up were made in the Bangkokconsultation including the following: unlocking ideologicalbarriers to political recognition, supporting farmer-to-farmernetworks, funding research and education at various levels,providing an enabling public policy environment, takingspecific actions for empowering women, and makingstrategic alliances with social movements. “Scaling upecological intensification from farm to land to landscaperequires a lot of social processes and institutional changes,”summarized Rada Kong of the Cambodia Acid SurvivorsCharity.

In continuous efforts to achieve this, civil society and socialmovements have been advocating for supportive policies foragroecology. Some of these proposals are articulated incollective declarations like the Colombo Declaration (2010),the Surin Declaration (2012) and the aforementioneddeclaration of the Nyéléni Forum on Agroecology (2015).“But not much has been implemented. There is still a lack ofsupportive public policy in favour of agroecology,” saidGeorges Dixon Fernandez of the International Federation ofRural Adult Catholic Movements (FIMARC). Currentpolicies are unsuited for scaling up agroecology, agreed PhamVan Hoi of CARES, Vietnam: “The present nature of policiesis top-down and they are largely influenced by chemical

companies. As a result, they are not effective in dealing withthe complexity of agroecological production”.

Rony Joseph from FIMARC in India listed some specificpolicy proposals including: greater investments in formal andnon formal education of agroecology, identifying andconsolidating best practices in agroecology from countriesin the Asia-Pacific region, and promoting linkages betweenfarmers to local youth, academia, decision makers, andconsumers.

Participants recommended that coherent policy foragroecology prioritising resource-poor environments shouldbe designed and formulated inclusively through acollaborative, participatory process including policy makers,scientists, educators, UN, development partners, CSOs,farmers and farmer organizations. Agroecology shouldbecome an integral part of sub-national, national and regionalagricultural policies - appropriate legal and regulatoryframeworks should be developed. Investments in smallholderfood producers should be the priority. Systems and practicesof social innovation led by farmers should be promoted tocreate agroecological territories at community and collectivelevels.

Box 2Farmer leadership from production to marketingIn the mountains of Mae Win, Mae Wang of the Chiang Mai provinceof Thailand, roughly 1,144 families are production and processingcoffee while re-foresting the area. The CLUMP Foundation, whichstands for Communal Life of Love and Unity of the MountainPeople, embodies the hope of returning life and prosperity back tothe mountain land through the use of restorative techniques ofagroecology and agroforestry. Coffee grows well under big trees,as it benefits from the shade provided by the forest. This newmethod allowed them to increase the production from 3 TBH perkilo in 2014, to 5 TBH in 2015, and this year, 2016, 8 TBH per kilo.Meanwhile, 25 hectares were transformed into a rich array of lifeof the otherwise barren highlands. This is why the farmers say: “togrow coffee is to re-forest”.

The mountain farmers are involved in all parts of the productionand marketing process: from selecting the coffee cherries toroasting, and even selling their organic, high quality coffeethroughout Chiang Mai. Their system offers multiple prosperitiesincluding a regeneration of the forests, a strong and unitedcommunity, and an end product Chiangmai is excited to share.

This project was built without any kind of official support orgovernment funding. The farmers now want to take their highlanddevelopment experience as the model for a new cacao plantationand chocolate production for the lowlanders. They are alsopreparing the production of pepper as a herb to stimulate the revivalof many other local herbs.

Phot

o: F

AO

Estrella Penunia of Asian Farmers’ Association emphasised thecrucial role of local level policy support for sustainability of farmer

owned enterprises


40

Moving forward“Agroecology will become part of agricultural productionsystems in the region,“ assured Dr. Subhash Dasgupta ofFAO’s Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific. “We willtake these recommendations forward which will serve as abasis to formulate future work plans of FAO, if governmentsare in agreement,” he added cautiously. The final documentwith recommendations is proposed to be presented duringthe Regional Meeting of FAO member states in April or May2016.

The participants to the consultation recommended that theFAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific further addressthe question how agroecology can be better supported innational policies and programmes during the upcoming 33rdRegional Conference for Asia and the Pacific. They alsoproposed that FAO promote agroecology in ongoing regionalprogrammes and initiatives, such as the agroecosystem-basedRegional Rice Initiative, the Zero Hunger Initiative and theBlue Growth Initiative. In addition, the suggestion was madeto set up a new regional initiative on agroecology that includesa monitoring system of all the activities of FAO andgovernments in the region in regard to agroecology.

In keeping with the Declaration of the Nyéléni Forum,representatives of civil society reiterated their defense ofagroecology as a focal point for structural changes in agri-food systems. In doing so, they reject any attempt to reducethe concept of agroecology to a set of technologies designedto alleviate the harmful impacts of industrial agriculture. They

stated that concepts such as “climate-smart agriculture” andother similar buzzwords in the international debate must notbe confused with agroecology. Agroecology cannot berestricted to organizing a niche market for organic productsfor a handful of producers and consumers, they said, andadded; agroecology will only be successful as the guidingprinciple for changing current societies and their relationshipwith nature, if it strengthens smallholder food producers,including traditional and indigenous communities.

The consultation made clear that agroecology is a way oflife for family farmers and other small scale producers inAsia and the Pacific. Through agroecology they keep theircultural values alive. Agroecology provides food andnutrition security for urban and rural areas, putting peasantsand other food producers at the centre to feed the world inharmony with nature. In conclusion, agroecology contributesto food sovereignty, and their right to define their own foodand agriculture systems. The next steps for FAO’sagroecology process in the Asia-Pacific region should focuson defining further steps on how to strengthen these keyaspects of agroecology as a practice, a science, and amovement focusing on developing strategies to defend itfrom the threats posed by the industrial agricultural model.

T M RadhaAME FoundationBangalore, IndiaE-mail: [email protected]

Follow us on: @LeisaIndiawww.facebook.com/Leisaindiamag

www.leisaindia.org

Phot

o: F

AO

The multistakeholder panel suggested ways to scale up agro ecology in Asia and the Pacific region

march 2016 volume 18 no. 1 leis india · 2018. 2. 10. · shubra aich, a.m. shamsuddula, practical...

Documents