In the spotlight

In the spotlight 1

What innovation is required

Given how hegemonic discourse on innovation includes from Agroecology to biotechnology among its “focus points for sustainable agriculture”, it is vital to recognize that there are radically divergent perspectives on how to deal with global crises, how to define and implement innovative processes and products, and who should be the central actors and beneficiaries.

The technologies, innovations and practices chosen today will determine the future of agri-food systems [We refer to the various elements that make up agri-food systems (the environment, people, inputs, processes, infrastructure, institutions, etc.) and the full spectrum from pre-production and production to processing, packaging, transportation, distribution, marketing, preparation, consumption and waste management. This framework also incorporates the inputs and outputs associated with each of these activities, including socio-economic and environmental outcomes. Based on GANESAN (2014).] and the livelihoods of people throughout the world. Therefore, it is crucial that decision-makers, food producers and other stakeholders raise the right questions to guide their decisions.

In this sense, innovation should not consist only of offering a technology or a toolbox from which a few elements are selected, or focus solely on productivity. Innovation should focus specifically on social, economic, cultural, ecological, environmental, institutional, organizational and public policy processes.

For an innovation to reconfigure agri-food systems and contribute to their sustainability, it must be developed on the basis of an integral and multidisciplinary approach for systemic change that positively impacts the lives of people. In addition, innovating to transform these systems is not just about introducing new revolutionary or disruptive innovations, as well as new needs, markets and application spaces: it also involves adaptation or evolution, and the improvement and / or substantial expansion of techniques and practices which already exist.

Evaluating innovations in agrifood systems is a challenge, and requires the development of a framework and a set of indicators, and/or analysis of scenarios to measure the characteristics of an innovation and its impacts on the sustainability of these systems in order to help inform strategic options and actions. To contribute to the development of this framework, here we propose a non-exhaustive set of 13 interconnected criteria. New innovations should be evaluated according to these criteria:

i. Social, economic and institutional dimensions:
– promote popular participation in decision-making, the management of natural assets and in monitoring and evaluation processes, assign a prominent role to the most vulnerable and marginalized.
– build social and economic justice, strengthening economic inclusion and social cohesion to improve livelihoods and actively reduce inequalities, fostering and consolidating relationships and solidarity between rural and urban areas and between generations, and supporting models social and public ownership and management.
– contribute to eradicating hunger, ensuring equitable access and a sufficient food supply that in turn contributes to strengthening food self-sufficiency.
– encourage the consumption of diverse, nutritious and safe foods for healthy, diversified, culturally appropriate and sustainable diets.
– benefit small food producers and workers, creating dignified living conditions, implementing effective participation in decision making and recognizing and preserving their knowledge.
– build gender justice and respect diversity, recognize and value women’s productive and reproductive work, promote equal rights and access to resources, as well as effective participation in decision-making and help to eradicate all forms of violence and oppression against women.

ii. Environmental aspects:
– are effective, minimizing the loss of food, the waste and transport involved in the production and distribution of food, as well as the associated environmental effects through localized or re-localized food systems.
– contribute to energy justice by considering the systems and types of production, distribution and consumption of energy required to create, deploy and operate innovation, minimizing the social and environmental impacts of energy and ensuring fair and sufficient access to it.
– contribute to environmental justice, considering: the short and long term environmental impacts derived from its use, beyond its useful life; its ability to preserve biodiversity and water; and include the labor aspects of innovation in food production and the problems of migrant farm workers.
– contribute to climate justice, addressing the structural causes of climate change due to agri-food systems, to strengthen the resilience of the people facing future crises.

iii. Aspects of the implementation process:
– they will be available and affordable, for all people and institutions at all levels and in all territories.
– they are useful, usable and sustainable over time, being effective in the short and long term in fulfilling the task for which they are intended.
– they have a multiplier effect, to achieve their widespread adoption at all levels and in all territories, with a positive impact.

For an innovation to be considered social, cultural, environmental, political and economically acceptable, it should take into account and meet at least the majority, if not all, of these criteria.

Read more here.

In the spotlight 2

Why Agroecology is the path to support

Agroecology is a multidimensional approach, founded on knowledge, know-how and peasants’ and indigenous peoples’ ways of life, grounded in their respective natural, social and cultural environment[[For more on Agroecology read the Nyéléni newsletter num.20 http://www.nyeleni.org/ccount/click.php?id=62]]. It is a living concept that continues to evolve as it is adapted to diverse and unique realities. It provides a coherent framework that conceptualizes these practices and their effects (and their mutual reinforcement), and a holistic understanding of our place in natural cycles and how food systems must adapt to and restore the biocultural systems on which they depend.

It includes a long-term vision and goes beyond agricultural production to encompass and transform the whole food system. It is a tool of struggle and resistance to build peoples’ Food Sovereignty (MST)[1, only in Portuguese]. It calls for paradigm shifts on multiple fronts, including in research, consumption, and policy-making in order to achieve Food Sovereignty for rural and urban communities. Across the world, Agroecology guarantees the diversity of food and food cultures adapted to their social and natural environments.

Additionally, there is convincing data that Agroecology can raise yields significantly among those that need it most, i.e. marginalised and subsistence food producers in rainfed areas, without needing expensive and resource intensive infrastructures like irrigation and corporate seeds.

Small-scale food providers, especially peasants and family farmers, are the primary innovators in agriculture and have been for thousands of years. They are the main designers of agroecological farming systems, including agroforestry and integration of livestock with crops and trees, as well as the main plant breeders in the world. What research institutions and the private sector contribute is minuscule in comparison. This is especially true when we consider agroecological systems and locally-adapted crop varieties and livestock breeds. It is these farmer-led and farmer-conducted innovation processes that need to be supported, as well as Campesino a Campesino (farmer-to-farmer) processes to stimulate farmer innovation and sharing of results.

There are a myriad of ecologically based farming methods developed by at least 75% of the 2 billion small scale producers, mostly women on 500 million small farms that feed 70 – 80% of the world. Most of the food consumed today is derived from 2.1 million peasant-bred plant varieties.

In conclusion, Agroecology is the innovative approach to be supported; an Agroecology practiced by and according to the principles of those who maintained it for millennia: small-scale food producers.

Read more:
Innovating for sustainable agriculture and food systems.
Agroecology at a crossroads, Nyéléni newsletter num. 28

Newsletter no 36 – Editorial

Agroecology: real innovation from and for the people

Illustration: “Tierra del maíz” -Latin American Institute of Agroecoly.

The crisis in the industrial food system is impossible to ignore. For over a decade, study after study has validated the assertion of the Food Sovereignty movement in 2007 – that the corporate food system destroys life. Now Governments are anxious to find ‘innovations’ in agriculture that can overcome this. They are hoping to be saved by a new Green Revolution – innovations in science and technology that can increase production without depleting resources or polluting our world. Of course, this type of innovation will keep control of economic, genetic and natural resources firmly in the hands of agribusinesses. It will also keep the discourse firmly in line with the status quo without acknowledging that hunger is not caused by a shortage in food production but rather by poverty, a lack of democracy, the exclusion of vulnerable groups, and unequal or physical obstacles which inhibit (e.g. in situations of conflict or displaced populations) access to food, natural resources, and infrastructure.

On the other hand Agroecology within the framework of Food Sovereignty is also gaining widespread recognition and is increasingly being promoted as an approach to transform agriculture and food systems and address the challenges we face. The Food Sovereignty movement is exposing how the discourse on innovation is actually a way to depoliticise the debate on what a new food system should look like – by not setting any criteria on what innovation must deliver on. In this way Agroecology is put together with GMOs, new gene breeding technologies, ‘climate-smart agriculture’ and ‘sustainable intensification’. These models seize certain agroecological practices and combine them with patented seeds, transgenic plants, and animals, monoculture for international trade and, most importantly, the same vision of private accumulation of the fruits of our planet and of workers. In this edition, we look at the elements of Agroecology as defined by small scale food producers that make it the only real innovation to transform our food and farming.

Friends of the Earth International
[This edition was completed with the collaboration of IPC and LVC.]

Voices from the field

Voices from the field 1

Notes from a New, Peri-urban Farmer in US

Caitlin Hachmyer, Red H Farm, California, USA

I look out over my crops and beyond to the fields. I don’t own this land. I farm the land, I steward the soil. But my care for the land constantly conflicts with the knowledge that I put money and more money into an investment whose return I might never see.

New and young farmers typically rent. Success depends on developing a market niche. This favors educated, networked individuals from privileged socio-economic circles. The prohibitive nature of purchasing, and the nuanced renting mechanisms disadvantage a large segment of the agricultural workforce. The millions of farmworkers from Mexico, for instance, have stronger agricultural backgrounds and knowledge sets than most young, aspiring farmers, bur lack the social and financial capital necessary for land access. Race and class create barriers to entry.

Our products are perishable and our market niche is local. We must farm close to our urban and peri-urban markets. We need to farm in precisely the places where land prices are highest. So we rent, which has many challenges. These include conflicts resulting from land-owners misunderstanding the realities of farming; handshake agreements that fail because of differing expectations; short term leases that undermine our investment in land and soil; sale of the land or death of the landowner; loss of land to “highest and best use” development; inability to invest in perennial crops; personality conflicts…

Farming in peri-urban areas means our farm is in the public or landowners’ view. And, growing diversified, specialty crops on land that may be someone’s backyard typically involves high investment to build soil ecology and ensure healthy crops.
Farmers across the world are seen as an integral part of the solution to climate change. Highly ecological methods that sequester carbon in the soil will be key strategies. No-till farms operating at intensive, commercial levels earn more revenue per acre than most conventional farms, but the high financial investment doesn’t make sense for farmers who don’t have solid land security. Ecological farming methods are a farmer’s investment portfolio: there’s an immediate return as the nutrient value of inputs quickly improves crop health and yield, but the real return is long-term: deep, complex soil systems, established habitat and insectaries, healthy waterways, and beautiful and biodiverse landscapes.

We need farmers to invest in their land for the long term. However, even small-scale farms are still businesses, and our agricultural practices cannot always meet our ecological ideals when we can’t realize the long-term benefits of those practices on leased land.

Young peri-urban farmers in the local food movement live in tents, converted garages, little houses, and studio apartments. They wonder if they can afford to have families. Their simple lifestyles that are out of step with their broader communities. How will this create and sustain deep social transformation and a commitment to food sovereignty? For example, over 400 million acres of US farmland will change hands soon. It’s time for deep reforms.

We are all part of a complex, interwoven agricultural system whether or not we farm. When that is more broadly understood, the value of those directly tending our land and water systems, and the need for actual community-level investments, will become clearer.

We need structural change that will put farmers—the caretakers of the land—at the center of community land ownership. Change that takes portions of farmable land off of the open market and redistributes it to those who build our food systems, the foundation of our lives.

I dream of a day when I can look across the land and know that I can be there forever.

Voices from the field 2

The potential of the rural – urban interface

Blain Snipstal, Black Dirt Farm Collective Maryland, USA

The struggle for Food Sovereignty is based upon our ability to re-valorize our relationship to mother earth and people, and to shift the fundamental material and economic relations of power within the food system and society at large. This means more land in the hands of people of color, native folks, and working poor.
Recently, the rural-urban relationship, which has long been a space of conflict in our society, became the battle line that the far-right and current U.S. administration used to galvanize its base. As a result, the organizers that work for social and ecological liberation must move with extreme care and strategic thinking as to how best to push back against those antagonistic forces on the right, that only want to use violence, fear and coercion to achieve their goals.

Today, where we have a society that is approaching 80% urbanization, we must find a way to envision a future where urban life doesn’t come at the cost of rural life, or where Rural living is seen as inherently dignified and valued, while Urban living can thrive in harmony with the planet.

The future of the food sovereignty movement in this society must be able to confront this history of our rural-urban interface and the biases and behaviors laden within it. The key to our success may very well be held within this space, and the variety of actors that are working to break it wide open.

As a member of the Black Dirt Farm Collective, we have had many years of experiences of creating critical spaces of dialogue, popular education and hands-on dignified work to break open this interface and re-center a radical agrarian politic. What’s important to note here is that this radical agrarian politic, or Afroecology as we call it, must be based in both creating material changes in the lives of people and the earth through collective work (i.e. mutual aid), as well as transforming the ways we have come to think and act individually and collectively. From these experiences, we have found that the rural-urban interface has the potential to create a multi-faceted and self-valorizing dynamic in which progressive urban actors can begin to imagine themselves in more natural or rural spaces, and rural actors – namely farmers, can build community (social and economic) and open their lands as communal spaces for mutual aid.

Voices from the field 3

New opportunities and spaces for collectivism

Joel Orchard, Northern Rivers young Farmers Alliance, Australia

I believe we are in the midst of a significant cultural shift within the small scale farming sector especially in the young farmer’s movement. There are many opportunities to explore new spaces for collectivism and connection between the new ‘neo-peasantry’ and the emergence of more educated, food-literate consumers within growing urban populations. These relationships are forging new approaches to food sovereignty. The rural-urban fringe is under siege as cities expand into traditional farming lands, paving over fertile soil; peri-urban farmland is a valued commodity undergoing rapid gentrification. How peri-urban land is managed and made available for food production needs to be a key planning feature for successful local food economies.

Conventional family farm succession is gradually being replaced by increased activity in local food economies by first generation farmers from urban and professional backgrounds. They typically come with strong commitments to environmental and social ethics and seek peri-urban farmland with proximity to services and direct market access. They bring a new political discourse to small-scale farming, framed by ideas and values for food justice, anti-establishment sentiments, solidarity economies, and desire to embed themselves deeply within landscapes and social ecologies. Here lies my hope in building a more solid base for the development of the food sovereignty movement.

Farmers Markets have provided the basic building blocks for direct distribution and short value chains. However, they are also plagued with cultures of protectionism, individualism, and elitism. The CSA (Community Supported Agriculture) movement builds even closer relationships between farmer and consumer at the rural-urban, community food interface. But if local food economies remain consumerist and individualist, there is little hope for broader systemic change.

These shifts towards smaller scale production, agroecologies and diversity are facing new challenges. Localised food models are limited by land access and affordability, and a wide range of bureaucratic regulatory constraints on production, housing, and land use. The industrial food system has renewed their efforts at competition and co-optation.

I recently spent a week in Thessaloniki for Urgenci’s 7th International Symposium on Community Supported Agriculture and met with young farmers committed to these common values and facing all of these issues. The obstacles we must overcome and the bridges we build are not regionally unique. The international movement food sovereignty gives us the strong common language we need to embed in the transformative actions and activities to forge new food economies across the globe.

Voices from the field 4

Political education is key

George Naylor, president of the National Family Farm Coalition, USA

I grew up through eighth grade on the Iowa farm that my wife and I farm today. My parents and I moved to the big city of Long Beach, California, way back in 1962, the result of my parents getting too old to farm and almost 10 years of farm depression. That farm depression came from the destruction of the Roosevelt-Wallace parity price guarantees that had become the foundation of family farm agriculture in the U.S. Many of my new classmates also came from “back east” though we soon tried to not be associated with that culture. Our family bought groceries at the Japanese market run by folks that had been herded into internment camps during World War II. Besides the beautiful strawberries and vegetables, their store offered huge piles of processed food like oleo margarine and breakfast cereal—along with meat and hot dogs that came all the way from my home state of Iowa.

(Can you believe, my school friends said they preferred the taste of oleo to butter?!) Thanks to my new surroundings, I soon became very detached from the farm life and community I left behind. Like so many urban people I’ve met since, even my sense of when crops were planted and harvested became pretty fuzzy. When I was a kid on the farm my mom canned over 400 quarts of fruits and vegetables to go along with the carrots and potatoes we stored for a balanced diet in the winter months. We ate beef from our stock cows sometimes three times a day, and I “washed eggs” from our hens. We brought eggs to market in our town or they were picked up at the farm several times a week, that is, until eggs became so cheap and Campbell’s Soup refused to pay more than 3 cents per pound for the old hens.
Nevertheless, “home grown” and “made from scratch” really meant something. It all demanded hard work and perseverance, but that was the norm among the families of my farm friends and neighbors. What a contrast to what I became accustomed to through the years in California where everything came from one supermarket or another (the Japanese market faded into oblivion, replaced by Lucky and Krogers). If it were not for my earlier life on the farm and my relatives still farming in Iowa, I too would have been clueless as to where food truly came from.

Fast forward to 2018—look at the accelerating urbanization, the industrialization of food production and food processing. No wonder there’s a new fascination with good food and how it’s produced. The question is, is good food just like the latest IPhone or electrical car, or is good food the gateway to understanding how food became a commodity while we all are forced to live in big cities taking whatever jobs we can for survival? If we can see where this has led, can we see where this will all lead? Can we gain the POLITICAL understanding to create a different society where we make rules to respect each other’s economic contributions and value natural resources that can ecologically sustain future generations?

In the early 2000’s I protested the WTO and free trade agreements in Via Campesina delegations, and learned how national food policies were to be changed by international neoliberal trade agreements that would further eliminate food reserves and commodity price supports to mimic the U.S. policy that had destroyed family farm agriculture. I learned how food import dependency would be created in so many nations around the world, thus strangling the chance of national democratic farm and food policy or any political sovereignty—making food as a weapon. I visited various metropolises like Sao Paolo and Mexico City to see how free trade had already destroyed rural communities and turned proud farmers and peasants into urban refugees in these metropolises, much like my family had been in 1962.

From my point of view, we must never lose sight of the global implications of the term Food Sovereignty. While we can create new awareness and encourage a new culture that values farmers and rural communities by buying local, etc., these must go hand in hand with political education to develop political power to create a world that values all people and Mother Nature whom we all depend upon.

Voices from the field 5

Rural-Urban Linkages in Ouagadougou

Georges F. Félix, Boricuá de Agricultura Ecológica,(Puerto Rico)

Burkina Faso is largely self-sufficient in food. Over 80 % of Burkinabè population practice subsistence agriculture with staple crops like sorghum, millet and maize. Peri-urban markets around Ouagadougou result from urban expansion in which much of the produce is channeled through local and regional markets. Produce is often sold door to door by farer-vendors. Crops include green leafy vegetables, root crops, and fruit. Peri-urban farming in Ouagadougou is a livelihood option that is prone to water-level changes of nearby lakes and vulnerable land tenure, yet it survives as a source of the diverse, traditional foods found in local markets.

Ouagadougou’s peri-urban farming allows women to earn money selling in local markets. Aminta Sinaré is a math teacher who also tends an organic subsistence/market garden with forty other women. Mrs. Sinaré says: “We grow salad [vegetables] during the cold season. During the rainy season [when it’s hot], we grow okra, cabbages and other vegetables. We produce what is suited to the season.”

Burkina Faso is a landlocked country located in the heart of the Sahel, which is severely vulnerable to climate and global changes. The last couple of decades, farmers have witnessed the huge variability in rainfall patterns, from droughts to flooding, leading to lost harvests, increased erosion of pastures, and more importantly, food crises [West CT, Roncoli C, Ouattara F (2008) Local perceptions and regional climate trends on the Central Plateau of Burkina Faso. Land Degradation & Development 19 (3):289-304. doi:10.1002/ldr]. But water access and the high use of chemicals in agricultural production plague peri-urban production.

The challenge of food sovereignty in the urban-rural interfaces in Burkina Faso may provide important political linkages between rural and urban farmers. Both have to address the need for increased food production and detoxifying the food production process. Securing land tenure and providing much-needed support at watershed scales, including farming system re-design are also shared demands.

Boxes

Box 1

Food Sovereignty at the rural-urban interface #1

The rural-urban interface can be found in the far-flung suburbs, repartos, banlieu, and underserved neighborhoods of the inner cities of the Global North, and in the favelas, barrios, slums and misery belts surrounding big cities in the Global South. But it is also found in villages and towns dotting the global countryside. It is so ubiquitous; it is sometimes easy to miss.

On top of that, beginning with the industrial revolution, capitalism created a rural-urban divide by subjugating rural people and economies to the logic of metropolitan capital.

Today’s capitalist food system continues to extract wealth from the countryside in the form of food, energy, water, raw materials, labor, and increasingly, through land speculation and financialization.

Rather than focusing our attention on the liberating potential of the interface, capitalism exacerbates the inequities and frictions of the rural-urban divide.

The importance of the rural-urban interfacefor food sovereignty is twofold: it provides the places where producers and consumers can build alternative market relations—like farmers markets, food policy councils, and CSAs;
it also provides social spaces where growers and eaters can politisize these alternatives by constructing new forms of food citizenship—like commons and political alliances.

These political alliances between rural, peri-urban and urban communities are critical to the construction of food sovereignty. Why? Because under neoliberalism, the countryside has been “hollowed out” losing most of its public institutions (and many of its farmers).

This leaves rural communities vulnerable to massive corporate wealth extraction, impoverishment, and many forms of state, gang and paramilitary violence.

Food Sovereignty at the rural-urban interface #2

In industrialized countries family farmers are now such a small minority of the population it is impossible for them to build political power on their own. In the Global South, peasant farmers, fishers and pastoralists, all historically oppressed, are scattered across great distances with poor communications and infrastructure, cut off from the cities where structural political decisions take place.

Nonetheless, the places and spaces of the rural-urban interface provide a laboratory for the oppositional and pre-figurative politics that are the hallmark of food sovereignty. On one hand, following the lead of agrarian struggles, political demands for the corporate dismantling, the right to food, the redistribution of land, and access to fair markets are emerging in urban and peri-urban areas. On the other, alternatives like permaculture and agroecology are showing eaters what our food system could look like if the political barriers to massive adoption were removed.

The dense social fabric of the rural-urban interface, can help articulate the diverse (but often fragmented) power of social movements, linking food sovereignty to struggles like the municipal movement, the food justice, environmental justice, and gender justice movements. The possibilities for mutual learning and convergence among these movements offer the opportunity for food sovereignty to serve as a lever to transform the capitalist systems in which our agricultural and food systems are embedded.

Box 2

Ecuador: Strengthening local food markets and urban-rural linkages*

If people don’t eat healthy local foods, then quality local seeds and community biodiversity, key to agroecological farming, will disappear. So over the last five to ten years we have promoted a process of forging direct, win-win relationships between farmers and urban consumer organizations to strengthen local food systems. In practice, this has resulted in empowering farmers, increasing their incomes, and strengthening their ability to negotiate with buyers. Consumers gain access to healthy, local food at a lower cost–while supporting agroecological farming. Producers from several communities have joined the Canastas Comunitarias movement (Community Baskets, a model similar to “Community Supported Agriculture” or CSA agreements) and started direct sales and agro-ecological farmers’ markets and fairs.

The Canastas and alternative food networks foster more personal, beneficial, and transparent relationships between urban and rural organizations; raise public awareness; and provide opportunities to address issues such as gender relations and appropriate policies for food security, rural investment, and biodiversity. In the words of farmer Lilian Rocío Quingaluisa from the province of Cotopaxi: “Engaging directly with urban citizens is great for us as women farmers. It means we have better income, we do not have to work on other people’s land, we are more independent, and we can spend more time with our families and animals.” Another farmer, Elena Tenelema, adds: “The baskets eliminate abuse by intermediaries. Second, they give us a guaranteed income, which we can use to improve our health, for education, or to buy animals. People in town get to know and eat our products. That is one of the most important things that we are fighting for as indigenous farmers.”

There is growing recognition of these kinds of promising local market initiatives in the political sphere in Ecuador, and the constitution recognizes them under the framework of Social and Solidarity Economics. But fostering direct and reciprocal food systems is not an easy task, especially in the face of industrialized agriculture and food distribution, and much work remains to be done.

We must create productive dialogue and linkages across public institutions, civil society, NGOs, universities, research institutions, and rural and urban communities. This includes collaborating with influential urban networks and consumers’ organizations. We need to be constantly aware of innovations in the urban-rural relationships, including peri-urban and urban agriculture. As Pacho Gangotena, farmer and agroecologist says “I believe that social change in agriculture will not come from above, from the governments. It will come from the thousands and millions of small farming families that are beginning to transform the entire productive spectrum…. We are a tsunami that is on its way.”

* Pedro J. Oyarzún & Ross M. Borja, Fertile Ground:Scaling agroecology from the ground up, Chapter 4: Local markets, native seeds and alliances for better food systems in Ecuador, 2017.

Box 3

Retrosuburbia; agriculturally productive landscapes*

Permaculture is one of the few threads in the food sovereignty movement that has focused significant activism and effort on the potential of suburban landscapes and residents to be part of the solution to the complex problems that characterize globalized modern food systems.

Cities with extensive suburbs are correctly understood as a product of the motorcar and cheap energy. When contemplating a world constrained by climate and resource limits, most urban commentators have assumed suburbia is the least adapted form and will be replaced by more compact patterns that make more efficient use of urban infrastructure especially public transport.

While the assumption that energy and resource constrained futures will reduce the allocation of space to private motor cars is a reasonable one, I believe the idea that higher density landscapes are a necessary and inevitable response is flawed for many reason.

One of those reasons is that suburban landscapes have enough soil with access to sunlight, water and nutrients to grow the bulk of the fresh vegetables, fruit and small livestock products of the residents. Exploiting this largely untapped potential could massively lower total environmental footprint, increase local economic activity and resilience and enhance social connectivity and health. It could also lead to conservation of prime arable land for staple foodcrops both locally and globally. Higher density development aiming to maintain high daily movement cities would be putting the “sustainability” cart before the horse (of food security and sovereignty)

Places like the Red River Delta in Vietnam (before industrialization) had a higher density of people than Australian suburbs, living more or less totally self-sufficiently. Although such places are special cases; very fertile, flat with extensive irrigation systems, our suburbs have water supply infrastructure that make cities in Australia our biggest irrigated landscapes. We have hard surfaces that shed storm water, which could be harvested and directed into potentially productive soils. We have individual houses that can be retrofitted for solar access because they are generally far enough set back from neighboring houses to harvest solar energy. There are a lot of ways in which the suburbs can be incrementally retrofitted in an energy descent world for frugal but fulfilling and abundant lives.

Given the speed with which we are approaching this energy descent world of less, and the paucity of any serious consideration to planning or awareness, we should assume that adaptive strategies will not happen by some big, long range planning, but organically and incrementally by people doing things in response to unfolding conditions. In a multistory building retrofitting requires a lot of negotiation with owners and other stakeholders and the solutions are technically complicated. In the suburbs, people can just start changing houses and doing things without the whole of society needing to agree on some plan.

So the suburbs are amenable to this incremental, adaptive strategy where someone does something here, and we learn from that, and we don’t need a great roadmap. Historically, there have been people who think they’ve got this grand plan for how it’s all going to work… be really wary of those people!

In practical terms, big suburban houses with only one or two or three people, often who are not present, will re-adapt to work from home and start home-based businesses, take the double garage and dump the cars out and set them up as workshops, and turn their backyards into food producing places. The street, which is a dead place at the moment, will again become an active space because people will be present. That recreation of active suburban life will be not that much different from what existed in the 1950s. There will be larger households—whether that’s a family or a shared household—whether people are taking in boarders to help pay the rent or mortgage, or to share the tasks that need to be done. I’m optimistic about how the suburbs can be retrofitted to adapt to challenging futures, be agriculturally productive and resilience and still house more people without building and paving over more earth.

* More info: David Holmgren, here.

In the spotlight

The new global majority: Peasants in the city and countryside

Food sovereignty as a banner of joint struggle was put forth by the peasantry of the world, organized in La Via Campesina (LVC). But achieving real food sovereignty would require major structural change, passing through genuine agrarian reform, a reversal of free trade policies and agreements, getting the WTO (World Trade Organisation) out of agriculture, breaking monopolies over our food system of supermarkets and agribusiness, and promoting real agroecology, among other transformations. That means building political power in favor of those changes, not an easy feat in a world lurching toward the far Right.

While there may be something close to consensus, and the ability and willingness to engage in collective mass action, among the world’s peasant organizations, and those of other, rural small-scale producers of food like indigenous peoples, artisanal fisherfolk, nomadic pastoralists, etc., the sad truth is that population of planet Earth that still lives in rural areas has finally fallen below 50%. In some countries the figure is much lower. What that means is that rural people cannot change the food systems on their own. The good news is the exodus of peasants from the countryside has largely gone to one kind of place. That is the urban periphery of many if not most of the world’s cities, whether the favelas in Brazil, shacktowns in the Caribbean, burgeoning slums in Asia and Africa, latin neighborhoods in the USA, or the Banlieus in France. The urban poor are the single fastest-growing segment of the world’s population.

If one visits any of these areas of urban destitution, what one finds are displaced peasants who have migrated from the countryside, the sons and daughters of peasants who migrated, and the grandchildren of peasants. Many or most people still have extended family in the countryside. If the city where they now live is close to the rural areas where the extended family resides, they often visit peasant relatives on weekends and holidays, and even bring back farm fresh eggs, homemade cheese, vegetables and fruits to market informally in their neighborhoods. Typically they are still “peasant” in some real sense, raising chickens and vegetables and planting fruit trees in their urban backyards and patios. And they usually have a family “imaginary” of an idyllic life left behind when they came to the city, a life with fresh air, clean water, safe and healthy for raising kids, and good, honest work. Because of this both real and imaginary “peasantness,” we can almost count many of them as part of the global “peasantry.”

At same time, today’s peasantry still in the countryside is undergoing a generational shift. While a few years ago most thought that virtually all peasant youth would leave the countryside and move to the cities, this move has often not been permanent, but rather part of a circular, back-and-forth flow. They may spend a year or two in the city to finish school, living with an aunt or uncle, before returning to the farm, or maybe work in the city to earn and save money from time to time. What this means is that the new generation of peasants, in all countries, feels at home in both the country and the city. They know and relate well to their relatives in the city. And they have a lot of skills, like social networking, that come in handy when they market the produce of their farm or cooperative in the city, or when they help organize a march or protest.

Together, these two groups, the “rural peasantry” and the “urban peasantry,” now make up the vast majority of humanity. While there are virtually no useful census data to calculate their numbers, it might not be a stretch to say they make up 70 to 80% of humanity. That is a lot of people. Together, they are a potential constituency or “correlation of forces” capable of transforming the food system and many other aspects of society. Making that potential into a reality, of course, would mean a lot of political education and organizing work, and overcoming the forces that divide and confuse people, like Right-wing fundamentalist religions and politicians. Still, this potential should give us hope, and a possible strategy for long-term structural change for the better.

Newsletter no 35 – Editorial

Food sovereignty at the rural-urban interface

Illustration: Lucy Everitt for the Australian City Farms and Community Gardens Network – communitygarden.org.au

The rural-urban interface is a complex social space where politics and culture are in constant flux. It can also be a physical place, where the wealth and resources of villages, towns, peri-urban suburbs, and suburbanized rural areas are in dispute. Taken globally, it is a vast territory with potential to grow food sovereignty.

This issue of the Nyéléni Newsletter addresses the challenges and opportunities of building food sovereignty in peri-urban areas, and the ways that the producers and consumers of urban and rural communities form alliances to transform the food system.

There are many emblematic cases of food sovereignty at the rural-urban interface, including the peri-urban farms of Havana, Cuba; the institutional provisioning experiences of Belo Horizonte, Brazil; and the multitude of farmers markets, community supported agriculture, and coops around the world. These all occur within the fluid movement of people, politics, goods and ideas linked to global processes of de-peasantization and re-peasantization.

The contributors to this issue of the Nyéléni Newsletter seek to open a dialogue on the interface by asking:
What is happening with rural-urban relationships? How are they or can they build food sovereignty?
What are the bridges (political, economic, social and cultural) that link the city and the countryside?
Who are the main actors building these relationships?
What are the obstacles and opportunities to building urban-rural food sovereignty?
What are the goals and objectives of food sovereignty at the urban-rural interface?

Eric Holt-Gimenez, Food First

Voices from the field

Voices from the field 1

Bangladesh, an example of climate migration

Golam Sorowor, Finance Secretary of BAFLF

Bangladesh is a densely populated country, which is a clear victim of global exploitation regarding the impacts of climate change. These impacts already include the rapid expanse of soil salinity due to rising sea levels, tidal flooding, intensifying storm surges, increased temperatures, heavy rainfall, flash floods, droughts, land slides and river erosion. The consequences of climate change are that farmers and rural communities are experiencing increasing livelihood insecurity, malnutrition, unemployment, poverty, human trafficking, forced migration as well as food, land and water crises.

More than half the area of Bangladesh is barely five meters above sea level. A 1 meter rise in sea level would submerge a fifth of the country and turn 30 million people into “climate refugees”. The issue of climate refugees will become a major problem in the coming decades in Bangladesh. Many of the major cities hare already under pressure, particularly the capital city Dhaka. In 1974 the population of Dhaka was 177000; in 2017 it stood at 1.8 million. By 2035, it will be 3.5 million (World Bank report). Two thousand people come from different parts of the country in search of jobs and shelter every day. The 10 most dangerous cities in the world due to climate change include the capital Dhaka. “Global climate refugees” will face increasingly protected borders, as in the case of India, which is militarizing its border with Bangladesh, so that already today deaths are reported every month.

Agriculture in Bangladesh is largely dependent on climatic factors. One cyclone may destroy a significant volume of the seasonal harvest. Cyclone Sidr destroyed nearly 95 percent of crops in coastal districts when it crashed into Bangladesh in 2007 (ABD, 2013). Cyclone Aila flooded nearly 200,000 acres of agricultural land with salt water (97 thousand acres of Aman is completely destroyed) and 300,000 people were displaced (243,000 homes have been completely devastated). Increased soil salinity and maximum temperatures will lead to decrease in the yield of rice. A change in temperature could also decrease potato production by more than 60%. The flash flood in 2017 in Haor reduced rice production by more than 15.8 million tons. Research has shown a 69% decrease in rice production in a coastal village in 18 years. About 1/3 of the area of Bangladesh is influenced by tides in the Bay of Bengal.

To address the climate and food crises the government is promoting private agribusinesses, higher investment in seed, fertilizers and machinery, adopting hybrid seeds and imposing GMOs in the name of food security. Bangladesh already released the country’s first GMO crop bt. Brinjal in 2014. A GMO potato is in the pipeline and the government announced plans for the commercialization of the world’s first Genetically Engineered rice Golden rice in 2018. All this instead of protecting peasants and supporting small scale agroecological farming.

The World Bank and other international donors strategy for corporate led ‘food security’ is a risky strategy for farming in the context of climate change. Their real interest behind this policy is to enable transnational seed and chemical companies to access agricultural markets in Bangladesh. Therefore, it is important to promote farmers’ rights to seeds and empower rural communities so they can protect their own livelihoods. Ensuring Food Sovereignty is the best alternative to the current agriculture policy in Bangladesh.

Climate change, Food Sovereignty and Agriculture encompass multidimensional policy issues of human well-being, environmental management and good governance. Consequently, any strategy to address food sovereignty & sustainable agriculture integrating climate change should consider livelihoods as an integral component. An ecosystem approach to Agriculture and Food sovereignty should be included in all national policies and action plans to reduce vulnerability to climate change.

Voices from the field 2

Modern slavery of strawberry harvesters

Mohammed Hakach, National Agricultural Sector Federation (Fédération Nationale du Secteur Agricole), Morocco

I took over ten years for the reality of thousands of Moroccan agricultural workers in Spain to come to light. This reality is characterised by suffering, isolation, exploitation and various kinds of harassment. Moroccan rural women are “legally” exported to carry out temporary work in the strawberry fields in the South of Spain in the framework of immigration known as “circular” via the ANAPEC agency that falls under the Ministry for Labour.

The suffering of these unfortunate strawberry workers begins when they are recruited, and ends with harsh working and living conditions.
Spanish agricultural employers impose selection criteria that are reminiscent of the slaves in Gorée Island in Senegal. Workers must be young, mothers to children of under thirteen years of age; their hands should be calloused and lined, as this shows that they are of rural origin. Their figures must be suitable in terms of height to enable them to work easily in the greenhouses.

And as to the working, living and pay conditions, the victim’s revelations as well as the media reports are unanimous: this is a case of modern slavery.
The National Federation of Agriculture, through the voice of its women’s agricultural sector workers organisation has tirelessly been denouncing the conditions that the immigrant women have to endure. They consider that the current situation is intolerable. The Moroccan State and Spanish State must be held accountable.

Voices from the field 3

A letter from a mother

The letters written by migrants are a valuable source of information on their situation, journeys and the abuse they endure. They are also an important aspect of migration literature. Several farewell letters have been found in the pockets of migrants drowned in the Mediterranean or have been by migrants in distress while in prison. We chose this letter sent by a mother to an immigrant aid association after being separated from her child at the US border.

I’m Claudia. My story began when I crossed the river on May 21, 2018. Immigration took me that day. I was coming with my son Kevin. They took down our information and took us to the ice box where we spent 3 hours. Then they transferred us to another place that they call the kennel. My son and I were there. He was very worried and would tell me that he did not want that food, that we are prisoners and on the 23rd of that same month, they separated me from him with lies and that hurt me a lot because I was not able to say goodbye to my son. I only told him they were taking me for some medical exams, but in reality I was headed to the criminal court. Supposedly, on the way back from court we would be reunited with them but it was not so. I cried so much. I felt that I was going insane, and something was missing in my life. I was not complete. They transferred me to Laredo. There I spent 12 days, then Taylor where I’ve spent 24 days. My credible fear interview was denied and I will see the judge. But it is not fair. My son has been detained for so long. One comes to this country to seek asylum, not to be imprisoned like a criminal and for them to take your son. In all this time we’ve only spoken three times and the last time he told me that he is sad and asked “When are we going to be together?” and that broke my heart. We want justice and that they reunite us with our children soon. We are human beings and there are many mothers suffering. 28 June 2018
Original in Spanish here.

Voices from the field 4

The Palestinian Nakba: an ongoing process of displacement and exile

Aghsan Albarghouti, Union of Agricultural Work Committees, Palestine

Seventy long years have passed since the Palestinian Nakba of 1948 where over 700,000 Palestinians were forced to leave their lands, farms and homes and seek refuge in camps scattered across the West Bank, Gaza Strip and in neighboring Arab countries. Today, millions count amongst the Palestinian refugee population and are scattered in numerous cities around the world.

Seventy years on, and the Nakba continues. It continues as thousands of Palestinians are forcibly displaced from their lands and homes not solely in Palestine but in neighboring countries. It continues as Palestinian refugees in Iraq and Syria have been forced to leave their homes multiple times over the years. It continues as a reflection of the difficulties and harsh conditions under which refugees live in Lebanon.

The Nakba continues with the ongoing occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip; with Israeli policies of dispossession and house demolishment; with the wars Israel has been waging against Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip; with the settlements that continue to be built on Palestinian lands; with settler aggression sanctioned by the occupying state; and with the attempt to entrench Israeli control over the occupied city of Jerusalem and expel the city’s Palestinian inhabitants.

The recently passed Israel nation state law is another reflection of the continuation of the original violence against the indigenous Palestinian population. This law sanctioning the ever-existent Israeli policies of apartheid seeks to further rid the land of Palestine of its original inhabitants as continues to be done by the Israeli occupying state.

Clearly, the continuation of the Nakba against the Palestinian people within and outside Palestine necessitates collective action and real solidarity towards achieving justice that include the return of refugees to their homes, and the freedom of our land.

Voices from the field 5

Crises and struggle like surviving Amarbail

Pakistan Fisherfolk Forum, member of WFFP

The word “Migrant” is a mark of disaster and the struggle of migrants to breathe is just like that of a tree struggling to survive from mistletoe (Amarbail). Being a migrant is not a crime but they are forced to live a life worse than prisoners throughout the world.

A significant number of migrants exists in Karachi (especially Bengalis and Burmese) and they live close to the sea and next to the industrial area. Most of them work in fishing related professions or as laborers. Their crisis begins with the struggle to obtain National Identity Cards (NIC) which is a prior requirement to be officially entitled to basic human rights, such as access to education, health care and better jobs.

Income-earning opportunities are so limited for migrant fishermen that they live way below the poverty-line in Pakistan. The major reason is the lack of CNIC. They are not allowed to apply for government jobs or sail boats on the sea for fishing purposes. The only way for them to earn bread & butter is to work as laborers on boats or peeling shrimps at home without any legal shelter. They don’t get their rightful wages due to their legal status.

The only healthcare service available to them is outdoor service in hospitals. Their patients are not admitted in severe circumstances nor issued blood from blood banks without a CNIC.

Migrants’ children are forced to leave their education after elementary classes and are pushed towards illiteracy even in the 21st century. With the introduction of new restrictions to admission in primary schools, even their hopes for primary education are fading away. This act is entirely against the state’s obligations; “The State shall provide free and compulsory education to all children”.

Due to a lack of education, jobs and other necessities, their young people are involved in drug trafficking and street crime in order to fulfill their financial needs.

The current generation of fishermen in Pakistan are not migrants. They are here because of their forefathers’ migration. NADRA (National Database & Registration Authority) seems to go against the Pakistani Citizenship Act 1951 that states that “every person born in Pakistan after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of Pakistan by birth” by not issuing them CNIC.

Bengali communities think that their neighbors are welcoming and give them support to resolve day to day problems. Pakistani society is very hospitable but they are being refused the possibility of merging into society by the departments.

Voices from the field 6

Migrant seasonal workers in the South of Italy

Unione Sindacale di Bas, Italy

The Italian trade union Unione Sindacale di Base (USB) aims to represent, defend and promote the rights of working men and women; and to oppose the fragmentation of workers struggles by connecting and unionizing workers in their territories.

In Italy seasonal agricultural workers -many of whom are migrants coming from Africa and the Middle East- face extreme conditions of exploitation, repression and racial discrimination. This is instigated by an industrial model of production that depends on the exploitation of farm workers and of peasants. In Italy, the situation is further exacerbated by a right-wing immigration law which forces migrants to have a work contract in order to obtain a temporary residence permit. This creates a black market where migrant workers are forced to accept inhumane work conditions with the hope of not being deported.

In Southern Italy, especially in the regions of Puglia, Basilicata and Calabria, migrant seasonal workers are mainly engaged in the harvesting of citrus fruits, tomatoes and olives depending on the season. They live packed in inhumane conditions, packed into camps, abandoned factories and sheds. They work for two euros per hour under extreme conditions and are subject to violence and intimidation. One of the latest victims was the 29 year old Malian trade unionist and worker Soumalia Sacko, murdered in the Plain of Gioia Tauro near Reggio Calabria. Soumaila was looking for plates for their shacks with two compatriots when he was shot in the head.

This tragic event led the USB to organize multiple mobilizations in several Italian cities to demand justice and claim workers’ rights. This story was followed by the national media and opened up the way for the USB to start a conversation with the ministry of agriculture and the ministry of labour.

Workers, as well as peasants, are the last link in the production chain and farmers are often forced to exploit workers because they are trapped a treadmill of production.
The innovative position brought forward by USB and La Via Campesina supported by Crocevia is not to side with either peasants or workers but to bring together both groups and to unite in the struggle against a production model that, squeezing the peasants and not allowing for a decent income, leads to the exploitation of migrant seasonal workers.

Soumahoro Aboubakar says: “We are asking for the rights of workers, men and women, regardless of skin colour, to be recognized and respected. On this plain in Calabria, like in many other territories, working men and women have decided to break the chains of exploitation because they believe that united we can really enforce our rights, and divided we will go nowhere especially in a context of a permanent and systematic “hate campaign””.

Boxes

Box 1

Open letter to the Global Forum on Migration and Development

To civil society;
To multilateral institutions;
And to the migrant and refugee movements:

The Nyeleni Collective, promoting food sovereignty as an alternative to slow down the current migration debacle, takes up with great hope the initiatives coming from civil society and the proposals by multilateral institutions to find a way out of the current situation that will, in principle, guarantee human integrity and the full rights of migrants and refugees. In this regards we express our concerns over the course taken by the process of the Global Compact for Migration, to be formalized in Morocco on 10 and 11 December. We also take this opportunity to present our position with regards to this process, and bring forward our own proposals.

We are concerned that the Global Compact for Migration has turned away from the crucial aspect of the human rights of migrants and refugees. Indeed, the Compact does mention some of the features of the migration crisis, using euphemisms such as “the needs of migrants in a situation of vulnerability” and “the respect, protection and enjoyment of human rights by all migrants”, but at the same time it uses expressions such as “promoting security and prosperity in our communities”; this means respecting rights but with domestic security and the economy first.

This is extremely serious, especially at this time, when the migrations crisis has become a tragedy never seen in present history. The families torn apart on the border between Mexico and the USA, and the confinement of migrant children in concentration camps in Texas, as well as the countless number of deaths among refugees, especially children, women and elderly people who drown in the Mediterranean; the violent racist and fascist attacks in the main cities of this world and the many anti-migrant actions around the world are pushing civilization to levels of dehumanization and barbarity that draw us back to the darkest periods of our most recent past.

On the contrary, as contained in the title of the Compact itself, “For Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration”, the approach of the states is one of convenience, to favour capital. In other words, it is the opportunity for states, especially the more powerful ones, to generate cheap and tame labour to accumulate wealth and capital. Just as the system loaded the burden of the 2008 financial crisis onto the migrants, now it is attempting to turn the tragedy of migration into an opportunity to increase profitability for the richest in this world.

It is also of great concern to see the difference in how migrants and refugees are treated, hiding away that chucking migrants out of their land for economic reasons or climatic disasters and that of migrants due to occupation wars and plundering all obey the same structural causes of the system. All the forces responsible for migration are ignores, or the exodus caused by whatever reason, and these are the ones deserving full attention to confront the structural causes.

Finally, not only do we express our concerns, but we are also willing to come up with proposals to find a way out of the drama of migration.
One of such proposals is to step up our fight for food sovereignty so that people are not forced to abandon their villages to feed and ensure the survival of their families. This of course requires fighting for a charter on the rights of peasants and public, popular agrarian policy reforms by the state. At the same time, this requires halting the grabbing of and speculation with the lands and natural resources of the peoples, and especially ending the wars to occupy territories.

We have further proposals that we wish to share with civil society and multilateral institutions, and we will do this for sure.

La Via Campesina will be present in Morocco in December, for the formalization of the Global Compact for Migration, to make public all these concerns and share our proposals. The delegation will be lead by our sisters and brothers from the MENA Region (Middle East and North Africa) and an international delegation from our regions, led by our sister organization FNSA (Fédération Nationale du Secteur Agricole).

We hope to carry our message to everyone wanting to listen to us and those concerned by the Global Compact for Migration and more interested in a global pact for solidarity in light of the migration debacle caused by capital.

Box 2

The Manden Charter

The United Nations Member States are preparing to vote on the Declaration on Peasants Rights and other people working in Rural Areas in September in New York. Yet one of the first declarations of fundamental rights was the Manden Charter, proclaimed by the Malinke hunters in 1222 in Mali. The Declaration acted as a constitution, but its scope was universal, as it was addressed to the whole world. It guaranteed the respect for human life and equality, the abolition of slavery and the end of hunger! The Manden Charter was listed in 2009 as part of the UNESCO Convention on Cultural Immaterial Heritage of Humanity. Here are some extracts:

Preamble
The Manden was grounded in understanding and love, freedom and fraternity. This means that no racial or ethic discrimination can exist under Manden. This was the meaning of our struggles.
Article 1 – The hunters declare: All human life is a life. It is indeed true that life appears as the existence of another life. But no one life is “older” than another. And likewise, no life is superior to any other.
Article 5 – The hunters declare: hunger is not a good thing. Nor is slavery. There is no greater calamity than these in this world on earth. As long as we possess quivers and a bow, hunger shall kill nobody in Manden, if perchance there were to be a famine. Nor shall war ever destroy a village in Manden to take its slaves hostage.
Article 7 – Man as an individual survives on food and drink. But his “soul” and his spirit thrives on three things: Seeing what he wishes o see, saying what he wants to say, and doing what he desires to do. Therefore the hunters declare: All humans have rights over their person, and are free to act; this is the oath of Manden to the ears of the entire world.

In the spotlight

Global vision of migration

“In early times, human beings moved around to look for water and fruit to feed themselves as well as to avoid ferocious wild animals. This was their way of protecting themselves. They travelled to preserve their lives. The first stage of evolution of our race came when the first objects were invented. Humans then moved on to organise their food supplies (hunting, fishing and gathering) as well as to protect themselves from rival groups”.
These are the words of Mamadou Cissokho, a leading figure of the West African peasant resistance movement, at the opening speech in January 2018, where he reminded everyone of their responsibility in the current tragedy of migration.

Moving to feed themselves and survive

The same causes have produced the same effects on all continents. It has become a very large-scale business, with climate change forcing many millions of people to become refugees leaving Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia as well as Latin America. Their lands no longer allow them to feed themselves (soil and wells had dried up, crops were destroyed by repeated natural disasters…). Political imbalance, often led by neo-colonial interests and imperialists have plunged countries and whole regions into situations of tragic insecurity, conflicts and wars and left entire regions in situations of tragic insecurity, conflicts and wars that many have tried to escape (Central America, Yemen, Syria, Sahel…). These situations have become worse when famines occurred and placed populations in imminent danger, such as in the case of Yemen.

However it is also essential and urgent to recognise unbridled globalised capitalism as the cause leading to the impoverishment of the indigenous communities and peasants around the world. Land-grabbing and the violation of customary rights, extractivism, norms and restricted access to markets…. Economic Partnership Agreements and other Free Trade treaties are a repeated and very real translation of the law of the strongest, and have largely been responsible for the physical and cultural uprooting of peoples.
Furthermore, in this very difficult context it is important to bear in mind the degree to which there has been very violent and even murderous State and police repression.

“(Europeans) and peoples have left us writing and historical manuscripts in which they confirmed that they had met so-called “soulless” people; they took whatever they found and sold it as they saw fit”. (M. Cissoko)

Stolen land and the destruction of food and popular culture

This uprooting of cultures is particularly illustrated through the Moroccan example. In order to supply the European market with low cost tomatoes and citrus, the Moroccan State facilitated entry for Spanish, French and Dutch investors as of the 1990s, hunting the local peasants off their land, pretexting that the land belonged to the Royal Family of Souss Massa Drah. These companies also gained simplified access to water resources and irrigation as well as State agricultural subsidies. There were such needs for labour that everything was organised in such a way that thousands of small-scale peasants who lived in the Atlas mountains abandoned their families’ land and moved to the areas where industrial agriculture was being practiced. This phenomenon of extreme exploitation and pauperisation of an uprooted national workforce still exists and actually encourages men and women to leave their homes for horizons that are ever further afield and more uncertain.
Parallel to this, traditional food crops (such as wheat, one of the main ingredients in Moroccan food) have been abandoned to better serve the interests of the export industry and unbridled capitalism!
This situation is similar to many others from which people around the world are suffering.

Food insecurity

This general observation is further darkened when we look at the conditions of those populations that have been displaced. The current discussions around the Global Compact, the project of a global pact on migration currently under negotiation at the Untied Nations, openly unmasks the cynicism and criminal attitude of the major decision-makers. Not only does the say in which people are being blocked at borders take on an inhuman aspect and is in violation of the Convention on Human Rights, but the “Western” States are turning people away or establishing conditions for granting development aid linked to establishing border controls (including a stronger police presence) in the countries of departure.

This is very worrying indeed! The cynicism and the refusal to provide a dignified welcome to political, economic and climate refugees (…) is leading to a concentration of these helpless people in major urban ghettos (megalopoles) or in rural areas (such as the extreme south of Italy). There are refugee camps there, and extreme insecurity: violence, lack of any organised healthcare, poor housing, forced labour and human trafficking are rife…
Thus these very circumstances mean that a migrant loses his or her capacity and food autonomy and at the very best (?) becomes dependent on the agri-business system, if indeed they are not simply obliged to make use of food aid, also supplied through the agribusiness system.

“Let us work together to share the wealth and well-being everywhere and for all. The strength of a poor man or woman is that he or she loses nothing, because he or she has nothing to lose” (M. Sissokho)

Dignity for migrant workers and food sovereignty are one and the same struggle!

The Via Campesina and its member organisations and allies are committed to resisting and joining in their struggles for rights and dignity for migrants, and to supporting food sovereignty.

By increasing the spaces where we mobilise against the big multinational corporations, and against the growing control that they exert on resources and food production to the detriment of the lives of small-scale peasants, against policies and treaties that they support…the peasant movement is working on the process of supporting the proletariat to build their struggles and fight the destabilisation of democratic principles of popular sovereignty.

By defending the right to land and water use, claiming their right to produce and exchange their traditional seeds, working for the recognition of their collective rights, freedom to organise in unions and a real status for women peasants etc… the Via Campesina and the Declaration of Peasants Rights provide answers to the things that are causing migration to occur in the first place.

We stand against the walls that are being built in a wave of totalitarian madness! It is essential to build bridges between peoples and connect the peasants of the world!

“Rather than taking up arms, let us take up solidarity” (M. Cissokho)

Agribusiness thrives on the exploitation of the smallest. Men and women, migrant workers have been uprooted and are highly fragile and vulnerable when faced by these economic predators and by “consenting” against their will to sacrificing their rights, they contribute to feeding the appetite of a system that is annihilating them.

In the Via Campesina and its member organisations, many different initiatives that resist and show solidarity have been created: training and support for migrant workers to ensure their rights are respected; information and awareness-raising of consumers; land occupation to install workers or migrants…

The Via Campesina and its allies open the path to food sovereignty for peoples and peasants without borders.

Newsletter no 34 – Editorial

Food Sovereignty and migration

Illustration: Banksy in NY

This edition is dedicated to the issue of migration and its implications for our struggle for food sovereignty. The so-called migration crisis has taken a highly tragic turn with Trump’s new anti-migrant policy of the inhuman separation of families and the imprisonment of migrant children in concentration camps, while the deaths in the Mediterranean of refugees that attempt to enter Europe continue.

The United Nations has stated that almost 300 thousand people have had to leave their homeland and try to enter countries that reject and criminalize them. They are people without a country.
Many escape due to the violence of the wars of occupation, others do so because of the disasters of the climate crisis and many more because of the inequities of this voracious and savage capitalism system.

While a good part of society is moved by the drama of migration, especially when they see images of children drowned in the Aegean Sea or children imprisoned in concentration camps in Texas, it seems that no one knows what to do to find a solution to migration.
For our part, the Collective on Migrations of La Vía Campesina proposes to understand migration as an act of resistance by the dispossessed.

When human beings leave their families, their communities and their lands, they are challenging the system that has condemned them to disappear as peasants, as indigenous people, as women, as people of color, as youth, as another culture, as a community and as a people. So migration is an act of resistance.

By understanding migration in this way, we recognize in the struggle of La Vía Campesina the key role of migrants and their potential as actors of change.
We hope that the testimonies, articles and positions found in this edition of Nyéléni will help all of us to understand the centrality of migration in our struggles to achieve food sovereignty of our peoples.

Collective on Migrations of La Vía Campesina