Towards participatory democratic agroecology: final June 2011 Agroecology and agrarian change in South Africa: Towards a participatory democratic agroecology By Stephen Greenberg Table of Contents Acronyms ................................................................................................................................................ ii 1. Introduction: The twilight of corporate-industrial agriculture and the search for alternatives..... 1 2. What is agroecology? ...................................................................................................................... 3 3. How does agroecology perform? .................................................................................................... 6 3.1 3.1.1 Yields as a measure of productivity ................................................................................ 6 3.1.2 Multi-functionality, ecosystem services and public goods ............................................. 9 3.2 Adaptation .................................................................................................................... 12 3.2.2 Diversity ........................................................................................................................ 13 3.2.3 Closing nutrient, energy and water cycles .................................................................... 14 Equitability: the right to food and food sovereignty ............................................................ 15 3.3.1 The Right to Food and food sovereignty ....................................................................... 15 3.3.2 A just trading regime? ................................................................................................... 16 3.4 Context specificity ................................................................................................................. 18 3.4.1 Context-spe ifi it a d the lo al ................................................................................. 20 3.4.2 Knowledge production and extension .......................................................................... 21 3.5 5. Stability and sustainability .................................................................................................... 12 3.2.1 3.3 4. Productivity ............................................................................................................................. 6 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 23 Agroecological practice in South Africa ........................................................................................ 24 4.1 Agroecosystems and indigenous knowledge ........................................................................ 24 4.2 Practical bases for agroecology in South Africa .................................................................... 27 Towards a participatory democratic agroecology: a research agenda ......................................... 35 Appendix 1: The agroecosystem ........................................................................................................... 39 Appendix 2: Multi-functionality of agriculture ..................................................................................... 40 Appendix 3: List of some organisations working on agroecology-related activities in South Africa .... 41 References ............................................................................................................................................ 42 Surplus People Project i Towards participatory democratic agroecology: final June 2011 Acronyms ACB ACM ANAP ARC ARC-VOPI BASED Bt CAP CASP CBNRM CBO COP CPA CSA CSIR DAFF EU FAO FGF FTFA GM IAASTD IKS IPM IPR KZN LVC NAFU NGO NOPI NPGRC OPV PELUM PES R&D SANBI SAOSO SEED SPP ToT UK UN US WARD WTO YARD African Centre for Biosafety Adaptive collaborative management Asociación Nacional de Agricultores Pequeños (National Association of Small Farmers), Cuba Agricultural Research Council Agricultural Research Council - Vegetable and Ornamental Plant Institute Broadening Agricultural Services for Extension Delivery programme Bacillus thuringiensis Common Agricultural Policy, European Union Comprehensive Agricultural Support Programme Community-based natural resource management Community-based organisation Conference of the Parties to the UN Climate Change Convention Consumer Protection Act, No.68 of 2008 Community-supported agriculture Council for Scientific and Industrial Research Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries European Union Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations Food Gardens Foundation Food and Trees for Africa Genetically-modified/genetic modification International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development Indigenous knowledge systems Integrated pest management Intellectual property rights KwaZulu-Natal La Via Campesina Natio al Af i a Fa e s U io Non-governmental organisation National Organic Produce Initiative National Plant Genetic Resources Centre Open-pollinated varieties Participatory Ecological Land Use Management Payment for ecosystem services Research and development South African National Biodiversity Institute South African Organic Sector Organisation School Environmental Education Development Surplus People Project Transfer-of-technology United Kingdom United Nations United States of America Women in Agricultural and Rural Development World Trade Organisation Youth in Agriculture and Rural Development Surplus People Project ii Towards participatory democratic agroecology: final 1. June 2011 Introduction: The twilight of corporate-industrial agriculture and the search for alternatives In the past 60 years global food production has kept up with, and even surpassed, global population growth. (Wright, 2009:16) This was achieved on the basis of new technologies – the so- alled G ee ‘e olutio te h ologies - in seed, soil fertility, water management and pest and disease management. These technologies emerged out of new scientific-industrial manufacturing processes arising in the aftermath of the Second World War in the 1940s. The new technologies were based on both the extensification and the intensification of production. Extensification refers to the physical expansion of the area under crops, as the new technologies permitted agricultural production on land previously not considered commercially or ecologically viable for agriculture. Irrigation overcame water constraints, improved seed varieties overcame genetic constraints in potential yields, manufactured fertilisers overcame soil fertility constraints, and synthetic chemicals overcame pests and diseases. Industrial agriculture emphasised productivity (i.e. yield increases) above all other considerations. From this point of view, it worked well for a time, and the global availability of food increased (even if access improved only unevenly).1 The price of food declined seemingly permanently (except for a few notable spikes at the time of the economic crisis in the early 1970s, and again from 2008 and continuing into the present). (Wright, 2009:16) The apparently permanent da pe i g of p i e suppo ted a ode isatio age da uilt o apid g o th i u a isatio a d industrialisation. Yet this model of agriculture came at a cost, which is now falling due for payment. A permanent decline in prices of major food crops resulted in the shedding of small scale farmers and growing concentration of ownership and control in agrofood systems, especially in countries that adopted Green Revolution technologies. (George, 1977) Corporate-industrial agriculture imposed a standardised form of production onto previously diverse production systems, and tied farmers into a dependent relationship with the increasingly corporate producers of manufactured inputs. The Green Revolution also contributed to corporate concentration with the underlying emphasis on standardisation and replication across different agro-ecological and cultural systems of production. Standardisation and replication of technical methods are rooted in the drive for profit and economies of scale that industrial harvesting, storage and processing require. The corporateindustrial food chain in South Africa is built on a similar basis of high industrial inputs producing greater yields and connecting into concentrated agrofood value chains, with corporate supermarkets and food processors, manufacturers and input suppliers dominating the agrofood system. As the industrial model of development began faltering from the 1970s – including in South Africa – the cities became less able to absorb the steady flow of migrants who were forced off the land and moved to towns and urban areas in the hope of finding a means of survival. They were marginalised within or on the edges of cities and towns, into slums that offered insecurity and little hope. For those who retained a foothold on the land, the growing concentration of land and wealth in the hands of a few meant an uneven battle to compete on markets structured by larger forces that overwhelmed local specificity. The G eat Leap Fo a d of the I dust ial ‘e olutio ought e technologies into agriculture, but it simultaneously demanded much more from agriculture, in particular that a smaller and smaller proportion of the population should produce enough to feed a larger and larger proportion of the population who were disconnected from the land and became wage labourers living in increasingly concentrated settlements. The sharp division in our societies between urban and rural, and the radical disconnection from land and the source of food for the 1 Availability refers to the actual production of food; access refers to individuals being entitled to use that food. Surplus People Project 1 Towards participatory democratic agroecology: final June 2011 vast majority in urban populations, imposes a fundamental question: in the face of the decline of industrial agriculture, how are we to produce enough food for everyone? The long-term ecological impact was equally damaging. The tale of soil degradation and nutrient depletion - caused by an agricultural system that treats the soil as a dead, inert carrier for synthetic nutrients rather than as a living system that has to be fed and nurtured - is by now a well-known and oft-repeated one (see, amongst others, IAASTD, 2009, De Schutter, 2010, Hoffmann, 2011). After the initial shock and awe of synthetic pesticides and herbicides, evolution kicked in and both pests and diseases (setting aside definitions for now) became more resilient and increasingly resistant to agrochemicals. During the time that the broad spectrum poisons worked, they vastly reduced pests and diseases, but simultaneously shrunk populations of beneficial insects and pest predators. The indiscriminate use of synthetic agrochemicals thus severely damaged historical systems of pest and disease management built up over millennia. By imposing homogenous monocultures across different ecological systems, biodiversity declined drastically. Since 1900, up to 75% of the genetic diversity of agricultural crops has been lost. (IAASTD, 2009:186, citing FAO) As some crops became dominant, in a global food system that has been converging towards uniformity in production and consumption patterns, this exposed global food supplies to increasing risk. (Fowler and Mooney, 1996) Wheat and rice yields are faltering globally (Muir, 2010), and although maize yields are still increasing, there is evidence that climate change is having a negative effect on them. (Lobell et al., 2011) Likewise, reports of pest resistance to pesticides and genetic modifications (Terra Daily, 2008, Lu et al., 2010), signify trouble on the horizon. The truth of the limits of industrial agriculture is so apparent that even the World Bank, the UN and governments around the world have recognised them and are casting around for other ways in hi h the o ld s populatio a e fed a d lothed a d p o ided ith e e g i the o i g ea s. (IAASTD, 2009, De Schutter, 2010) There are those with vested interests, with an eye on profits, who insist that the only way to go is forward, to invest in ever more abstract technologies like genetic modification and nanotechnology, as the path out of the crisis humanity is in. But technology arises from within a social structure. Genetic modification is firmly on the industrial agricultural pathway. It relies on monocultural production – indeed it is rooted in the need for plant uniformity to enable industrial harvesting. It is unimaginable outside the context of synthetic, oil-based agrochemicals – indeed its purpose is to encourage the use of branded agrochemicals by multinational corporations su h as Mo sa to, “ ge ta a d DuPo t to the e lusio of o petito s p odu ts. Mo sa to s Rou dup ‘ead odified seed, fo e a ple, e ui es Mo sa to s ‘ou dup he i ide, a d fa e s ust sig a o t a t i sisti g the use Mo sa to s p odu t e ept i o ditio s of oss-licensing agreements where corporations share the technologies and the profits between them). (Dillon, 2008, Monsanto, 2008) But an alternative, recognised not only by peasant movements such as La Via Campesina (LVC) but also increasingly by mainstream institutions such as the World Bank and UN (IAASTD, 2009, De Schutter, 2010, Hoffmann, 2011), lies in looking more closely at the way agriculture was practiced in the 10,000 years before the rise of industrial agriculture in the early- to mid-twentieth century. How did people survive on the land before synthetic fertilisers, pesticides and fungicides, before largescale dams and irrigation systems, before laboratory-produced hybrids and genetically-modified seeds? We need not romanticise the backbreaking efforts on the land before industrial agriculture in order to appreciate that agricultural production was both sustainable (it lasted 10,000 years) and that the accumulated knowledge built up over those thousands of years formed the basis for every agricultural technology we have at our disposal today. Agroecology is central to this search for alternatives. Fortunately, the practical basis for this option does exist. According to the ETC Group (2009), 85% of global agricultural production is still generated using non-industrial techniques, on the basis of decentralised and local processing and distribution of food, through what it calls the Surplus People Project 2 Towards participatory democratic agroecology: final June 2011 peasa t e , p o idi g food fo at least % of the o ld s populatio . I “outh Af i a, there were an estimated 1,1 million small-scale farming operations in 2000 (Statistics South Africa, 2002:7), most of which were disconnected from intensive external input use. Although these producers are currently very marginal in the overall agrofood system, they offer a material basis to begin exploring alternatives here. The main aim of this paper is to provide the contours of the discourse and practice of agroecology globally and situate South Africa in that context. There is growing agreement that agroecological practices are necessary, with the emphasis on small-scale, diversified farming systems and recognition of the centrality of the multi-functional character of agriculture. The paper seeks to begin exploring the feasibility of an agroecological strategy in South Africa, identifying some of the obstacles and opportunities, both conceptual and practical. It starts with a theoretical and conceptual overview of what agroecology is, where it has emerged from, and some of its dimensions. Go do Co a s i di ato s of ag oe os ste pe fo a e – productivity, stability, sustainability and equitability – are used as a framework for discussing the potential of an agroecological alternative to corporate-industrial agriculture. Nested within these are three core elements: the multi-functionality of agriculture; diversity; and local, context-specific knowledge. There is a dedicated discussion on different agricultural knowledge systems, with extension methodologies and practices as a fundamental pivot around which system change might occur. The paper then moves onto the practical, conceptual and policy bases for an agroecological culture in South Africa. At this stage, this provides an overview of some organisations and the policies and conceptual frameworks that form the basis for agroecological practice in South Africa. Some key questions and issues and potential priority points for further work are proposed. Agroecology encompasses the entire agricultural and environmental spheres, and their integration into social and economic systems. It is not possible in a single paper to deal exhaustively with all components of agroecology. The paper thus aims to make a modest start at outlining some of the broad areas needing consideration as we proceed in practice. 2. What is agroecology? Box 1: Core elements of agroecology  Adapting agricultural practices to the natural ecosystem rather than adapting the ecosystem to agricultural practices;  Application of ecological principles to agricultural practices, with an emphasis on diversity, adaptation, multi-functionality and closed energy and nutrient cycles;  Local context-specificity in the application of these principles and in the design of production systems. Agroecology is the art and science of integrating agricultural production into the functioning of the broader ecosystem rather than resisting the ecosystem. The fundamental difference between industrial agriculture as we know it today and agroecology is that the former seeks to change the environment to suit its own practices while the latter seeks to adapt its practices to suit the environment. Agroecology is a scientific discipline that arose from the merging of agronomy and ecology. Wikipedia2 defines agronomy as the s ie e a d te h olog of p odu i g a d usi g pla ts fo food, fuel, feed, fi e, a d e olog as the scientific study of the relations that living organisms have with respect to each other and their natural environment. Agroecology originally emerged as the focus of agricultural science shifted from maximising production to mechanisms linking the costs of agriculture (e.g. loss of nutrients and biodiversity and soil degradation) to the benefits of 2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agronomy; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecology Surplus People Project 3 Towards participatory democratic agroecology: final June 2011 agriculture (e.g. production, wealth generation and landscape maintenance). (Dalgaard et al., 2003:40) From a narrow, technical point of view, agroecological practice seeks to minimise negative effects on the ecosystem. This can occur with a focus on the plot or field as the agroecosystem, with exclusive analysis on crop–pest and crop–weed interaction with a particular emphasis on natural processes (Wezel and Soldat, 2009:14), and the agenda might be no more than regulating the impact of agriculture on the natural environment. Box 2: Are organic agriculture and sustainable agriculture interchangeable with agroecology? The Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF) considers agroecology to be a subcategory within the broader category of organic farming (Department of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries, 2010a:12). Organic agricultural techniques have much in common with agroecological production. However, the mainstreaming of organic farming globally has led to the replication of practices more often associated with corporate-industrial agriculture. For example in some cases, organic agriculture has started to resemble the large-scale monocultures of conventional farming, remaining reliant on external inputs (albeit not synthetic). Organic practices also may be superimposed on conventional processing systems with little system change. (Monk, 1999:78, Ramprasad, 2009, Rosset et al., 2011) Organic agriculture can lead to higher incomes for farmers, but this is based on market segmentation where wealthier consumers pay a premium. Organic demand is increasingly driven by big retailers and, for the South, the emphasis is on export markets. (IAASTD, 2009:184) Certification and compliance systems to participate in these niche markets are onerous, especially for resource-poor farmers. Furthermore, these niches with premiums are only possible in the context of global markets which reproduce major problems of social inequality and unsustainable energy use (global supply chains requiring long-distance transport further deplete non-renewable resources like fossil fuels). Sustainable agriculture has grown in popularity as a term in the context of the growing ecological crisis, in recognition of the damage synthetic inputs have caused. As with agroecology and organic agriculture, it is a contested term that ranges from defining low external input agricultural systems to modified industrial agriculture. Agrochemical companies, for example, claim no-till (a sustainable agricultural technique) as a benefit of using their broad spectrum synthetic herbicides, since a round of nitrogen-fixing plants can be eliminated without digging just before the primary crop is planted. Or the use of Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) is lauded as a biological rather than a synthetic response to bollworm, yet it is incorporated on the basis of genetic modification requiring a vast scientific-industrial apparatus. Where the focus is merely on substitution of more damaging inputs for less damaging ones, the capital-intensive, monoculture-based system of conventional agriculture may be left intact (Rosset and Altieri 1997:289). Agroecological practice may adopt many of the methodologies and techniques that make it akin to organic and sustainable agriculture. Yet the essential requirement of adapting agricultural practice to ecological conditions in a locally-specific and holistic manner brings into question more than just production techniques. But others propose to stretch the concept of agroecology across the entire agrofood system. Francis et al. (2003:101), for example, seek to incorporate the ecology of food systems in their totality, to look at how ecology can inform the design and management of the total food system. This allows for consideration of the global ecological impact of producing food. For example, the impact of credit or trade policy has a direct effect on production practices and must be taken into account. Conway (1997) shows the interconnections between the micro-ecological level within the field or Surplus People Project 4 Towards participatory democratic agroecology: final June 2011 paddock, and the macro-ecological levels at the household, nation and world (see Appendix 1). Decisions and actions anywhere along this hierarchy affect the farming system. Decisions about tilling practices, government fertiliser subsidies and financial bailouts of US banks each contribute to shaping the farming system. Adopting an approach based on the ecology of food systems enables us to integrate broader issues of power relations and the structures and processes that flow from that and which have a significant effect on what happens within the farming system. This allows us to nest the technical aspects of farming into a livelihoods approach as well, recognising that farmers or food producers might deploy a range of strategies apart from farming (some which may be interconnected). This is relevant in South Africa too, where the concept of a full-time farmer – even for commercial farmers – is rapidly becoming obsolete. Agroecology calls for the application of ecological principles to agricultural practice. There are many different versions of these principles, but they have in common an emphasis on diversity, integration, adaptation, closed energy and nutrient cycles, and multiple functions at all levels of the ecosystem. For our purposes, the distillation of ecological principles for the purpose of human interaction with ecosystems is well summed up in the 12 permaculture principles (Box 3). Box 3: Permaculture principles 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Observe and interact - By taking time to engage with nature we can design solutions that suit our particular situation. Catch and store energy - By developing systems that collect resources at peak abundance, we can use them in times of need. Obtain a yield - Ensure you are getting truly useful rewards as part of the work you are doing. Apply self-regulation and accept feedback - We need to discourage inappropriate activity to ensure that systems can continue to function well. Use and value renewable resources and services - Make the best use of nature's abundance to reduce our consumptive behaviour and dependence on non-renewable resources. Produce no waste - By valuing and making use of all the resources that are available to us, nothing goes to waste. Design from patterns to details - By stepping back, we can observe patterns in nature and society. These can form the backbone of our designs, with the details filled in as we go. Integrate rather than segregate - By putting the right things in the right place, relationships develop between those things and they work together to support each other. Use small and slow solutions - Small and slow systems are easier to maintain than big ones, making better use of local resources and producing more sustainable outcomes. Use and value diversity - Diversity reduces vulnerability to a variety of threats and takes advantage of the unique nature of the environment in which it resides. Use edges and value the marginal - The interface between things is where the most interesting events take place. These are often the most valuable, diverse and productive elements in the system. Creatively use and respond to change - We can have a positive impact on inevitable change by carefully observing, and then intervening at the right time. http://permacultureprinciples.com/principles.php DAFF (2010a) says agroecology is based on i) the application of ecology to the design and management of sustainable agro-ecosystems; ii) a whole-systems approach to agriculture and food systems development based on traditional knowledge, alternative agriculture, and local food system experiences, and iii) linking ecology, culture, economics, and society to sustain agricultural production, healthy environments, and viable food and farming communities. According to De Schutter (2010:6) core principles include recycling nutrients and energy on the farm, rather than Surplus People Project 5 Towards participatory democratic agroecology: final June 2011 introducing external inputs; integrating crops and livestock; diversifying species and genetic resources in agroecosystems over time and space; and focusing on interactions and productivity across the agricultural system, rather than focusing on individual species. The greater the structural and functional similarity of an agroecosystem to the natural ecosystems in its biogeographic region, the greater the likelihood that the agroecosystem ill e sustai a le. (Gliessman, cited in Francis et al., 2003:102) Technically this involves effo ts to i i the functioning of local ecosystems thus exhibiting tight nutrient cycling, complex structure and enhanced biodiversity a d ide tif i g a d usi g op pla ts that a e structurally and functionally similar to the plants of the natural ecosystem. (Altieri, 2002:8-9) System design principles should thus mirror those of natural ecosystems. (Francis et al., 2003:103) Local specificity in ecosystems requires local specificity in the design of production systems and the application of the broad principles, and hence the same practices will not be applied in every place. The main strategy lies in the use of agroecological principles as part of the design criterion, thus replacing what has become a strictly economic decision-making process with one that also includes ecological ideas. (Altieri, 2002:9) Agroecological principles have universal applicability but the technological forms through which those principles become operational depend on the prevailing environmental and socioeconomic conditions at each site. (Altieri, 2002:7) 3. How does agroecology perform? Box 4: Indicators of the performance of an agroecosystem Productivity – the output of valued product per unit of resource input. Stability – The constancy of productivity in the face of the normal fluctuations and cycles in the surrounding environment. Sustainability – The ability of the agroecosystem to maintain productivity when subject to stresses or shocks. Equitability – The evenness of distribution of the productivity of the agroecosystem among the human beneficiaries, i.e. the level of equity that is generated. (Conway, 1997:173) Gordon Conway (1997) has presented a useful guide to adjudging the performance of an agroecosystem (Box 4). The indicators are productivity; stability; sustainability and equitability. The aim is to produce enough, but in a way that can continue long into the future and is resilient in the face of long-term stresses and sudden, unexpected shocks. The outputs of this production system should be equitably distributed between everyone involved. This section uses these indicators as a framework for considering some core aspects of agroecology. 3.1 Productivity 3.1.1 Yields as a measure of productivity The function of a farming system is to produce enough food, fibre and fuel to meet the needs of a defined population. That population might be defined at the level of individuals and households or at the level of entire nations or the o ld s populatio . Hu a su i al is depe de t o this s ste functioning properly. The mainstream measure of productivity focuses narrowly on yields. The Green Revolution definition of yield focuses on agricultural output in mass per unit area (e.g. tons/hectare). The entire mainstream agricultural support edifice (R&D, extension, infrastructure, markets) for the past 60 years at least has emphasised yield gains at the expense, as we have seen, Surplus People Project 6 Towards participatory democratic agroecology: final June 2011 of ecological and social concerns. But global yields have begun to stagnate in recent years3. All this effort was focused on improving yields by pumping chemicals into the soil and relying on unsustainable use of water and energy resources. Other fairly mainstream measures of productivity were later added, such as output of calories, proteins and vitamins (nutritionists) or monetary value of production (economists). (Conway, 1997:173) But even by these measures, the productivity of industrial agriculture has declined consistently since the explosion of production in the 1950s. There is evidence of a trade-off between yields and nutrient levels, with modern high-yielding varieties generally having lower concentrations of nutrients than older, typically lower-yielding varieties. Government data from the US and UK sho s that the concentration of a range of essential nutrients in the food supply has declined in the last few decades, with double digit percentage declines of iron, zinc, calcium, selenium and other essential nutrients across a wide range of common foods. (Halweil, 2007:1) There is some suggestion that, even on the basis of a narrow definition of productivity based on yields, agroecological practices can outstrip industrial agriculture, at least at the farm level (Box 5). On the basis of an overview of research conducted between 2005 and 2010, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food concluded that agroecology raises productivity at the farm level (De Schutter, 2010:7) using resource conserving low-external input techniques such as integrated nutrient management, agroforestry, water harvesting, and integration of livestock into farming systems. A UN study on organic farming in 2008 (UNEP-UNCTAD, 2008) concluded that building from an already existing base of low-external input production means there is no dip in yields first, as is the case with conversion from external input intensive production systems. Box 5: Yields from agroecological production    In a survey of sustainable agriculture projects in 57 poor countries covering 37 million ha, Pretty, et al. (2006) found that productivity increased by an average of 79% using resourceconserving techniques, and this was even higher in Africa. Based on a re-examination of Pretty et al. s data to fo us o Af i a, a stud the UN (UNEP-UNCTAD, 2008) found that agricultural yields in organic systems in Africa did not fall, and at least remained stable when converting from systems that use relatively low amounts of synthetic inputs. As assets (including natural, social and human) improved over time, lowexternal input agricultural practices were capable of producing yields that matched those of conventional agriculture. The data showed that 114 organic projects with 1.9 million farmers had an average change in crop yields of 116%. In Kenya, 18 projects with 1 million farmers showed yields from organic farming increased by up to 179%. The UK Go e e t s Offi e fo “ ie e (2009) conducted research on 40 projects in 20 countries in Africa, covering 10.4 million farmers on 12.8 million ha who were practicing some version of agroecological or sustainable production techniques. The research found that crop yields increased by an average of 213% over a period of 3-10 years. Integrated pest management was the most effective intervention in generating increased yields. There is a relationship between this data and the ongoing debate about the inverse relationship between farm size and yields. (Byres, 2004, Dyer, 2004) The latter debate centres on the claim that small farms tend to have higher yields per unit area than larger farms. Griffin et al. (2004:368) argue that the inverse relationship4 is a tendency, not a law that applies everywhere at all times. For 3 “ee, fo e a ple, the F e h Ag i ultu e Mi iste s spee h to the UN Ge e al Assembly on 17 February 2011, http://www.franceonu.org/spip.php?article5380 – accessed 23 March 2011 4 The smaller the farm size, the greater the per hectare output Surplus People Project 7 Towards participatory democratic agroecology: final June 2011 example, if larger farms occupy land with higher natural fertility (as is the case in parts of South Africa) or if economies of scale in cultivation are important, then larger farms might have higher productivity. Coercive systems of labour control and the exploitation of family labour (unpaid labour of women and children) may also underpin the greater productivity of small farms. (Griffin et al., 2004:367, Sender and Johnson, 2004) This refers to equitability, and it is clear that productivity as a measure of the performance of a farming system must be mediated by other issues. A question often asked is to what extent organic agriculture (if not explicitly agroecology) could be scaled up to the global level, i.e. whether organic agricultural techniques could fully replace industrial agriculture and produce enough for future needs. Based on a survey of studies looking at the productive potential of organic agriculture, a number of authors propose that organic agriculture has the potential to feed the world. Badgley and Perfecto (2007) built their argument on datasets on yield ratios that showed that organic yields can provide enough calories for everyone to eat as they were eating at the time of the report (setting aside issues of distribution for now). Secondly, data from 77 published studies showed that the use of green manures of nitrogen-fixing legumes could replace the entire amount of synthetic nitrogen fertiliser in use at that time. However they make the point that yields alone can not guarantee the end of hunger, and that food policies are important determinants. Halberg et al. (2005) suggest that food policies that emphasise local food availability ahead of export products could facilitate a smooth transition from conventional to organic agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa. The broad point is that organic yields are not necessarily lower than those of industrial agriculture even at scale. The arguments in support of the potential of organic agriculture as a large-scale replacement of conventional agriculture have come in for some criticism, based on research methodologies and also on the reality of agricultural production on the ground. (Cassman, 2007, Center for Global Food Issues, 2007, Hendrix, 2007) But whatever the rights and wrongs (and it can never be truly established except in practice), it is a fruitless exercise because it assumes the same demand profile and consumption and settlement patterns as we have under industrial agriculture, including the megacities we see in front of us today. Agroecology requires a different mindset. It is impossible as a dominant practice within a capitalist structure. If the model is grounded on local and context specificity, decentralisation and localisation are inherent in the concept, requiring a different way of living. The debate does raise questions about the extent to which agroecology as a total alternative to industrial agriculture and whether coexistence is feasible or not. The recent UN Report on agroecology and the right to food (De Schutter, 2010) considers agroecology to be complementary to the industrial model of agriculture, rather than exclusive. This cannot be answered in the abstract. Rather, we need to look at the balance of forces and see what is feasible in the present. What is the basis for an expansion of agroecological production that we can recognise as having at least some productive potential, even while we need not pin our colours firmly to the mast of saying it is the o plete solutio i a d of itself to the food, fi e a d fuel eeds of the o ld s populatio ? It needs to be looked at practically. We are not in a position to propose a complete alternative at this stage, especially in the context the majority (for example in South Africa) getting most of their food from the corporate-industrial system. Thus the question is more how to identify ways agroecology can improve socially and ecologically sustainable production as well as yields and where, geographically speaking, that can start happening in practice. There are systemic constraints, which are dealt with in greater detail below in the section on agroecology in South Africa. Hewlett and Melchett (2008) conducted their own survey of the literature to support claims that organic agricultural yields could be sufficient to meet future food needs. However, they proposed refocusing the debate about the potential of organic or agroecological production to match Surplus People Project 8 Towards participatory democratic agroecology: final June 2011 conventional yields, extending this to include issues of nutritional content, equity and resource use in a resource-constrained environment. The picture becomes more complicated because in specific contexts, yield is not always the most important quality farmers look for in a crop. For example, farmers may place greater emphasis on ability to market, resistance to pests and disease, or labour requirements (Conway, 1997:188) and there are gendered and cultural differences in selecting varieties for taste, ability to store or preparation issues. Decisions about what aspects of productivity and yield must be adopted therefore have to be decentralised to farmers and the community of users. This local specificity is a hallmark of agroecological approaches and makes standardisation obsolete. This has profound implications for the technicalities of agroecological practice, and fundamentally requires democratic participation of farmers and consumers in decisions about selection. 3.1.2 Multi-functionality, ecosystem services and public goods We can go beyond this and consider the many other outputs generated by the agroecosystem. Agriculture produces a combination of public goods (landscape maintenance, stewardship of natural resources) and goods that are privately owned but with a social function (food, fuel, fibre). This multi-functionality is an intrinsic part of agroecology (Appendix 2). It recognises that agriculture goes beyond the production of food, fibre and fuel to include other externalities, some of which are positive and some of which are negative. These include ecological and social dimensions. The emphasis on production for trade undermined sustenance of ulti-dimensional, place-based functionality in both its biophysical and socio-cultural dimensions. (IAASTD, 2009:61) The concept of multi-functionality seeks to reintegrate agriculture into the rural environment, hence its conceptual importance for agroecology. However, multi-functionality is a contested term. It rose to prominence in the WTO Doha negotiations as part of the restructuring of the EU s Co o Ag i ultu al Poli CAP . The EU offered an instrumentalist and economistic view of multi-functionality that emphasised the duality of commodity/non-commodity production and focused on the policy level. The many functions of agriculture were divided into those that were already commodified and those that were not yet commodified, and sought to place a value o the latte . The p odu ti ist phase of ag i ultu e took agriculture out of the rural environment. (Marsden, 1999:510) This version of multi-functionality tended to reinforce the p odu ti ist odel of ag i ultu e, emphasising productivity above other aspects of agroecosystem performance (to remain ith Co a s indicators). But this version of multi-functionality coexists with market productivism rather than breaking with it, although it remained contested even amongst European farmers. (Potter and Tilzey, 2007) An alternative is to consider multi-functionality at the farm level, where its expression leads to ta gi le ha ges i the fa ed la ds ape, ag i ultu al-community interactions, and the quality of food and fibre production. (Wilson, 2008:369) Wilson (2008:368) presents a spectrum of multifunctionality ranging from strong to weak, with strong multi-functionality characterised by strong local embeddedness with strong governance structures, co-operation between stakeholders in the food supply chain, high environmental sustainability, localisation of food chains, weak integration into global capitalist markets, lower farming intensity and productivity, higher food quality with differentiated food demand from consumers. The scale slides away from each of these dimensions as multi-functionality gets weaker. However, Wilson also indicates that pathways towards strong multi-functionality are not evenly accessible to all farmers. Farm type and agroecological context determine the possibilities of farm-level multi-functionality. Wilson places small, economically marginal farms in developing countries on the edge of a continuum where the enabling factors for strong multi-functionality are the most constrained, and hence at best they can only realise a moderate multi-functionality. (Wilson, 2008:370) Similarly, he says that multi-owner farms are more Surplus People Project 9 Towards participatory democratic agroecology: final June 2011 constrained in shifting towards strong multi-functionality than single owner-occupied farms since majority or consensus decisions are required to make changes on the farm (Wilson, 2008:373). However, these farmers are still less constrained than tenant farmers who have very little decisionmaking power at farm level. The dominant discourse looks at multi-functionality from the angle of potential new avenues for accumulation. Hence these externalities must be quantified and brought into a structured system that can place a value on them and hence bring them to the market. Marsden (1999:506) calls this a eo de i g i the alue o st u tio of u al esou es. The market logic is that if something has value to human beings it should in principle be able to be bought and sold on the market. Once this valued product or service has been identified, the task is to quantify it and establish institutional arrangements to enable it to be turned into a commodity with a monetary value. Carbon credits are one example of this in recent times, where the desire for solutions to the dangers of climate change is converted into a trading system for profit. Ecosystem services are another, with particular reference to the multi-functionality of agriculture. These are part of the mainstream greening of the economy that seeks to retrofit capitalism with clean technologies while retaining capital accumulation as the engine of economic activity, i.e. accommodating multi-functionality into market productivism. But accumulation as the driving force of the economy leads both to socially inefficient allocation of resources and to an endless pursuit of growth even in conditions where it is apparent that there are limits to the natural resource base that underpins growth. Complexity emerges from the fact that there are positive externalities from agricultural practice that are essential for sustaining ecosystems and the social fabric. It is important to recognise the positive non-commodity roles agriculture plays. At the macro-level these include landscape maintenance, climate regulation and social stability. At more localised levels they can include water provision, waste treatment capacity, nutrient management, watershed functions and others (IAASTD, 2009:462). The ecosystem se i es of soil i lude: (1) services that support the growth of plants, including nutrient regulation, water supply and water cycle; (2) storage of carbon in soil organic matter and hence regulation of greenhouse gases; (3) regulation of the impact of pollutants through biological activities and absorption on soil particles; (4) habitat for a very large component of biodiversity (e.g., soil micro-organisms and invertebrates); (5) biodiversity pool, such as habitats, species and genes; (6) physical and cultural environment for humans and human activities; (7) source of raw materials; (8) archive of geological and archaeological heritage (Kibble-White et al., cited in IAASTD, 2009:446). But how can these be quantified, and should they be? GRAIN notes the insidious shift from p i atisatio th ough i telle tual p ope t ights a d atu al apital to the otio of e os ste services or environmental services. The otio is that pa i g fa e s fo these positi e environmental externalities the e ill e a i e ti e to sustai a l a age the e os ste f o which these services (and revenues) flow. This is based on the idea that people will only protect something if they can gain personal benefit from doing it. (GRAIN, 2005:39) The IAASTD (2009:463) argues that most benefits could accrue to large landowners and suggest that promoting rural livelihoods must be an explicitly stated goal in payment schemes. However, it supports the principle of payment for ecosystem services (PES) (IAASTD, 2009:442) as being potentially beneficial as an income generator for resource-poor farmers. It is questionable to what extent resource-poor farmers would benefit from PES. GRAIN (2005:35) suggests that o st u ti g these positi e e te alities as e os ste se i es i ds s all fa e s i to pa ti ula a ti ities hi h oth edu e their flexibility and present potential dangers of expropriation if they do not carry out these services in accordance with top-down agreements. Surplus People Project 10 Towards participatory democratic agroecology: final June 2011 The other question is who exactly should pay for these services? Should the cost be incorporated into the price of agricultural products? But everyone benefits and the poor spend a disproportionately large amount of their income on food, so they would effectively subsidise other o su e s. The a ketisatio of positi e e te alities the efo e has the pote tial to p odu e skewed results. PES is thus a way of attempting to bring the market into this space where ecosystem goods or services might be quantified and commodified, not only to fill in the gaps where the state cannot provide resources, but also to capture parts of ecosystem maintenance that can be converted into profitable activities. An alternative concept to PES is that of pu li goods ge e ated ag i ultu e, as used i the EU s CAP. Pu li goods a e ha a te ised o -rivalry and non-excludability, which means that no-one can exclude someone else from enjoying them and that, in enjoying them, their supply is not depleted. This makes such goods difficult to commodify. Consumers have no incentive to pay for them (like the air we breathe!) and farmers thus have no incentive to produce them, in the logic of the market. Therefore the state needs to provide payments to ensure that farmers keep providing these services (Institute for European Environmental Policy, 2010:3). The emphasis is therefore on the use of public resources to support the provision of these public goods, and this is a slogan adopted by environmental NGOs in the EU. In the EU there are efforts by current beneficiaries of agricultural subsidies to widen the definition of public goods into any sort of public benefit and thereby justify ongoing subsidies for agricultural practices that are not ecologically sound. Agricultural subsidy systems in both the EU and the US have long been captured by agribusiness interests. In the US the top 1% of farming subsidy recipients took 20% of the value of payments in 2009, and the top 10% took 61% of total payments. (Environmental Working Group, 2010) In the EU, multinational food companies such as Tate & Lyle and Nestle are amongst the all-time top recipients of farm subsidies from the state.5 This is not to say all subsidies necessarily lead to elite capture, but the almost inevitable bureaucratisation of management of such systems creates opportunities for this. In any case, it is not very realistic to demand that the South African government begin quantifying ecosystem services (or public goods from agriculture), work out mechanisms to pay for them and then make payments. The conditions in the EU are not the same as in South Africa and other peripheral or semi-peripheral countries. Countries without resources to subsidise such goods will not be able to secure these goods in this way. In addition, payments will be directed towards those with ownership of the land. So in a country like South Africa, where land is extremely inequitably distributed, it will reinforce inequality. We need to think of different ways in which positive externalities of agriculture are recognised and valued in the society. So far, the only answers are through the market and the state. What other alternatives are there which might emerge from civil society? Agroecology proposes a different way of thinking about these positive externalities, seeing them as an intrinsic, inseparable part of agricultural practice. However, we are very far from valuing or even recognising these externalities in South Africa. That remains an area of work to be considered further. The notion of a spectrum of multi-functionality from weak to strong and constraints facing different types of farms in different contexts is useful in considering the possibilities for shifting towards agroecological practice. It suggests that multi-functional agroecological practices can be built iteratively based on concrete conditions, and there is not an either-or approach to practice. Farmers define where they want to go and then construct the pathway in that direction over time, not without some reversals and changes in tactics or strategies depending on what arises in the process. It is a constant movement towards, not a destination. Agroecology is not a finished product, but an 5 http://farmsubsidy.org/ - accessed 23 March 2011 Surplus People Project 11 Towards participatory democratic agroecology: final June 2011 orientation. This relates to the permaculture principle of small and slow solutions being more manageable and more likely to produce more sustainable outcomes. 3.2 Stability and sustainability According to the IAASTD (2009:106), yield maximisation is no longer the key issue in agriculture. Of more importance now is long-term stability and resilience in the face of unknown stresses. Stability and sustainability of the agroecosystem are closely related to productivity in that they refer to the conditions under which production is possible. Stability relates to variability in the face of relatively minor and commonplace disturbing forces, the usual fluctuations any production system encounters, for example climate variability, or variations in market prices of inputs and products. Sustainability is concerned with the insidious or rarer or less-expected changes and the ability of the agroecosystem to respond and adapt to these. (Conway, 1997:175) Using livelihoods terminology, issues of stability and sustainability are about coping with stresses and shocks that a system faces. Stresses are underlying conditions that make production difficult or that wear away at the ecosystem without necessarily leading to an open crisis. For example, a sick person with HIV/AIDS is a stressor for a household, because the household has to adapt its productive activities to accommodate for care and the inability of the sick person to contribute labour. A shock is a sudden change in circumstances, and may be connected to long-term stresses. For example, the death of a member of a household is a shock that permanently alters the livelihoods structure of a household. Stresses and shocks are also present at the level of the broader agroecosystem. For example, trade liberalisation and the constant flow of cheap products into a country or area below the cost of production constitutes a stress on the entire system. Economic collapse, like in Zimbabwe where the currency became worthless, emerged from long-term stresses but became a shock with fundamental implications for the functioning of the agrofood system as a whole, and the relations between its components. 3.2.1 Adaptation Stability and sustainability of an agroecosystem refer to the ability of the system to withstand or adapt to stresses and shocks. There are two sides to this. On the one side is flexibility and adaptability. On the other side is the availability of reserves to smooth the effects of a shock. A simple example is grain storage in a time when there is a supply shock caused by a drought. That reserve of grain can allow supplies to continue flowing for a time. The way the reserve is managed and what signals it responds to (price signals on the market or regulatory signals through government) will determine its effectiveness as an absorber of shocks. A whole field of study has developed around adaptation and adaptive management in agriculture, especially in relation to climate change. The focus is building flexibility into the agricultural system and into responses to stresses and shocks. Adaptive collaborative management (ACM) is a learning methodology that advocates building on uncertainty and surprise and taking experimental action to learn from doing. Adaptation involves changing assumptions and interventions based on what you learn in practice. (Hijweege, 2008:2) Community-based management enhances adaptive capacity by building networks that are important for coping with extreme events, and by retaining the resilience of the underlying resources and ecological systems. (Tompkins and Adger, 2004) An agroecological approach is recognised as being more capable of responding effectively to stresses and shocks (Box 6). Surplus People Project 12 Towards participatory democratic agroecology: final June 2011 Box 6: Enhancing resilience to stresses and shocks    3.2.2 Following Hurricane Mitch in Nicaragua in 1998, agroecological plots were found to have lost an average of 18% less arable land to landslides than conventional plots, and had 69% less gully erosion than conventional plots. Studies in Malawi and Ethiopia showed that drought resistance was enhanced through agroforestry as a result of better soil filtration and improved physical properties of soils. (De Schutter, 2010:13) Up to 89% of the potential of agriculture to mitigate climate change is through carbon sequestration in soil, storing carbon as soil organic matter (humus), which is core to agroecology. (De Schutter, 2010:13-14, Hoffmann, 2011) Diversity Agroecology recognises there is no one-size-fits-all formula for agricultural production and ecosystem maintenance.6 At its base, agroecology proposes a diversity of production systems to suit spe ifi o ditio s. This ight i o po ate e te al te h ologies to a g eate o lesse e te t, ut from the angle of sustainability and stability, the emphasis is on building adaptable and resilient systems. Diversity across the dimensions of the system facilitates this. Conway recognises diversity as a key to minimising the trade-offs between the different elements in the performance of the agroecosystem. Diversity helps to stabilise production, buffers against stresses and shocks, and contributes to a more valued level of production. (Conway, 1997:177) At the level of the farm and within a region of farms, a diverse production system can produce a mixture of food, fibres, medicines and fuel.7 Diversity in production reflects diversity in natural ecosystems for which genetic diversity is a fundamental base. We never see naturally-occurring genetic uniformity. Diversification includes crops, trees and animal species; integration, considering the dynamic exchange and recycling of energy and nutrients among the different components of each system; and self-sufficiency, referring to the extent to which the system is able to satisfy its own needs without requiring considerable external inputs. (Funes-Monzote et al., 2009:9) In practice, a six-year study of 93 mixed farms of various sizes and in varying agroecological zones in Cu a fou d that i easi g a fa s di e sit , fo e a ple ith a i ed op-livestock system, increases its overall productivity, energy efficiency and nutrient management. (Funes-Monzote et al., 2009) If one part of the system fails, other parts can still succeed, in contrast to standardised and uniform systems like monocropping, where no alternatives are built in to the system. There are also benefits of diversity at a more macro-level, across agricultural production. A production system that is uniformly built on industrial agriculture leaves very little leeway for unforeseen circumstances. Food produced on large-scale farms, processed centrally and centrally distributed through large-scale 6 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agroecology - accessed 8 March 2011 As an aside, there is certainly a role in agroecology for the production of energy sources as part of the diversity of production. Biofuel is essentially the use of biomass to produce energy. Humans have been doing this for thousands of years, for example through the burning of firewood or dung. The African Centre for Biosafety (ACB) specifically distinguishes between biofuels and agrofuels, with the latter being defined as ethanol and diesel production based on biomass produced through cultivated crops. (African Centre for Biosafety, 2008) With the growing energy crisis, these are increasingly geared towards industrial processes. Although biofuels have been presented as a large-scale industrial activity, but they could play a role in a di e se p odu tio s ste as a i te stitial a ti it that is lo all p o essed a d used to espo d to e e g po e t , espe iall of the u al populatio . (Milder et al., 2008) 7 Surplus People Project 13 Towards participatory democratic agroecology: final June 2011 supermarkets is highly reliant on energy- and capital-intensive processes. Should a crisis occur at this level, there is no resilience. However, if the agrofood system has more diversity in it, for example a range of farm sizes and production techniques, and decentralised processing and distribution systems, there is a greater inbuilt resilience that can enhance stability and sustainability of the food system. 3.2.3 Closing nutrient, energy and water cycles Sustainability requires some level of self-sufficiency, in particular in on-farm fertility production, energy and water use. Agroecological practice is based on the concept of closed rather than open systems, including nutrient cycles. The aim is to learn from cycling processes and the designs of natural systems, looking at the total flow of energy and materials and returning as much as possible to the fields. This raises questions about the distances between production and consumption, because nutrients, energy and waste inevitably escape the closed system if the links are too far removed. For example, what possibility is there of returning nutrients and waste into the cycle if products are shipped across the globe for consumption elsewhere? Leaving that aside for later, we can concentrate for now on closed nutrient cycles at the farm level. If a yield is to be sustainable, nutrients have to be replaced to maintain fertility levels. Where do the resources for this come from? The conventional answer is to draw on external resources (fertilisers), but there are also ways of boosting natural fertility. Soil fertility in agroecological practice would involve some combination of worm composting of crop residues, constant incorporation of organic matter into the soil, pasturing animals on crop residues and using their manure as fertilizer, intercropping with nitrogenfixing legumes, and/or the promotion and maintenance of an active soil biology. (Rosset et al., 2011:164) The greater the reliance on external resources, the less control the producer has over the farming system. Price volatility increases the risk because of the possibility of sudden changes in price or availability of inputs. This is actually a major problem even for large-scale commercial farmers in South Africa, where prices of fuel, fertilisers and feed - the three major input costs for agriculture have increased sharply in the past decade, peaking in 2008 during the height of the global boom but remaining high even after the subsequent economic collapse. (Department of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries, 2010b:100) Dependence on these standardised inputs may also make the farming system more vulnerable to the vagaries of the local environment, because seeds and nutrients are not entirely adapted to local conditions. The alternative is the sustainable use of non-commodified local resources e.g. natural predators of pests, green manures and bacteria for supplying nitrogen, cropping systems that reduce erosion, and indigenous crop varieties adapted to local conditions. These may be lower yielding, but they will be better adapted. (Conway, 1997:172) Agricultural technologies with a high potential for sustainability (i.e. an ability to adapt to or recover quickly from stresses and shocks) include intercropping, crop rotation, agroforestry (herbaceous crops interspersed with perennial trees and shrubs), sylvopasture (mixing trees, grasses and fodder crops), green manuring (growing nitrogen-fixing crops), conservation tillage (including minimum and no-till techniques), biological control of pests (using natural enemies or predators to control pests) and integrated pest management (IPM). (Conway, 1997:170) IPM emphasises biological and cultural control of pests (insects that damage cultivated crops). The mainstream approach is to combine these methods with selective application of chemicals that do not harm pest predators. (IAASTD, 2009:99) It leads to reduced pesticide exposure and reduced pesticide residues in food. As with agroecology as a whole, some IPM techniques focus narrowly on improving crop productivity, and look at the discriminate use of pesticides; others emphasise bio-intensive or ecological pest management in the context of low external input agriculture. However, biological control is by definition site-specific and thus locally-adapted. It Surplus People Project 14 Towards participatory democratic agroecology: final June 2011 seldom produces products that can be widely marketed and the private sector has therefore ignored it. (IAASTD, 2009:102) Integrated nutrient management is a similar approach to IPM, reconciling the need to fix nitrogen within the farming system with importing nutrients into the system and the reduction of nutrient loss through erosion control. (De Schutter, 2010:7) According to Altieri (2002:8) diversified farms are able to sponsor their own soil fertility, crop protection and productivity. This highlights the fundamental inter-relatedness of soil, water and pest management processes as in the natural ecosystem. Agroecology takes advantage of beneficial on-farm interactions between these elements to increase productivity while reducing external inputs. The same goes for water and energy sources, and a reliance on local abundant renewable resources, for example solar power and rainwater harvesting. These may not be the entire solution (for example in places where there is only seasonal rain) but they can contribute. The IAASTD (2009:449450) alls fo i est e t i sustai a le i igatio , hi h i ludes the i stitutio al a d go e a ce structures surrounding this. It raises the issue of ate a kets to allo ate ate a o gst uses a d users, but warns against a blanket approach and indicates weaknesses, including the uneven dist i utio of e efits i i pe fe t a kets. We need to consider our approach to irrigation, because it falls outside the realm of the mimicking of natural systems in specific contexts. A large proportion of South Africa is severely water stressed and irrigation is a major user of water in the country. (UNEP Finance Initiative, 2009:42) The challenge is to find ways to use water more efficiently in order to conserve water resources. 3.3 Equitability: the right to food and food sovereignty Co a s final indicator is equitability in the distribution of the benefits of production. This can be at the level of the value chain as a whole as well as at the level of the household. It brings questions of power relations and the distribution of resources to the fore. One part of this is the distribution of the agricultural products (food, fibre, fuel) and another part is the distribution of the means of production, the land, water and genetic resources. The 2010 UN report on agroecology and the right to food starts from the position that ecologically sound small holder agriculture is an effective path for reducing poverty, and that poverty is more important than the amount of food being produced in dete i i g people s a ess to food. (De Schutter, 2010:5) 3.3.1 The Right to Food and food sovereignty Equitability is often considered within the framework of justice and rights. There is a fairly strong legal basis to this approach in practice, with a focus on the Right to Food. These rights are constructed at the formal legal level and fought for in practice. The concept of food sovereignty gives content to the struggle to realise these rights, and the strategy of securing legal rights to adequate food is one leg of the broader strategy. It does reveal an abiding belief that contesting the rights-based legal and formal political framework can produce practical benefits for the poor. We must ask our own questions, in our own context, about the relative weight we want to give to a strategy of seeking to secure legal recognition of the right to food. Others adopt a less legalistic notion of social, economic and environmental justice as being core to the concept of agroecology. Justi e is t necessarily as directly related to the legal system as the concept of rights is. Rights ultimately make reference to the law, and hence the state. But justice makes reference to morality and fairness, which may at times be found in the formal legal system but often are not. A sense of injustice is not constructed by the law, it is embedded in social interactions. Of course, the law and the state ideologically shape those notions, but cannot do so Surplus People Project 15 Towards participatory democratic agroecology: final June 2011 entirely. “o a e the ight to food ould e o e ted i to a just food s ste as a sloga to organise around. The formal right to food in UN Charters and the South African Constitution can be used tactically as one element in the realisation of a just food system, without ceding authority to the state and legal system in its realisation. The concept of food sovereignty is rooted in a rights-based approach to food and agriculture with the following key elements: priority of local agricultural production to feed people locally; the right of countries to protect themselves from dumping of under-priced agricultural produce; the need for agricultural prices to be directly linked to production costs; the mainstreaming of agro-ecological production that recognises food production, sustainable livelihoods, living landscapes and environmental integrity as integral to rural sustainability. (Windfuhr and Jonsen, 2005:13-14) Food sovereignty goes beyond the concept of food security because, while both propose that every person must have the certainty of having enough to eat every day, food security as a concept is silent on the question of where food comes from or how it is produced. In contrast, food sovereignty suggests that the ability of a nation or group of people, to feed themselves is an issue of fundamental security. Relying on unpredictable imports that are only available because of an unsustainable reliance on an oil-based economic system is a essential threat to that security. (Rosset, 2006:305) Conway (1997:172) points to the necessity of o t ol o e de isio s oncerning the allocation of resources and their long-term management. Food so e eig t thus li ks the right to food with democratic control over local and national food production practices and policies. (IAASTD, 2009:114) 3.3.2 A just trading regime? In order to realise the conditions for agroecological practice, other battles have to be fought, for example against corporatisation and privatisation of seed and natural resources and against trade liberalisation policies that result in dumping of agricultural products below the cost of production. The demand for food sovereignty – the right to produce what you decide on in a collective context – does not rule out trade, but it seeks to leave the decision whether to trade, and what to trade, up to the producers themselves. We should understand trade as the movement in goods. Trade is necessary, since food is not everywhere produced in the same place as it is demanded or needed, with the most apparent divide being between urban and rural areas. It is possible that a small-scale allotment model of agriculture has a part to play in urban food security. But even in Havana in Cuba, which is seen by many as the most sustainable model of agriculture in the world today, the best neighbourhoods only produce up to 30% of their vegetable needs. (Novo and Murphy, 2000:344) This is exceptional, but not good enough to meet all the food needs of all the people. Trade is necessary. Value chain analysis is a good entry into considering the power dynamics underpinning the terms of trade in the agrofood system. Plenty of work has been done in looking at growing corporate concentration in food value chains. ETC Group (2008) probably provides the most comprehensive and accessible entry point into this at a global level. Value chains are domestic as well as global in extent, and value chain analysis thus allows us to analyse both domestic and global chains emanating from or circulating through South Africa. There are questions about regionalism and the type of agricultural or agrofood models that are being exported from South Africa. (Miller et al., 2008) Power across chains is contested and different chains have different dynamics, but essentially most agrofood chains are buyer-driven, meaning buyers (food retailers) dominate the structuring of the chain and the distribution of power across the chain. (Gereffi, 1994, Jayne, 2008, Greenberg, 2011a) Surplus People Project 16 Towards participatory democratic agroecology: final June 2011 Inequities are built into the existing trading system, both globally and domestically. The IAASTD (2009:455) expresses doubt about the benefits to poorer countries and farmers of further trade liberalisation between countries. It a gues that a stead e osio of lo al food p odu tio s ste s and eating habits had accompanied the net flow of food from poorer to richer countries. (IAASTD, 2009:7) Although most agricultural products are not traded internationally but are consumed in domestic markets, the support system for agriculture is geared towards export markets. (IAASTD, 2009:8) What is the domestic equivalent of trade liberalisation? If we think of this within the nation state, it proposes that the institutional structures of the agrofood system are oriented towards moving goods out of the rural and into the urban. They are the same processes of core-periphery relations. However, within a country, the balance of forces between urban and rural, and the conceptions of these as two distinct spheres, has its own dynamics that might differ from those pertaining globally. For example, in Cuba or Venezuela or Bolivia, the relations between urban and rural are, if not more balanced, then at least under more open and conscious contestation than the globally dominant model. In South Africa, internal trade is liberalised with markets determining the movement of goods, although there remain quite tight regulatory constraints. For example, traceability is becoming increasingly important and might have ripple effects throughout the structure of some value chains. (African Centre for Biosafety, 2010) These are a combination of market- and state-driven regulations. But trade liberalisation cannot be separated from deregulation in agriculture, which resulted in fundamental changes in the structuring and distribution of power along value chains and removed some very important government functions, like food price control mechanisms. Price control requires a monopoly on the product, which is the role some of the Boards (like the Maize Board) in conjunction with the co-ops played under apartheid. The Boards have been dismantled and the co-ops, their agents in enforcing the movement of maize through formal channels, have been privatised and turned into giant agribusinesses like Afgri, Senwes, Clover and Pioneer Foods. Gi e the li ks i to glo al food hai s, a p ote tio ist t ade poli ill e essa il ha e to accompany local price controls. An agroecological approach recognises the effects policies and practices around trade have on the possibility of on-farm practice. If producers are trading some of their produce (which is necessary unless we think each individual is going to be self-sufficient in all their food and fibre needs) flu tuati g p i es a e a ig issue fo s alle p odu e s ho do t ha e the esou es to ti e sales onto the market. Storage is an obvious function here, but some products cannot be stored, or only for a short while. Economies of scale, quality standards and consistency of supply required by the longer, more lucrative value chains that mostly lead to supermarkets and restaurants add to challenges for smaller, resource-poor producers. LVC calls for the regulating of food prices and that prices should reflect the true cost of sustainably producing that food (Reijntjes, 2009:7). Sustainability is brought into the definition of equitability. I additio to ag oe ologi al p odu tio , o e of the pilla s of LVC s o ept of food so e eig t is the priority of local agricultural production to feed people locally, and the control of producers over these decisions. It is essentially an argument that the direct producers of the land (or those who have some claim to being the legitimate direct producers) are de facto owners of the fertile land of the country and that other inhabitants must recognise and accept that the land belongs to those who produce on it. This is very much rooted in a small farmer agricultural model where agricultural production is a widespread activity in the society. But in a country like South Africa, where the latifundia la ge-scale commercial farmers) dominate production, questions remain about the responsibility of producers to the broadest interests of society. In particular, how are decisions to be made about what is to be produced, and are land and natural resources the possession of those who use the p odu ti el , o of the atio , o of the people of the o ld? It is a histo i al a ide t Surplus People Project 17 Towards participatory democratic agroecology: final June 2011 that some people were born in areas with an abundance of natural resources and others were born in places with limited natural resources (e.g. some people have historically lived in desert conditions, while others have historically lived in forest areas). A class analysis might suggest that the combined resources of the globe should be maintained and used productively in common, by a collective in the interests of all. But since many people are separated from the land, the idea that the land belongs to those who produce on it is inadequate and simplistic. There is need to consider the development of equitable relationships between net producers and net consumers. Farmers, peasants and agricultural workers should rightly be recognised as custodians of the land. Yet whether they should thereby be given the authority to determine in all instances what should be produced, and for whom, and whether their needs should take priority over the needs of the rest of the population remain open questions. An analogy would be to say that manufacturing workers in a factory should have the right to produce goods first and foremost for thei o fa ilies a d o u ities efo e p odu i g fo the est of so iet . We do t hea this argument often, if at all. This is fundamentally about the relationship between urban and rural, and the breaking down of that gap in a social sense. It means integrating farmers, food producers, back into society as part of an organic whole. When farmers are properly integrated into the community, these decisions go beyond their autonomy to decide to produce for profit. 3.4 Context specificity We have encountered aspects of context specificity in discussing the dimensions of agroecology above. Along with multi-functionality, diversity and adaptation, already discussed above, context specificity is core to agroecological practice. This simply means that when agricultural practices are designed and implemented, they have to take into account the specific context that they will be carried out in. This poses a major challenge to the conventional scientific-industrial model of agriculture which places high priority on standardisation and uniformity. Agroecology is also scientific. It is based on observable, measurable and replicable evidence. Both agroecology and scientific-industrial agriculture establish basic scientific principles about how to improve agricultural performance. But they differ in that scientific-industrial agriculture as it is practiced today seeks to fix specific practices in relation to these principles (or precepts, as Robert Chambers calls them), where agroecology recognises that the context will determine practice. Green Revolution technology was a standardised package that was applied in all circumstances regardless of context. Farmers could either reject it or accept it. Agroecology, on the other hand, offers a range of possible choices that need to be adapted and experimented with based on ecosystem principles. There is a strong overlap here with the ways that knowledge is transferred (Table 1) which we will return to in more detail just now. Surplus People Project 18 Towards participatory democratic agroecology: final June 2011 Box 6: Genetically modified crops and agroecology The IAASTD report is constructed around the notion of combining the advances of scientificindustrial agriculture with the knowledge historically embedded in local and context-specific agricultural practices. This goes to the extent of openness to the idea of genetically-modified (GM) plants being incorporated into agroecological practices, although the IAASTD is not uncritical of GM in agriculture. It argues that GM crops were marketed as reducing reliance on synthetic chemical inputs, but the results have been mixed. In some cases their use has led to increased use of synthetic pesticides, and they have variously been found to introduce new environmental hazards, reduce the efficacy of bio-control measures, and have led to adverse social impacts and health risks. This constrains their incorporation into sustainable agriculture initiatives. (IAASTD, 2009:106) This finding is likely to be one amongst others that resulted in the governments of Canada, the United States and Australia not declaring formal support for the epo t s o te ts a d e o e datio s. Nevertheless, when it comes to recommendations the IAASTD suggests that GM has a possible role in the agroecological approach it advocates. Conway (1997:140-162) does the same. This is based on the idea that GM technology might be used to develop traits desirable to resourcepoor, small-scale farmers with poor infrastructure and weak public institutions. So far this has not happened. The key genetic modifications are designed for monocultures reliant on irrigation and agrochemicals. What IAASTD and Conway are arguing is that the technology in principle could potentially be adapted for different uses in different contexts. Realising this goal, however, requires a reorientation of the entire research and development (R&D) arm of the biotechnology industry, driven as it is by multinational corporations in pursuit of profit. A market approach would say that if there is enough of a market for different traits, it would be in the interests of the biotech industry to orient some investment in that direction. Such a market is created from two sides. On the one side, if farmers are able to pay consistently enough for seeds with different traits, they would create a seed demand. On the other side, consumers might begin to demand products from farms with characteristics seeds with these different traits possess. This is what led to concentration of wealth in the Green Revolution: policies supported farmers who could buy external inputs over those who could not, and supported their consolidation of land holdings. Economies of scale are necessary for expanding capital accumulation, and accumulation is driven by very costly, uniform technologies that by definition cannot be context specific. This does not fit ell ith the IAA“TD a d Co a s st o g a gu e ts i fa ou of o te t-specific approaches to agriculture in harmony with the ecosystem. This fundamental mismatch should lead us to reject the inclusion of GM technology as a potential element of agroecology. This is not to say that biotechnology more broadly has no role, but a distinction is required between t aditio al iote h olog a d GM. Context specificity in agroecology is rooted in the practical functioning of the agroecosystem. Since agroecological practice is based on identifying the way the ecosystem functions and mirroring these functions in agricultural practice, it must necessarily be shaped by the specific dynamics of the agroecosystem in a particular context. Context does not only mean geographical locality, although that is an important part of it, to which we will return. It also means cultural and socio-political context. So, for example, while we can learn from the Cuban experience in agroecology, the context is different and that must be taken into account. In Cuba the state was supportive of the idea of agroecology, a lot of land was already in the hands of peasants, relatively high food prices translated i to fai e p i es fo p odu e s, a d the e as a high s a it ost fo i po ted ag i ultu al i puts. (Rosset et al., 2011:186) These conditions allowed agroecological practices to expand rapidly. The character of the agroecological zones is also more conducive to agroecology (high biomass and Surplus People Project 19 Towards participatory democratic agroecology: final June 2011 biodiversity, wet) than some of the areas where this is being attempted in South Africa (for example SPP-supported activities on the dry West Coast). This is not to say agroecology cannot be practiced in drier areas. The whole point of agroecology is to adapt to the ecological conditions instead of trying to impose a uniform solution on them. This means looking at how the ecology functions on the West Coast and adapting agricultural practices to reflect those systems. Bringing irrigation into the desert is not sustainable, and ignores the way the local ecosystem functions. This places limits on where agroecological practices might flourish. But in KwaZulu-Natal or Mpumalanga, it is a different story. It is context specific. 3.4.1 Context-specificity and the local Context specificity is conceptually close to notions of locality. This is unsurprising since context is locally specific, it varies from locale to locale. Each plot, each field, each farm, each agroecological zone has its own context that must be understood in its ecological, social, economic, political and cultural dimensions. These dimensions will determine the best type of agricultural practices for that context, and will also determine where change is necessary to align agricultural practice with ecological principles. The local food systems movement, which is more of a Northern approach based on the power of consumers, seeks to bring producers and consumers closer to one another and to localise food systems. In the core capitalist countries, this takes the form of community-supported agriculture C“A , the ei t odu tio of fa e s a kets, the slo food o e e t a d othe s. The asis is empowering citizens to develop their own food systems. (Dalgaard et al., 2003:41) Critically, this takes us beyond production of the raw product (farming) and into the whole system. The industrial system separates people from their sources of food and the production environment (Francis et al., 2003:102) and local food systems seek to reintegrate these parts and construct localised productionconsumption networks. In the context of cities, urban agriculture can play an important part in bringing food production closer to consumers. In the form it takes in the core countries (and in the core of the peripheries), the local food systems movement is quite demand driven. It relies on consumers being willing to pay premiums to establish a more conscious and closer relationship with food production and distribution. The concept of a foodshed has been developed to take these ideas further. It refers to the area from which people could or do get their food, similar to the drainage area of a watershed. (Hamm, 2004:37, following Kloppenberg et al.) Hamm incorporates another two concepts in this notion of a foodshed: civic agriculture and values-based value chains. Civic agriculture is a concept that focuses on direct market relationships between producers and consumers and about building food-focused relationships between people. The concept of values-based value chains is premised on consumers making demands, and their demands being met through transparent value chains. (Hamm, 2004:37) This is the essence of the Northern consumerist movement, that consumption choices are a pathway to transforming food systems. The li ki g of these o epts implies a dynamic relationship between self-provisioning (i.e., home and community gardens), direct market relationships (i.e., fa e s markets, farm stands, and CSAs), and indirect market relationships (i.e., retail markets, institutional food meals, restaurants) in a manner that maintains a consistent set of values throughout. (Hamm, 2004:37) Distance is not the only defining trait. Hamm (2004:38) points to the character of relationships between people in the system as another. Localising food systems may have some ecological and social benefits. But local systems can also be as ecologically degrading and socially unequal as global food systems. We must also acknowledge differentiation amongst farmers and food producers. Romanticising the notion of the local tends to ignore the sometimes very large differences in power and social standing amongst farmers and Surplus People Project 20 Towards participatory democratic agroecology: final June 2011 ithi lo al o u ities take oadly to mean people living in the same settlement or area). For example, in South Africa the locality might include large-scale commercial white farmers and commercial black farmers, smaller scale black farmers struggling to get into the market, and people producing for household use in backyards, and wealthier and less wealthy consumers. The balance of power between these must be integrated into our concept of context specificity, since it will shape what is possible and what needs to be done to move towards agroecological practices in a particular locality. Some dimensions also apply across localities. For example, farms are structured on the basis of a physical and knowledge infrastructure that is strongly shaped by the desire to increase competitiveness on the market in order to accumulate faster and more. This shapes the possibilities available to producers, even though it may be possible to construct alternatives. Localisation and decentralisation can also lean towards retreating from confronting and contesting broader power relations, in particular the power of corporations and the state. Geographical localisation on its own is thus inadequate to solve the challenge. Understanding of local context is core to agroecology, but that context is shaped by forces that transcend the locality. 3.4.2 Knowledge production and extension Agroecology is knowledge intensive. The relevant knowledge is locally specific, and it is interdisciplinary, involving natural sciences for soil properties and plant-insect interactions, social sciences on effects of farming practices on rural communities, and economic and cultural analysis of constraints to adopting new farming practices.8 This raises the question about how and by whom information and knowledge about those processes and activities is produced: who knows what practices are appropriate in a given local context? It must be the people living and producing in the locality, and this situates the development and dissemination of site- and context-specific knowledge at the centre of agroecology in practice. The scientific-industrial model of developing and disseminating agricultural knowledge was historically the transfer-of-technology (ToT) model, where external experts mobilised science and technology to define problems, and design solutions and problem-setting and -solving (IAASTD, 2009:58). In this model, the scientist or researcher was seen as external to the agricultural system under study, and the extension agent was a mediator between scientific research and the farmer (Terblanche, 2008:61), translating the former for the latter. Knowledge was transferred through the autonomous diffusion of innovation, i.e. innovative practices were presented, and farmers either adopted and shared those practices, or they did not. Ashby (2003:1) describes the process as follows: an idea goes in at one end of the pipeline, research develops a prototype, and then a fully developed product comes out, ready to be released to eager users, at the other end of the pipeline. ToT was rooted in the idea that lack of a ess to ode k o ledge was a constraint to agricultural production. (IAASTD, 2009:63) The ultimate aim was to enable farmers to stay competitive in the market by cutting costs and increasing yields. This model proved fit for the overall purposes of disseminating improved seed, training farmers in simple practices and input use and disseminating simple messages within the intensive, high external input production systems characterizing relatively homogeneous irrigated…e i o e ts (IAASTD, 2009:63), for example in the Green Revolution, especially in south-east Asia. But in many cases, neither the institutional or economic conditions nor necessary services were in place to allow for the safe and effective use of new technologies. (IAASTD, 2009:65) ToT could not respond to heterogeneous environments and farming populations, and displaced genetic diversity on which local food cultures existed. The model consequently has not worked very well in the context of diverse agroecosystems that prevent the application of externally-developed technologies. In 8 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agroecology Surplus People Project 21 Towards participatory democratic agroecology: final June 2011 general, there is a gap between the scale at which information is generated (plot or field level) and the scale at which decisions concerning agricultural development are made (provincial, national, global). (Dalgaard et al., 2003:44) Table 1: Transfer-of-technology and farmer-first extension methodologies compared Farming conditions to which applied or more applicable Main objective Analysis of needs and priorities by Transferred by outsiders to farmers The e u Fa e s eha iou Outside s desi ed out o es Roles of outsider Transfer-of-technology Simple Uniform Controlled Transfer technology Outsiders Precepts Messages Packages of practices Fixed Hear messages Act on precepts Adopt, adapt or reject package Widespread adoption of package Teacher Trainer Supervisor Service provider Farmer-first Complex Diverse Risk-prone Empower farmers Farmers facilitated by outsiders or other farmers Principles Methods Baskets of choices A la carte (list of choices) Apply principles Use methods Choose from basket and experiment Wide fa e s hoi e a d e ha ed benefits and adaptability Convenor Facilitator Consultant Searcher for and provider of choice (Source: Chambers, 1997:202) Knowledge cannot e t a sfe ed; athe i fo atio a out othe peoples k o ledge a e shared, but it will be filtered through the knowledge people already have. This realisation led to more participatory forms of extension, where the farmers were recognised as having some knowledge of their own. These incorporated a range of different methodologies, but with generic features: learner-centred, place dependent, ecologically informed and [with the] use of interactive communication and of facilitation rather than extension skills. (IAASTD, 2009:65) In the formal system this was reflected in a direct, two-way relationship between farmers and researchers, with extension agents in an equal relationship with both of these rather than as a mediator between them. (Terblanche, 2008:62) Table 1 compares ToT methodologies with participatory extension methodologies. An agroecological approach to knowledge production and dissemination aligns with participatory and reflective methodologies, where the researcher or scientist is seen as part of the system they are studying, and where they share and learn together with farmers in the process. Such approaches emphasise the iterative, adaptive nature of innovation in complex ecosystems, which is achieved through systematic enquiry combined with learning based in action. (Ashby, 2003:1) They are rooted in the i dige ous apa it fo pla e-based i o atio a d a e knowledge intensive, use less or no externally supplied synthetic inputs and seek to produce healthy soils and crops through sustainable management of agroecological cycles. (IAASTD, 2009:67) An important aspect of all i dige ous k o ledge is that its fu tio alit depe ds o a i isi g the use of lo al esou es. (Hart and Vorster, 2006:18) Participatory plant breeding is one example of an offshoot of these participatory models. It is based on partnerships between breeders and farmers, each of which bring unique knowledge to the partnership. Breeders can generate new scientific variability and accelerate the breeding and selection process. Farmers do cross and select, but at a very slow rate. But they are better at finishing the product and targeting varieties to particular production systems. (Conway, 1997:189) Surplus People Project 22 Towards participatory democratic agroecology: final June 2011 Experiential and action learning forms the pedagogical base of participatory methodologies. (Francis et al., 2003:111) Farmer-to-farmer models focus on sharing experiences, strengthening local research, and problem-solving capacities, and active participation of farmers in technological innovation and dissemination. (Altieri 2009) Farmer-to-farmer is a mobilising methodology driven by innovations by farmers themselves and which place farmers at the centre of knowledge generation and sharing. (Rosset et al., 2011) And according to De Schutter (2010:16), agroecological techniques are best spread from farmer to farmer, since they are often specific to an agroecological zone. The Cuban experience reveals that the knowledge production and dissemination methodologies were central to the rapid growth of agroecological practices amongst the peasantry starting in the 1990s. The basic model is to enable farmers who have developed new techniques to share with others. The role of extension officers changed to focus on facilitation and supporting processes of farmer exchange. (Rosset et al., 2011:170) These facilitators are employed by the farmer co-ops. Promoters (the farmers with innovative practices they share with others) are not paid, although the logistical costs for exchange visits are paid through the co-ops. This structure forms the basis for the agroecology movement in Cuba, driven by the national peasant organisation, ANAP. (Rosset et al., 2011:172) ANAP itself is not funded by the state but by its members through a voluntary self-tax on farm sales by member co-ops. It is essentially a farmer payment for internally-produced extension services, or rather knowledge production and dissemination services. As the movement grew, ANAP employed co-ordinators to match extension needs with supply (i.e. identifying who had the appropriate knowledge and organising with facilitators to bring promoters to the areas requiring their assistance). The principles underpinning this peasa t pedagog are to begin slowly, on a small scale with a few experiments. Farmers can experiment on a small section of their land so as not to risk the entire harvest. (Rosset et al., 2011:170) Again, this is in accord with the permaculture principle of starting small and consolidating gains. A central message of the IAASTD report was the need for an intersection between indigenous, localised knowledge and formal, scientific agricultural knowledge. According to the IAASTD, participatory and trans-disciplinary approaches are required for co-production of knowledge. (IAASTD, 2009:17-18) Agroecology cuts across scales because the local ecosystem is not isolated from the broader ecosystem. Hard disciplines tend to work at plot or field level, while the softer social disciplines tend to work at farm or local level. (Dalgaard et al., 2003:41) These need to be combined. Extension officers can facilitate the integration of these different sources of information and knowledge. At base, agroecology recognises that we a t ha e a one-size-fits-all approach. If we accept the centrality of site-specificity then this must necessarily involve farmers (and broader communities) in processes of research for development (rather than research and development) (Ashby, 2003), sharing and learning from one another, perhaps with some facilitation from outside. 3.5 Conclusion The Green Revolution (on which South African commercial agriculture is based) increased productivity but also increased volatility in the face of regularly occurring disturbances and a decline in long-term sustainability (growing pest and disease resistance, greater reliance on inorganic agrochemicals, and long-term degradation of soil, water and air). The benefits went disproportionately to landowners and input providers, coupled with greater rural unemployment and the persistence of hunger. (Conway, 1997:176) This is also true in South African agriculture. Agroecology is a response rooted in existing farming practices amongst peasants in many parts of the world. It is one of the central concepts underpinning the activities of LVC, the AgriCultures Network (formerly LEISA) and many regional organisations across the world. (De Schutter, 2010:14) Surplus People Project 23 Towards participatory democratic agroecology: final June 2011 However, while agroecological techniques are expanding, it remains a minority movement. Sales and use of synthetic pesticides continue to grow, especially in countries of the South. (IAASTD, 2009:106) Conway argues that sustainable agriculture necessitates a trade-off between the indicators of performance of an agroecosystem: productivity, stability, sustainability and equitability. But this depends on how these terms are defined. Agroecology has a strong technical basis, centred on a diversity of production systems suited to context-specific prevailing ecological conditions. But there is also a necessity to imbue these concepts with a social and political content. Ecological change in agriculture cannot be promoted without comparable changes in the social, political, cultural, and economic arenas that help determine agriculture. (Altieri 2009) Agroecology proposes that there need not be a heavy trade-off, and that it is possible to provide for the food needs of everyone in society in a socially equitable way, while keeping a harmonious balance with the natural ecosystems within which humans produce. 4. Agroecological practice in South Africa 4.1 Agroecosystems and indigenous knowledge If we distil agroecology down, there are three core ideas: multi-functionality of agriculture, the need for diversity on the farm as well as in the agrofood system more broadly, and context specificity, including in the production and dissemination of agricultural knowledge. To what extent is the concept relevant in South Africa? Generally the focus is on Asia, central and South America and to a lesser extent the tropical parts of Africa. The way that capitalism developed in these regions produced an economic structure that retained a strong peasant base. Agroecological practices are also strongest in tropical ecological zones, with high biomass production and high levels of biodiversity. Our understanding of the current state of affairs is important in identifying where possibilities present themselves and where structural limits might be present. South Africa has a generally poor quality of physical environment from an agricultural point of view. A concentrated corporateindustrial core dominates the agrofood system, there is historical neglect and destruction of indigenous practices and knowledge, rural livelihoods are fragmented and the rural population employ multiple livelihoods strategies, of which land-based livelihoods are just one part of varying importance from context to context, and urbanisation is a growing trend. We must look at the possibilities of agroecological practices in this context. Ecologically, the potential to produce biomass is concentrated in the east of the country, where soil and rainfall encourage plant growth. This gradually declines to the west and peters out into desert in the Northern Cape. Overall potential for the production of biomass is low. (Jooste and van Zyl, 1999:45) On the basis of a range of criteria,9 Jooste and van Zyl (1999:47) identified six main agroecological delineations in South Africa (Table 2). (Unfortunately, they did not provide a composite map). Agriculture therefore occurs in heterogeneous environments in South Africa, some of which are too marginal for intensive agriculture and too remote from markets and institutions. Natural resource management and agricultural practices must be tailored for these conditions. Table 2: South African agroecological delineations with selected characteristics Region Zone 1 Cape Fold Vegetation Coastal Zone 2 Nama Karoo Karoo Zone 3 Interior Karoo, Zone 4 Kalahari/ Limpopo Plain Tropical bush, Zone 5 Eastern Plateau Slope/Lowveld Grassland, Zone 6 Highveld Grassland, 9 Viz. rainfall, vegetation, erodibility, biological productivity, water availability, resource quality and output to input price ratios Surplus People Project 24 Towards participatory democratic agroecology: final tropical forest, Sclerephyllous bush Resource Avg to v high Below avg quality (Source: Jooste and van Zyl, 1999:47) June 2011 grassland, tropical bush, savannah savannah Below avg to avg Mostly below avg coastal tropical forest, temperate, transitional forest Avg to high tropical bush, savannah Avg to above avg To some extent the South African agrarian system is an exceptional case. As a result of the discovery of gold, the economy was oriented towards preventing African agriculture and converting indigenous inhabitants into wage labourers. Bundy (1988) has shown that an African surplusproducing farming class existed in the early parts of the twentieth century. Bundy also showed that the white state systematically squeezed these Africans out of agriculture and forced them into wage labour. This undermined and eventually destroyed a flourishing African agriculture in South Africa. The reserves allowed for some basic production, but this was very constrained because the historical methods of production relied on an abundance of land, and the land was gradually coaxed into white ownership through the various land acts and other pieces of legislation that prevented Africans from productively occupying the land. The peasantry that Bundy describes was forged in the process of the construction of capitalism in South Africa: a key part of the definition of the peasantry is a category of agricultural producers that produces on their own o so eo e else s land in part for cash. We need not get caught up in disputes of definition here. The important thing is that the peasantry interacted with the wider economy and was not cut off from it. What e do t eall ha e is a solid se se of hat p e-colonial agriculture looked like in South Africa, and what ecological practices underpinned it. To look for pre-colonial agricultural practices is not to suggest that we should be trying to preserve these in some essentialist way. Agriculture is a dynamic and living science and art, and changes over time as the environment changes. Indigenous should not be taken to mean of the past. Indigenous practices exist in the present, and adapt and change. Especially in a country like South Africa, where scientific-industrial agriculture has produced most of the ou t s food oth u a a d u al fo six or more decades, indigenous practices are certain to have some cross-fertilisation with the scientific-industrial model. The Nguni (the Xhosas and Zulus based in the Eastern Cape and KwaZulu-Natal) practiced a form of shifting cultivation, permitting tilled land to regain its fertility through a period of disuse. (Bundy, 1988:18) Cultivation also occurred on the edge of forest or bush, gradually pushing it back and using the ash from the burned trees for fertiliser. (Monica Wilson, cited in Bundy, 1988:18) Sorghum was a primary crop, though it was gradually replaced by maize in the eighteenth century. Grain was stored in pits, and processing included grinding and fermenting. Other traditional crops included pumpkins, gourds, calabashes, melons, wild peas, several varieties of beans, cocoyam, guavas, mangoes and some citrus. (Bundy, 1988:19) Indigenous edible tubers, roots, berries and leaves were also used in times of need. Livestock, mainly cattle were also incorporated into the farming system and thus agriculture inherently multi-functional, both in the variety of products and in its socio-cultural dimensions. There was trade, bartering and sharing amongst clans and groups. Communal labour as o o , he e e e o e o ked o o e fa il s field a d the all o ed to the e t fa il s field. There was limited control over water storage and irrigation (South Africa is a dry country). These practices were in the context of land abundance, and colonialism rapidly accelerated land scarcity, forcing changes to these practices. The question is to what extent these practices are still present, or whether colonialism and apartheid essentially wiped them out. There is a problem with the discontinuity, in South Africa in particular, between the way people practiced agriculture and managed natural resources, and the present era. Surplus People Project 25 Towards participatory democratic agroecology: final June 2011 The shocks imposed by colonial and apartheid laws and practices were very heavy, mainly in the form of severe restrictions on land access, but also through disrupting labour systems and drawing labour out of the agricultural economy. In Zimbabwe, even at the height of white rule, around half the land remained under African control, but in South Africa this dwindled to less than 15%, and was tied to labour migration which meant the lack of full time farming class for almost a century – what does this mean for indigenous farming knowledge in SA? Pushi g people i to o e t ated ette e t settle e ts fu da e tall oke the logi of a dispersed and diversified agrarian system, with livestock, field and horticultural crops and natural resource harvesting (including for fuel) (Shackleton et al., 2000) based on land abundance. Although these practices still continued in the betterment villages of the former homelands, they were constrained by lack of land, longer distances to fields, poor quality of land, lack of water and many other factors. Apartheid-era extension officers adopted a top-down ToT model that sought to modernise agricultural practices in the scientific-industrial mode. But anyway, the resources were not forthcoming to make even that a reality and it was more at the level of rhetoric than practice until the 1980s. Despite this, there was some adaptation in the communal areas, even though land was limited, e.g. use of wild resources, agroforestry, intercropping, and multiple uses of livestock. (Shackleton et al., 2000) Most la k fa e s a d food p odu e s a e fo ed to adapt to the e i o e t e ause the a t afford the chemical and other inputs required to manipulate the environment at will. There is limited research on indigenous agricultural practices in South Africa. Although there is some work on community-based natural resource management (CBNRM), these approaches are fundamentally different to indigenous approaches. (Bernard, 2001) Although indigenous knowledge has long been neglected, there is some interest, especially in government, in reviving or excavating this knowledge. In 2004 government adopted the Indigenous Knowledge Systems (IKS) policy. (Department of Science and Technology, 2004) It consists of four key areas (Hart and Vorster, 2006:14-15): i) affirmation of African cultural values in the face of globalisation; ii) development of services provided by indigenous knowledge holders and practitioners; iii) contribution of indigenous knowledge to the economy; and iv) interfacing with other knowledge systems. The emphasis is on traditional medicine and the securing of intellectual property rights (IPRs) with an eye on commercialisation and global markets. The policy essentially provides a framework for the co-ordination of indigenous knowledge, and an institutional structure to drive processes of research and development using indigenous knowledge. Beyond that, it is left up to sectoral departments to develop the content. The Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR, the semi-corporatised parastatal) does work on bio-prospecting, but there is little recognition of the indigenous source or those who provided the knowledge (Hart and Vorster, 2006:15) and the focus is on attempts to capture the value through IPR. The development of indigenous plants and medicines tends to focus on increasing productivity of the plant by increasing yields and adapting the plant to industrial practices. The socio-cultural context is sloughed off and rendered irrelevant. (Hart and Vorster, 2006:17) For agriculture, the Agricultural Research Council Vegetable and Ornamental Plant Institute (ARC-VOPI) Crop Science Unit (outside Pretoria) is doing research on indigenous knowledge in agriculture. Both ARC and CSIR are too centralised so cannot get into more local specificity, and a lot of research is conducted for privately-paying customers. (Hart and Vorster, 2006:16) The emphasis is on the possibilities of commercialising indigenous knowledge, rather than developing programmes for integrating it into agricultural practice for resource-poor farmers. So although there is a formal framework and indigenous knowledge receives recognition from government, the focus is commercialisation. Surplus People Project 26 Towards participatory democratic agroecology: final June 2011 Other studies show the potential in tapping indigenous agricultural knowledge. A stud o fa e s indigenous knowledge on soil fertility in KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) showed that farmers based their assessment of soil suitability on six indicators: crop yield, crop appearance, natural vegetation, soil texture, soil colour and presence of mesofauna. There was significant agreement between the fa e s assess e ts of soil suita ilit a d s ie tifi a al ses of the soil. (Buthelezi, 2010) Hart and Vorster (2006) indicate that indigenous practices in seed saving, production, grazing management and storage are currently being employed, and that there is also some use of indigenous (or at least locally-available) crops. But they note that indigenous knowledge is eroding and is not being passed on between generations, and that population pressures and a breakdown of in-situ conservation strategies is leading to a deterioration of indigenous natural resources. (Hart and Vorster, 2006:26) Current efforts to generate an alternative to the dominant large-scale industrial model of agriculture draw very little explicitly from indigenous practices. However, many of the techniques of organic, permacultural, agroecological or other types of sustainable agriculture may have similarities with agricultural practices in South Africa before the arrival of whites. These include diversity, reliance on heterogeneous genetic resources, minimum tillage, fallow, and sharing of food and labour. (Department of Science and Technology, 2004:14) 4.2 Practical bases for agroecology in South Africa South Africa has plenty of localised practices that are agroecological in orientation, on land of varying sizes, ranging from urban backyard gardens to model permaculture farms in the Karoo. The localisation of these practices, which can to an extent be considered agroecological, makes sense because of context-specificity. However, what is missing is systematic interaction between these fragmented activities or the organisations engaged in them. There are two fundamental bases for agroecological practice in South Africa at present. On the one hand is the large base of small-scale food producers, mainly in the former homelands. There were an estimated 1,1 million farming operations in South Africa in 2000. (Statistics South Africa, 2002:7) The vast majority were underresourced farmers in the former homelands, and approximately 100,000 small and tenant farmers in the fo e hites-o l pa ts of “outh Af i a. Mo e tha th ee-quarters of the farmers in the former homelands were women. (Statistics South Africa and National Department of Agriculture, 2001:57) However, just 6% of households in the former homelands with access to farming land actually sold part of what they produce. (Statistics South Africa, 1997:5) These statistics are hopelessly out of date, but government has not prioritised the gathering of accurate information on the range and numbers of black farmers in South Africa. DAFF s pla s p opose to i ease the number of small-holder farmers from 200,000 to 250,000 in 2014. (National Treasury, 2011:3) We must assume that DAFF is referring to a category of nascent commercial small holders here. These small-scale black farmers and the larger number of micro-producers (mostly women) form the natural base for an agroecological strategy in South Africa. Although land reform is moving very slowly, it is making additional land available to potential black farmers. There is a shift in the type of agricultural model government seems to be supporting for new farmers. While it remains commercial, and to some extent export-oriented, the focus is more on small holder agriculture than on a replication of the large-scale white commercial farming model. This is a bit of a contradictory process. The recent emphasis on small holders remains within the context of an agrarian structure and agrofood system dominated by large-scale and corporate interests. This means that small holder strategies seek to integrate these small holders into established, corporate value chains rather than thinking about how to develop alternative input supply, processing, storage and distribution networks and processes that are less reliant on the corporations. Secondly, the practice of land redistribution and restitution lags behind this new emphasis on small holder agriculture, and farms and the infrastructure that accompanies them are Surplus People Project 27 Towards participatory democratic agroecology: final June 2011 still transferred as large-scale commercial entities through the land reform programme. Adapting these farms to small holder production requires subdivision to allow more people to work the land as individuals or families. Successful agroecological practice around the world is fundamentally peasant-based, i.e. individuals and families working the land as discrete entities, even while strong collective organisation for learning and sharing, for marketing and input supply is also necessary. Two lessons from Cuba are: i) where individuals or households have decision-making power on the land they work, their ties to the land will be much stronger than if they are part of a group that rotates on the land, and ii) marketing and financial management was weak in the peasant organisations and they lacked infrastructure, all of which needed to be built rapidly. (Rosset et al., 2011:167) An issue is to what extent the existing smallholder base in South Africa is engaged in agroecological practice, or is aware of the concept. Many amongst the broader pool of 1.1 million small-scale producers have little choice but to forego synthetic chemicals and to rely to some extent on their own knowledge of locally-specific conditions when making production decisions. However, we should t e led to elie e the efo e that people a e auto ati all p odu i g i a opti all agroecological way. The formal agricultural extension services are very far behind in adapting to changing needs. Agricultural extension has shifted from a dualistic system that provided support to o e ial hite fa e s o the o e ha d a d la k o u al fa e s o the othe ha d towards a more integrated approach with a focus on black emerging commercial farmers. Extension services to large-scale mainly white commercial farms have essentially been privatised, with these farmers buying specialised services from private consultants. The rump of the public extension service has reoriented towards black farmers with a commercial orientation. However, the public service was run down over the past 15 years as agricultural budgets were squeezed and agricultural colleges were rationalised. Staff numbers dropped sharply between 2006 and 2009, and in 2008 there were 2,152 extension officers in South Africa, almost 60% of whom were in the former homeland areas of the Eastern Cape and Limpopo. (Mankazana, 2008) After 2009, plans were afoot to increase the capacity of the extension services and reach more farme s th ough DAFF s E te sio Recovery Plan. However, an old-style approach to extension is still embedded in the institutions. For example, Terblanche (2008:69), a senior lecturer in agricultural extension at the University of Pretoria, the home of agricultural extension, advises in all seriousness that the golden rule to bring about change is ha ge the people. If ou a ot ha ge the people – ha ge the people. The asi understanding here remains that what people are doing is wrong and that they have to be changed to do what is right. Despite all talk of two-way engagement with farmers, to learn from as much as provide knowledge to them, this remains within the ToT mode. There is also evidence of the aptu e of pu li e te sio o ke s ulti atio al seed a d i put o pa ies ho t ai the officers in the use of their products and then send them into the field as glorified salesmen. Although some efforts have been made to pilot participatory methodologies, for example the Broadening Agricultural Services for Extension Delivery programme (BASED) in Limpopo, resources and focus are lacking. Prolinnova is an international network that aims to support local farmer i o ato s si ila to Cu a s p o ote s a d fa ilitate the o st u tio of fa e -to-farmer sharing mechanisms. In South Africa it includes government departments, universities and NGOs in KZN, Limpopo and Mpumalanga. (Salomon and Letty, 2006) Despite a few initiatives and pilots of this sort basic extension methodologies have not changed in any fundamental way; rather they have adopted some of the outer trappings of new approaches, without assessing the fundamentals of the core extension approach a d current curricula do not equip extension workers even to deliver on the agenda laid out in policy, never mind the more radical shift to a facilitation role in support of agroecological practice. (Worth, 2008:ii) ARC and CSIR focus more on R&D than providing direct Surplus People Project 28 Towards participatory democratic agroecology: final June 2011 services to farmers. They work on the basis of the ToT model of expert researchers providing extension workers with information that is transmitted to farmers as passive recipients. The relationship between the research institutes and small-scale farmers remains remote. A key reason why Cuba was able to adapt rapidly to new circumstances, including a mass shift into agroecology, was that almost all peasants were already organised into a national body at the time of the food crisis after 1989, and were organised into credit and service co-ops or production co-ops. (Rosset et al., 2011:166) In South Africa, while scale of production is aligning more closely with agroecological practices elsewhere (in rhetoric and desire, if not yet entirely in practice), the organisational underpinnings, the collective aspects of interaction between producers and of the provision of services and support is lacking. There are some efforts, again driven by government, to build a co-op network and producer associations amongst black farmers. “outh Af i a s o-op policy opens the door for the use of public resources to build up a co-operative model from the ground. A key question is the extent to which this can be done independently of external political control. Bringing political analysis into organisation is no crime, but the content of that analysis might need to be contested at times, especially when it reifies political parties and seeks to assert external control over grassroots structures. On the other hand, given the limited momentum for selforganisation in the rural areas at present, direct state intervention and support in building collective structures has some merit. DAFF has taken on the job of assisting farmers to organise themselves into co-operatives and commodity groups. In 2008/09, it established 324 co-operatives and 208 selfhelp groups countrywide. (National Department of Agriculture, 2009) Plans are to ramp up support to grouping smallholders into commodity associations and co-operatives, from a target of 5,000 in 2010/11 to a target of 20,000 in 2012/13. (National Treasury, 2011:4) Even if we accept that these figures are probably a fantasy, that government processes are often closed processes where participants are selected from above, that government is seldom keen to partner with independent civil society formations, and that the orientation of support will be towards commercial farmers first, it creates a potential opportunity for engagement in specific localities. Given that the state is not a monolith, we need to look at the context to ascertain the possibilities of partnering with government o othe ise taki g ad a tage of the oppo tu it affo ded go e e t s stated desi e to uild agricultural co-ops of small holder farmers. National-level engagement will have to await the formation of a national level movement of small farmers that goes beyond the National African Fa e s U io NAFU) model of existing and would-be commercial farmers seeking to replicate the white commercial agricultural model. The second practical base for the expansion of agroecology in South Africa is the existence of a small core of practitioners consciously applying these practices and some engaging in sharing and learning with others. Sometimes these practices focus on one or other aspect of agroecology rather than as a holistic system. Nevertheless, there may be useful lessons that can be drawn from these fragmented practices. We a t eally talk about a sustainable agriculture or agroecological movement as such. But if we refer to the practitioners of permaculture, organic or agroecological production as a fairly well-defined group for now, we must note the sharp bifurcation between those oriented towards a wealthy niche market, and those oriented towards assisting resource-poor producers to make the most of their conditions. For example, the demand for organic produce reflected (and to some extent driven) by supermarkets is a niche market that counts on wealthier consumers to pay a premium for organic or ecologically-f ie dl p odu ts. This a also e te d to othe e i o e tal se i es su h as la ds ape ai te a e aptu ed i high-value eco-tourist ventures. There is a growing range of organic producers, markets and networks drawn to this pole. On the other hand, there are many dispersed organisations working with mainly black small-scale farmers and urban food gardeners who have a strong environmental consciousness and bring this into the production methodologies they share with these producers. Surplus People Project 29 Towards participatory democratic agroecology: final June 2011 Ecotourism is one example of identifying other non-agricultural functions of the agroecosystem (landscape maintenance). Generally speaking, the concept of the multi-functionality of agriculture is very weakly developed, mainly because of the history of large-scale mono-cropping on commercial farms. Government has some small, stand-alone environmental and land reclamation activities but these are very under-resourced and in no way part of the mainstream. There are some efforts to identify and commercialise ecosystem services, with the emphasis on water. Examples are the LandCare and Working for Water programmes. The latter is an interesting model in that payment goes to unemployed individuals contracted into the programme rather than to landowners, and therefore has a poverty-alleviation dimension to it. (Turpie et al., 2008) However, these programmes are isolated and not integrated at all with the land reform programme or with support systems directed at small-scale black farmers. Better integration could advance both the social and environmental interests of these programmes. Further, these programmes could also advance agroecological practices since they can support the rehabilitation of indigenous plant life. The introduction of Catchment Management Agencies has also opened the door to payment for catchment protection. (King et al., 2008) Although the market is seen as the primary mechanism for realising the value of the multifunctional roles of agriculture (e.g. through ecotourism), LandCare a d Wo ki g fo Wate a e i di atio s of a e og itio of the pu li esou es fo pu li goods model we noted above. Organisations such as Abelimi Bezekhaya, Food Gardens Foundation (FGF), Food and Trees for Africa (FTFA), School Environmental Education Development (SEED), Midlands Meander Association Education Project and many others provide training and support for urban food production in backyards and schools, and in some cases for small-scale farmers. Production is based on organic or permaculture techniques and principles. Biowatch works with small-scale farmers in Mtubabtuba in KZN and Mokopane in Limpopo to promote an explicitly agroecological approach, with an emphasis on seed saving and the maintenance of seed banks with indigenous varieties in parts of KZN, Eastern Cape and Limpopo. It has also facilitated farmer-to-farmer exchanges. Participatory Ecological Land Use Management (PELUM) is a global grouping that has 32 member organisations in South Africa (mostly in KZN). It promotes ecologically diverse and mixed farming systems, relying on indigenous knowledge and plants and natural fertility sources. The network facilitates farmer-to-farmer learning and sharing, and does lobbying and advocacy work around ecological land use. Surplus People Project (SPP) works with small-scale farmers in the Western and Northern Cape with a focus on agroecological learning sites. The learning sites are spaces for farmers to learn collectively and a mechanism to combine the indigenous knowledge of small-scale farmers and the scientific community. It includes practices such as seed conservation, agroforestry, inter-cropping and water conservation. The methodologies SPP employs include horizontal learning exchanges between farmers and farmer-to-farmer extension. A number of universities have centres and units that have outreach and learning programmes to support small-scale farming and which are open to agroecological practices, including University of KZN, University of Limpopo and Rhodes University in the Eastern Cape (see Appendix 3 for links). Government is not hostile to food production in urban areas, but it is not explicit in its support of agroecological or organic methods of production. Support tends towards commercial production for niche markets and most resources go to supporting a few large projects (relatively speaking) in the metropolitan areas. There is some possibility of working with municipalities on a case-by-case basis but there are many occasions where government is hostile to NGO involvement and in cases government forms its own civil society structures to take advantage of resources. Cases in point are the Women in Agricultural and Rural Development (WARD) and Youth in Agriculture and Rural Development (YARD) structures that have benefited from preferential access to government resources. For example, in Gauteng, 10% of the Comprehensive Agricultural Support Programme Surplus People Project 30 Towards participatory democratic agroecology: final June 2011 (CASP) budget was set aside for WARD projects at its launch in 2006.10 This is a highly state-driven model of civil society formation, in similar vein to the formation of co-ops, and is open to the same questions about independence and agenda setting. Parallel to the training and support to resource-poor producers there is also a high-end strand to this basic level of training on permaculture and organic techniques, with much more emphasis on individuals who seek to produce for niche markets. Courses are fairly expensive and are often wrapped up in a pleasurable experience of crisp white sheets and gourmet meals. Accommodation on working organic farms is one form of multi-functionality found on these farms, as is offering twoor three-day courses on organic production. There is also some element of constructing niche alternative food chains through on-fa p o essi g of ha d afted p odu ts a d fa e s a kets that cater for high-end consumers. There are many similarities between this niche and the larger commercial organic producers who contract with the supermarkets or export their products, although the price difference between organic and non-organic produce in supermarkets is generally lower than in direct markets and premiums are not necessary transferred to producers. (Barrow, 2006:27) According to DAFF (2010a:14), there are around 250 commercial organic farms on 45,000ha of certified land. Some estimate that 90% of organic produce in the domestic market goes through the formal retail sector. (Waarts et al., 2009:41) This high-end organic sector forms the basis for the kind of consumer movements we see in the core capitalist countries and in small niches in South Africa. We will return to the potential of such a strategy in building an agroecological movement in South Africa later. The formal organic market is estimated to be R200-400m, of which less than half is certified. Most products are exported, with rooibos tea, organic wine and fruits as main products. (Department of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries, 2010a:13) There is a growing formal domestic market, but high levels of poverty mean local markets for organic or agroecological products at a premium have a fairly low ceiling and these markets will likely always be a niche. There is growing demand from formal food retailers (Woolworths, Pick n Pay), targeted at an elite market. Supermarkets are struggling to find consistent supplies of the quantities they need (i.e. demand is outstripping supply) a d ha e take to fa ilitati g the e e ge e of o e o ga i p odu e s e.g. Wool o ths O ga i Journey). The size of the i fo al organic market, mainly food produced by black farmers without synthetic chemical inputs because of lack of resources and sold into local markets to black consumers, has not been measured. The formal commercial sector tends to disregard this, downplaying its organic character because of quality and certification issues. To date the commercial organic sector is privately regulated, based on certification and traceability driven mainly by retailers. A discussion paper on organic policy in South Africa seeks to incorporate equity into the definition of organic. (Department of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries, 2010a:9) Agroecological farming is recognised as a subset of organic farming in proposals for an organic policy. DAFF policy proposals (2010a:17-24) i lude the eed to t ai ke e te sio offi e s i o ga i o te t, to de elop a participatory approach to organic extension and to integrate organic production into school curricula, as well as awareness about the benefits of ecologically-sound production, targeting consumers, farmers, retailers and schools. DAFF also proposes a national inspection and certification system based on traceability and documentation, support for the creation of a unified and credible se to od to ep ese t the o ga i i dust , a d ‘&D i to o ga i te h i ues i ludi g the integration of indigenous knowledge systems as the foundation for building a sustainable organic farming sector. It proposes that genetic engineering is prohibited as a practice within the definition 10 Keynote address of Khabisi Mosunkutu, Gauteng MEC for Agriculture, Conservation and Environment, at the launch of the Gauteng chapters of Women in Agriculture and Rural Development (WARD) and MacroAgricultural Finance Institution of South Africa (MAFISA), 12 December 2006 Surplus People Project 31 Towards participatory democratic agroecology: final June 2011 of organic. The policy discussion opens the door to influence the content, in particular bringing social justice issues more squarely into the picture, and advocating for a strategy that is built around support for resource-poor small-scale famers. It is not clear what has become of this discussion, but to date there is no formal organic policy in South Africa. In 2009 an interim umbrella body called the South African Organic Sector Organisation (SAOSO) was formed, but it does not appear to have any publically-defined presence to date. Government is also working on a plan for agroecology, but to date this is a closed process. Go e e t s app oa h u e tl te ds to reinforce segregation of organic and agroecological production as a niche sector rather than seeking to mainstream these production methodologies into agriculture as a whole. (Futurenergys, 2010) Even though the mainstream organic sector is oriented towards high value niche markets, it does bring greater consciousness about ecologicallyfriendly production. A reduction of synthetic fertiliser use in and of itself is important in reducing energy consumption and the greenhouse effects of agriculture. (FAO, 2009) So even though mainstream organics might not be the complete answer, it does contribute to a shift in practices as well as mindset about food production. Between the organisations that provide training and support to resource-poor small-scale food producers and the high-end niche market oriented commercial producers lies a category of model farms. These aim to show how a fully functioning farm using agroecological or organic or permaculture principles operates. A number of these are structured around the ecovillage concept, which integrates agroecological production with ecotourism. Many of them are private groups with their own land but who have an interest in sharing with their experiences others. Some examples of these are the Klein Karoo Sustainable Drylands Permaculture Project, Jakkalskloof Permaculture Farm near Swellendam, Bachs Fen Ecological Research Farm run by the Rainman Landcare Foundation in KZN, Tlholego Ecovillage near Rustenburg in the North West, the Ivory Park Ecovillage in Gauteng and the government-facilitated Ndakana Household Agroecological Support Co-operative in Amathole district in the Eastern Cape. There are many more spread around the country. Some (although not all) of these tend towards the high-end eco-tourist market but also offer permaculture and organic courses and seek to become models of functioning agroecological farms. There is a close connection between the ecovillages and the concept of sustainable human settlements which provides a potential additional entry into government programmes and resources. In his elaboration of strong and weak multi-functionality, referred to above, Wilson (2008:370) considers large, economically buoyant farms to be in the best position to make the transition to strong multifunctionality. They have resources and hence flexibility to adopt different tactics and strategies towards making a transition to multi-functionality, and they have management skills but also a personal stake in the shift (these are not corporate farms he is talking about). Therefore when we consider the possibilities of agroecology, we should not rule out the role to be played by existing commercial farms. The tough question is how to integrate that work conceptually and practically with the work of building agroecological practice amongst resource-poor small holders. Apart from these holistic attempts to build agroecological practice, we can also find fragments of practices that focus on one dimension or another of agroecology. There are very small and isolated attempts to build a culture of seed saving and the construction and maintenance of seed banks that include indigenous and heirloom varieties. Living Seeds maintains and makes available for sale a collection of open-pollinated varieties (OPV) and heirloom seeds, including a small collection of African heirlooms. Mahlatini Organics near Richmond in KZN has a small variety of heirloom and OPV seeds. At a larger scale, but focusing on non-agricultural plants, UK- ased Ke s Mille iu “eed Bank has a partnership with the South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI) in South Africa to save indigenous seed varieties. “eeds a e sa ed oth i the UK a d at DAFF s National Plant Genetic Resources Centre (NPGRC) at Roodeplaat. The NPGRC also collects plant genetic resources Surplus People Project 32 Towards participatory democratic agroecology: final June 2011 for food and agriculture from every ecological zone in South Africa, including indigenous seed. The resources are not available for general use, and are only distributed to farmers and plant breeders on signing a germplasm acquisition agreement for further improvement. The gene bank is therefore essentially an archive rather than an active library that anyone can access. Biowatch, Earthfirst in Durban and other organisations maintain small seedbanks. The National Organic Produce Initiative (NOPI) has expressed interest in forming a partnership between organisations to strengthen organic seed saving and build seed banks. Since local context is so important for agroecological practice, decentralised and living seed banks in association with farmers makes more sense that ex situ (offsite) centralised seed banks. There are also some small efforts at building knowledge around rainwater harvesting techniques. (see, for example, Botha et al., 2007) Appendix 3 provides an initial list of some relevant organisations active on agroecological issues. At this stage, alternative processes tend to focus on sustainable production techniques, but with less emphasis on the broader food system. There is a distinction here between commercial organic producers that already have a material base of production and produce they are marketing, and the majority of low-external input producers who sell some produce into local markets (both formal and informal) but in a sporadic and ad hoc way. This is unsurprising since many of these latter producers have inadequate or insecure access to land and other natural resources, and consequently are not able to generate consistent surpluses. Recent value chain studies that seek to modulate the terms of incorporation of small-scale farmers into formal (corporate) value chains tend to set aside the issue of ecological production unless this is for niche markets. It is not seen as an imperative in and of itself. The emphasis is placed on access to value chains in competition with conventional and established large-scale farmers. (see, for example, Centre for Development Enterprise, 2006, Bienabe and Vermeulen, 2007, Louw et al., 2008, Vermeulen et al., 2008) For the majority of resource-poor producers the emphasis remains on securing access to land, water and genetic resources for production. It is only once consistent surpluses are being produced that markets become a practical issue. However, even in these cases it would be of use to start thinking about how to connect environmentally sustainable production systems with actions in other parts of the food system based on social, environmental and economic justice. There is a political aspect to this: small-scale and resource poor farmers are not inherently more just, even if often they have experienced more injustice. Although the te ag a ia efo has gai ed u e i e e t ea s i “outh Af i a, the e ha e been few systematic attempts to define what it means or what the contours of agrarian reform might mean. Globally, there has been a shift towards concepts of agrarian change, since dynamic changes in the agrarian structure of capitalism are ongoing and do not await specific state interventions. Capitalist market processes themselves stimulate transformation and change, and therefore agrarian change is not automatically imbued with a socialist or even populist content. Deagrarianisation and changes in the capitalist labour process such as casualisation of the workforce are products both of agricultural deregulation and liberalisation and of capitalist restructuring of agricultural relationships within and between countries in the past 30 years in particular. Thus agrarian change does not automatically equate with improvements in the conditions of the rural poor. Similarly agrarian reform, as deliberate public intervention in the structuring of the agrarian system, need not necessarily serve the interests of the rural poor. It might, for example, speed the pa e of ode isatio of the ag a ia e o o i espo se to g eate glo al o petition, something we have seen to some extent in South Africa with the consolidation of commercial farm units, the restructuring of labour relations on farms and the privatisation of the co-ops. To advance the interests of the rural poor, agrarian reform requires consideration of at least three key elements: first, the redistribution of ownership of assets and resources, including land, water, genetic resources and infrastructure. Sometimes this will involve institutional mechanisms for Surplus People Project 33 Towards participatory democratic agroecology: final June 2011 effective access rather than direct ownership. For example, roads are a public good and for agrarian reform their construction and utilisation must be oriented to the needs of the rural poor. The second element of agrarian reform is the democratisation of decision-making systems and structures, both in terms of land governance and in terms of broader decision-making about the content of development in specific places. The introduction of democratic local government in rural areas is a step in the right direction, but in South Africa has received inadequate support from the national level and remains skewed in the interests of land owners and those with wealth. The third element of agrarian reform is the structure of production, and this is where agroecology comes in. Meaningful transformation in favour of the rural poor requires production models that can broaden and diversify the production base, ensure the maintenance and security of the ecosystem and advance the equitable access and distribution of food to all who need it. This ultimately requires change not just in the production node, but across the entire food system. Current civil society efforts around food system transformation are in their infancy. They are built on the basis of long-term work that has been done in fighting for land redistribution or the return of land from where people were forcibly removed, with a number of NGOs around the country having 20 years or more of experience in working with those seeking land, mainly in the rural areas. These NGOs have worked with community-based organisations (CBOs) and in other places CBOs exist that are not connected into the NGO networks. The Agrarian Reform for Food Sovereignty campaign, led by SPP, seeks to integrate agroecological practices into the broader struggles for land and agrarian reform. The campaign is built on the basis of practical activities and mobilisation of small farmers in the Western and Northern Cape. There is also a distinct group of NGOs and CBOs that have mobilised around an environmental agenda. At times these land and environmental groups have come together, for example at the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) held in Johannesburg in 2002. Another opportunity arises at the end of 2011 when Durban hosts the 17th Conference of the Parties (COP) of the UN Climate Change Convention. There is already some mobilising being done around this, with food and agriculture as one of the key themes. Like agroecology, food sovereignty is a concept that has not arisen organically within South Africa, but has been developed in the practical struggles of peasants and peasant movements elsewhere in the world. At present these ideas are not deeply rooted in South Africa, and the dominant framework of food security through conventional agriculture conti ues to hold s a . This does t ea the ideas do t ha e ele a e o i po ta e fo “outh Af i a, ut thei translation into the South African context requires a long-term process of direct engagement with small farmers and the adaptation and introduction of these concepts in ways that are appropriate to the concrete struggles and issues facing small-scale farmers. Rising food prices offers a potential entry point into the discussion. Food prices have been rising steadily, both in South Africa and globally, over the past decade. In particular, the rapid economic growth in the middle of the decade, followed by the economic crash in 2008-09 placed food prices on a structurally higher level than they had even been historically. There is no expectation that the prices of agricultural commodities and food will decline to earlier levels. The causes of these trends include global supply and demand issues (declining yields of conventional agriculture and physical resource limits), the linking of food prices with fuel prices through the adoption of agro-fuels in core capitalist countries, the financialisation of food commodity trading, and corporate concentration and profiteering in agro-food value chains. (Greenberg, 2011b) But although food prices are an issue, the response is quite dissipated. This is because food i se u it is hidde : it does t a ifest i out ight hunger but more in chronic ill-health that also has a number of other contributing causes. Food is a aila le o the a ket. It s just that the poo are forced to buy lower quality and accept what they are given, and diets are not nutritionally balanced. The very poor must also skip meals, which produces a more low-grade, chronic hunger Surplus People Project 34 Towards participatory democratic agroecology: final June 2011 than an immediate, acute hunger. So building the case for agroecological production that focuses on meeting the needs of everyone all the time must necessarily also deal with issues of food quality. The corporate-industrial response to low nutritional standards is through fortification of basic foodstuffs like bread and maize. But fortification is an inadequate alternative to the diversity of micro-nutrients that can only be acquired through eating a wide diversity of foods, especially vegetables. Diversity in the production system can translate into diversity in food supply and hence into improved nutritional content. The ight to food is itte i “outh Af i a s Co stitutio s . , a d so is the ight to a safe a d p ote ted e i o e t th ough se u e e ologi all sustai a le de elopment and use of natural esou es s 4 . The Human Rights Commission has recently volunteered to set up of a Section 5 Committee on the Right to Food.11 Of course, the Constitution makes limited reference to practical interventions to realise these rights, and leaves it entirely up to the state (including the courts) to decide how far this can or should go. The courts and the state as a whole are not immune to the ideological tendencies in the society as a whole. The state is an integral part of life and society. But as such, it also leans towards those with power, with the capacity to produce materially at a scale that alte s atu e itself. “o defi i g the ight to food, a d pushi g the state s espo si ilities to meeting the goals of the Constitution in the areas, broadly speaking, of food and environment is a front on which a struggle for enough food for everyone, every day can be waged. But the practicalities of how that is to be done have yet to be worked out. Even though a consumer movement around food is an upper middle class niche at the moment, this is not to say that mass consumer demands could not be put forward regarding how food is produced and where it comes from. There are many affinities between consumers and producers, although there are also obviously differences (even though all producers are also consumers). The Consumer Protection Act (CPA) of 2008, due to be enforced from 1 April 2011, is a major boon for consumers. But it has to be fought for. There are rights to return products that do not meet accepted standards. It means a fight around what the standards are or should be, and how they are measured and enforced. There is a technocratic level to this, e.g. formal standards and effective systems of o ito i g a d e fo i g. A d it s a almost implacable logic that leads from the notions of consumer protection in the CPA to the technocratic level. Because its enforcement is reliant on the state, and the state is bound to move in accordance with very clearly defined protocols and checks and balances. It has to formulate defined standards that are measurable and enforceable, and build the necessary infrastructure to enable this. Legality is a core feature of this process of state enforcement of Constitutional rights. The Constitution, laws and acts are legal documents. But their legal content is regularly argued over, adjudicated by the courts. This system is recognised and accepted the country over. 5. Towards a participatory democratic agroecology: a research agenda Agroecology is a new term for activities that have been happening in South Africa for some time, i ludi g t aditio al a s of p odu i g that ha e ot elied o high le els of e te al i puts. We can accept that there are issues of low productivity, lack of some knowledge and strong imperatives to externalise as many costs as possible to compete on the market. Traditional farming is not perfect. But there is a base of over a million people, the majority of whom are women, to work with. The first step is to identify specific places where agroecological practices can be supported – where do people have land, where there is some practical work being done and where is there is some interest in agroecological practice. A key issue is to do some more detailed primary research on the different groups and organisations involved in agroecological practices in one way or another, both 11 According to www.southernafricafoodlab.org newsletter received by email on 18 March 2011 Surplus People Project 35 Towards participatory democratic agroecology: final June 2011 to see hat the a e doi g p a ti all , to see hat ki d of p a ti al ase e ists fo a ag oe olog o e e t a d to as e tai thei le els of i te est and how they might be interested in getting i ol ed i su h a o e e t. It s ot to sa ou eate a o e e t f o a o e. But it is to sa that there is a role to be played in facilitating connections between organisations and activities that already exist. Related to this scoping and identifying partners and allies is the identification of potential demonstration sites which may work best if they are in areas of with high biodiversity (e.g. close to parks and reserves). (Liang and Brookfield, 2009:24) The demonstration sites should also have secure access to land, water and seeds. Scoping of potential allies and areas to work might require priming in the form of disseminating the basic ideas underpinning agroecology. Given that agroecological practices are scattered and not necessarily integrated into a holistic conceptual understanding, there is a role to be played in sharing information with farmer groups about the concept of agroecology and its importance (e.g. failure of the industrial-corporate model, inequitable distribution of benefits built into the system of industrial-corporate agriculture, ecological crisis, and the need for integration of farmers with the local community). This need not be entirely abstract, but should also include an action learning type approach that allows farmers to think about how their actual practices might change as a result of employing the concept of multi-functionality and agroecology, e.g. working with farmers to consider what multi-functionality means in daily practice. This means recognising and valuing the positive externalities produced by agriculture, including agricultural practices by resource-poo fa e s. Let s look at what is happening in a particular locality to concretise our understanding of what these public goods or positive externalities are in reality. It will vary from context to context, but we should open our minds to considering what it is about agricultural practices (especially ecologically sound practice) that benefits the society more broadly as a spin-off. How do the producers and their households and communities value these, and how can that value be concretised as a benefit for farmers without converting the outputs into commodities? We need to keep in mind one of the permaculture principles, i.e. that there must be a material benefit for people adopting agroecological practices. Farmers, just like almost anyone else, will not buy in to a concept or idea that does not result in a yield from their labour. The ideas will not spread if they rely on too much individual sacrifice to be implemented. We need more detailed information, especially about what indigenous practices there are that work well (e.g. mulching, seed saving, diversity of production, pest control etc). We should not be stuck on a i a elatio ship et ee i dige ous a d ode p a ti es. ‘athe , these practices should be considered as a living process, not just from the past. The key issue is to identifywhat practices people are engaged in now, using their own knowledge and experience rather than adopting the standardised corporate-industrial techniques. This means working with specific farmers and farmer groups to identify innovators/promoters, documenting their practices and facilitating sharing of these practices with other groups and farmers in the locality and beyond. The Cuban experience suggests that the very process of identifying and sharing these practices is a strong basis on which to build robust organisation. The technical and the organisational go hand in hand. As such, excavating and sharing indigenous practices is an integral part both of building up an alternative extension model rooted in farmer-to-farmer exchanges and of bringing new content into the extension system. A practical starting point is to pilot extension methodologies based on participatory farmer-to-farmer exchanges. These pilots should form the basis for developing an alternative content for extension training – both in the principles of methodologies of extension itself and also in production techniques. Wherever possible this should be in partnership with the official extension system, and also with other organisations currently experimenting or piloting participatory extension methodologies. Part of the task would be to find out more about existing farmer-based and region-specific innovation systems. Developing an alternative model of extension Surplus People Project 36 Towards participatory democratic agroecology: final June 2011 built around farmer knowledge, with facilitation and co-ordination to connect organised farmer groups to one another, is probably the key point on which an agroecology movement can be built. Another area where more information is required is on the specific existing practices that can contribute to agroecology, e.g. locally-adapted indigenous seed varieties, seed saving, rainwater harvesting and intermediate production technologies. Here it would be of value to make connections with existing organisations and groups doing work on permaculture, agroecology and organic farming, again with a practical orientation, using the research process to develop knowledge generation and sharing systems. Part of this might be further investigation into the LandCare and Working for Water programmes to see if might be a resource that farmer groups can tap into while strengthening their agroecological practices. Tshintsha Amakhaya offers a basis for sharing production methodologies, extension methodologies, farmer-to-farmer exchanges, and starting to think about how to build local markets outside the corporate chains. If SPP, Farmer Support Group and other interested organisations can bring ideas about agroecology into the partnership it provides a practical seedbed at least for starting to identify innovators and begin constructing the framework for a participatory extension system built around these innovators and the sharing of their ideas with other farmers and farmer groups. There is a political element to this in building up lobbying and advocacy to reorient government programmes to supporting agroecological practices more centrally in its general support for small holder farmers. Lobbying may involve a call for key agricultural investments, especially public goods (e.g. extension, sto age fa ilities, u al i f ast u tu e, edit, ag i ultu al ‘&D, edu atio a d suppo t to fa e s organisations and co-ops). (De Schutter, 2010:16) An opportunity is around COP17 in Durban in November 2011. There is limited time between now and then, but work can be done in facilitating dialogue amongst farmer groups around the country (both in Tshintsha Amakhaya and outside it) to come up with the immediate practical processes for building agroecology and sustainable small holder agriculture. The Democratic Left Front is already hosting a series of workshops around climate change, with agriculture and food as a key theme. This might be considered as a platform for deeper discussion about what farmer groups can actually do now to advance their own agenda, with links available to other organisations and sectors discussing similar issues. While constructing the practical basis for an agroecological movement, we should keep in mind the broader necessity of democratising the agrofood system as a whole. This means bringing an emancipatory perspective of agroecology, and linking to broader political and control issues. Current o k i “outh Af i a o the solida it e o o a d a just t a sitio a e ele a t he e. Fu the work needs to be done on making the links between agroecology and these and other ideas. But these and other ideas should develop organically, in the process of connecting farmers to one another and introducing the broader conceptual ideas of agroecology as a transformative practice. Ultimately, the success of agroecological practice in South Africa is dependent on the existence of strong, farmer-based organisation, since agroecology is entirely dependent on farmers learning from their practice and sharing knowledge about local conditions and techniques with one another. It is a movement with a technical base. Beyond the producers, a movement is required of small farmers and consumers to develop ways of producing and distributing food that are not completely reliant on corporate systems. This means starting from the bottom, at seed, and moving through production methods that require fewer or no oil-based or other non-renewable manufactured products, through localised processing and distribution mechanisms that allow for a fair exchange that incorporates social and environmental costs into pricing. The dominant framework of thinking about agricultural production, environment, social wellbeing and food security is a long way from embracing agroecology as a serious alternative. Before proposing a national framework on agroecology and food sovereignty, the social forces within which Surplus People Project 37 Towards participatory democratic agroecology: final June 2011 such concepts must reside remains to be built. A useful framework will emerge from the practical struggles of black, resource-poor, small-scale farmers. Obstacles include first and foremost the lack of a widespread small-scale farmer movement in South Africa. Building such a movement, that integrates agroecological practices into its mission, must confront macroeconomic policies that favour ever-larger scales of production, standardisation of production systems, export-orientation, the growing power of private corporations, a government that seeks to realise an unlikely balance between ongoing and extended benefits for the rich with meaningful improvements for the poor, a profit-based production system secured by the state, a general disdain for non-Western economic, technological and socio-cultural systems, limited technical knowledge of alternative production techniques, a dependence on imported manufactured inputs, markets that are skewed towards the wealthy, and the list can go on. Alternatives need to be built up on the basis of practical, collective activities, over time. Ideas from elsewhere can be useful and valuable, but they will need to undergo significant alteration to align with the context-specific socio-cultural, ecological and economic dynamics facing practitioners if they are to have any lasting impact. This is the way of agroecology. Surplus People Project 38 Towards participatory democratic agroecology: final June 2011 Appendix 1: The agroecosystem World Economic community Nation Region Watershed Village/settlement Household Livelihood system Hunting Handicraft Farming Off-farm Gathering manufacture system employment Livestock system Cropping system Paddock Field Herd Crop Animal environment Plant environment Trading Source: Conway, 1997:167 Surplus People Project 39 Towards participatory democratic agroecology: final June 2011 Appendix 2: Multi-functionality of agriculture Farm inputs Agricultural outputs (food & fibre) Joint outputs Environmental externalities Non-agricultural outputs Commodity outputs Environmental outputs (e.g. hedges) Production-linked environmental outputs Noncommodity outputs Social outputs (e.g. food security, social stability) Non-production-linked environmental outputs Source: IAASTD, 2009:61 Surplus People Project 40 Towards participatory democratic agroecology: final June 2011 Appendix 3: List of some organisations working on agroecology-related activities in South Africa Abalemi Bezekhaya, Cape Flats http://www.abalimi.org.za/ African Centre for Food Security, University of KwaZulu-Natal http://acfs.ukzn.ac.za/ Agricultural and Rural Development Research Institute A‘D‘I li k p o ided does t o k Agricultural Research Council-Vegetable and Ornamental Plant Institute (ARC-VOPI) Crop Science Unit http://www.arc.agric.za/home.asp?pid=6425 Biodynamic Agricultural Association of Southern Africa http://www.bdaasa.org.za/ Biowatch http://www.biowatch.org.za/ Catholic Development Centre, Mthatha - email: cdcumtata@telkomsa.net Centre for Rural Community Empowerment (CRCE), University of Limpopo http://www.ul.ac.za/application/downloads/crce/crce_index.html Church Land Programme, based in Pietermaritzburg http://churchland.org.za/index.php Earthfirst http://www.earthfirst.co.za/ Ecosystems http://www.ecosystems.co.za/ Environmental Education and Sustainability Unit (ELRC), Rhodes University http://www.ru.ac.za/elrc/ Farm and Garden National Trust http://farmgardentrust.org Food and Trees for Africa (FTFA) http://www.trees.co.za/ Food Gardens Foundation (FGF) http://www.foodgardensfoundation.org.za/ Farmer Support Group, UKZN email mudhara@ukzn.ac.za Go Organic http://www.go-organic.co.za/ Institute of Natural Resources (INR) – email bletty@inr.org.za Jakkalskloof Permaculture Farm, Swellendam http://xhabbofarmcommunity.co.za/ Klein Karoo Sustainable Drylands Permaculture Project (KKSDPP) http://berg-en-dal.co.za/ Living Seeds http://livingseeds.co.za Mahlatini Organics http://sites.google.com/site/mahlathiniorganics/ Midlands Meander Association Education Project http://www.mmaep.co.za/ National Organic Produce Initiative (NOPI) – email alan@lindros.co.za National Plant Genetic Resource Centre (NPGRC)/National Gene Bank – email: pgrc@nda.agric.za Network for Ecofarming in Africa (NECOFA) http://www.necofa.org/ Organic Freedom Project (aims for 20,000ha under small scale organic production, partnering with Pick n Pay and Anglo Coal) - Heinrich Schultz cell: 083 287 2699 Pan African Conservation Education Project (PACE) http://www.paceproject.net/index.asp Participatory Ecological Land Use Management (PELUM) http://www.pelumrd.org/ Promoting Local Innovation (PROLINNOVA) South Africa http://www.prolinnova.net/South_Africa/ Rainman Landcare Foundation http://www.rainman.co.za/ School Environmental Education Development (SEED) –training in schools http://www.seed.org.za/ South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI) http://www.sanbi.org Southern Africa Food Lab, Stellenbosch University www.southernafricafoodlab.org Surplus People Project (SPP), www.spp.org.za The Valley Trust http://www.thevalleytrust.org.za/ Tlholego Ecovillage, near Rustenburg http://www.sustainable-futures.com/ Wilgespruit/Ecohope, Johannesburg - email ecohopep@mweb.co.za Zululand Centre for Sustainable Development http://www.ecosystems.co.za/zcsd.htm Surplus People Project 41 Towards participatory democratic agroecology: final June 2011 References African Centre for Biosafety (2008) Agrofuels in South Africa: projects, players and poverty. Johannesburg, African Centre for Biosafety. African Centre for Biosafety (2010) Traceability, segregation and labelling of genetically modified products in South Africa. Johannesburg, African Centre for Biosafety. Altieri, M. (2002) Agroecology: the science of natural resource management for poor farmers in marginal environments. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 1971, pp.1-24. Altieri , M. (2009) Agroecology, Small Farms, and Food Sovereignty. Monthly Review, 61:5, pp.102113. Ashby, J. (2003) Introduction: Uniting science and participation in the process of innovation research for development. In Pound, B., Snapp, S., Mcdougall, C. & Braun, A. (eds.) Managing natural resources for sustainable livelihoods. Uniting science and participation. London, IDRC/Earthscan. Badgley, C. & Perfecto, I. (2007) Can organic agriculture feed the world? Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 22:2, pp.80-86. Barrow, S. (2006) South African Organic Market Study. Bennekom, EPOPA. Bernard, P. S. (2001) Ecological implications of water spirit beliefs in Southern Africa: The need to protect knowledge, nature and resource rights. Presentation to Seventh World Wilderness Congress Symposium: Science and stewardship to protect and sustain wilderness values. Port Elizabeth. 2-8 November. Bienabe, E. & Vermeulen, H. (2007) New trends in supermarkets procurement system in South Africa: the case of local procurement schemes from small scale farmers by rural based retail chain stores. Presentation to Barcelona Mediterranean conference of agro food social scientists "Adding value to the agro-food supply chain in the future Euromediterranean space <http://www.medcon.creda.es/>" (103rd EAAE seminar). 23-25 April Botha, J. J., Anderson, J. J., Groenewald, D. C., Nhlabatsi, N. N., Zere, T. B., Mdibe, N. & Baiphethi, M. N. (2007) On-Farm Application of In-Field Rainwater Harvesting Techniques on Small Plots in the Central Region of South Africa. WRC Report No. TT 313/07. Pretoria, Water Research Commission. Bundy, C. (1988) The Rise and Fall of the South African Peasantry, Johannesburg and London, David Philip & James Currey. Buthelezi, N. N. (2010) The use of scientific and indigenous knowledge in agricultural land evaluation and soil fertility studies of Ezigeni and Ogagwini villages in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. MSc thesis. School of Environmental Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal. Byres, T. (2004) Neo-Classical Neo-Populism 25 Years On: Deja Vu and Deja Passe. Towards a Critique. Journal of Agrarian Change, 4:1&2, 17-44. Cassman, K. (2007) Editorial response by Kenneth Cassman: can organic agriculture feed the world— science to the rescue? Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 22:2, pp.83-84. Center for Global Food Issues (2007) "Organic Abundance" report: fatally flawed. http://www.cgfi.org/cgficommentary/organic-abundance-report-fatally-flawed accessed 14 March 2011 Centre for Development Enterprise (2006) Accelerating Shared Growth: making markets work for the poor in South Africa. Report commissioned by ComMark Trust. Johannesburg, ComMark Trust. Chambers, R. (1997) Whose Reality Counts? Putting the First Last, London, Intermediate Technology Publications. Conway, G. (1997) The Doubly Green Revolution: Food for all in the 21st century, London, Penguin Books. Dalgaard, T., Hutchings, N. & Porter, J. (2003) Agroecology, scaling and interdisciplinarity. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 100:1, pp.39-51. Surplus People Project 42 Towards participatory democratic agroecology: final June 2011 De Schutter, O. (2010) Report submitted by the Special Rapporteur on the right to food to the UN General Assembly Human Rights Council, Sixteenth session, Agenda item 3. Report No. A/HRC/16/49. Geneva, UN General Assembly. Department of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries (2010a) National Policy on Organic Farming. Confidential discussion paper, 6th draft. Pretoria, DAFF. Department of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries (2010b) Abstract of Agricultural Statistics. Pretoria, Department of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries. Department of Science and Technology (2004) Indigenous Knowledge Systems policy. Pretoria, Department of Science and Technology. Dillon, M. (2008) Leaving the Station - How the Monsanto Profiteering Train Rolls On. http://www.competitivemarkets.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=265& Itemid=80 accessed on 30 July 2009 Dyer, G. (2004) Redistributive Land Reform: No April Rose. The Poverty of Berry and Kline and GKI on the Inverse Relationship. Journal of Agrarian Change, 4:1&2, 45-72. Environmental Working Group (2010) Farm Subsidy Database. http://farm.ewg.org/progdetail.php?fips=00000&yr=2009&progcode=total&page=conc, accessed 23 March 2011 ETC Group (2008) Who Owns Nature? Corporate Power and the Final Frontier in the Commodification of Life ETC Communique #100. Ottowa, ETC Group. ETC Group (2009) Who Will Feed Us? Questions for the Food and Climate Crises. Ottowa, ETC Group. FAO (2009) Low Greenhouse Gas Agriculture. Mitigation and Adaptation Potential of Sustainable Farming Systems. Rome, FAO. Fowler, C. & Mooney, P. (1996) Shattering: Food, Politics, and the Loss of Genetic Diversity, Tucson, University of Arizona Press. Francis, C., Lieblein, G., Gliessman, S., Breland, T. A., Creamer, N., Harwood, R., Salomonsson, L., Helenius, J., Rickerl, D., Salvador, R., Wiedenhoeft, M., Simmons, S., Allen, P., Altieri, M., Flora, C. & Poincelot, R. (2003) Agroecology: The Ecology of Food Systems. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 22:3, pp.99-118. Funes-Monzote, F., Lopez-Ridaura, S. & Tittonell, P. (2009) Diversity and efficiency: The elements of ecologically intensive agriculture. LEISA, 25:1, pp.9-10. Futurenergys (2010) Comments on National Organic Policy discussion document draft 6. George, S. (1977) How the Other Half Dies: The Real Reasons for World Hunger, Harmondsworth, Penguin. Gereffi, G. (1994) The Organisation of Buyer-Driven Global Commodity Chains: How US Retailers Shape Overseas Production Networks. In Gereffi, G. & Korzeniewicz, M. (eds.) Commodity Chains and Global Capitalism. Westport, CT, Praeger. GRAIN (2005) No, air, don't sell yourself... Seedling, April, pp.34-41. Greenberg, S. (2011a) Contesting the food system in South Africa: issues and opportunities. PLAAS Research Report, No.42. Bellville, Institute for Poverty, Land and Agrarian Studies. Greenberg, S. (2011b) The food price crisis in South Africa: an overview. Report commissioned by HSRC. Pretoria, Human Sciences Research Council. Griffin, K., Khan, A. & Ickowitz, A. (2004) In Defence of Neo-Classical Neo-Populism. Journal of Agrarian Change, 4:3, 361-386. Halberg, N., Alrøe, H. F., Knudsen, M. T. & Kristensen, E. S. (eds.) (2005) Global Development of Organic Agriculture: Challenges and Promises, Wallingford, UK, CAB International. Halweil, B. (2007) Still No Free Lunch: Nutrient levels in U.S. food supply eroded by pursuit of high yields. Boulder, Colorado, The Organic Center. Hamm, W. (2004) The Food System: A Potential Future. Presentation to New Perspectives on Food Security Conference. Airlie Conference Center, Warrenton, Virginia, November. Surplus People Project 43 Towards participatory democratic agroecology: final June 2011 Hart, T. & Vorster, I. (2006) Indigenous Knowledge on the South African Landscape: Potentials for Agricultural Development. In Pillay, U. (ed.) Urban, Rural and Economic Development Research Programme, Occasional Paper 1 Cape Town, HSRC Press. Hendrix, J. (2007) Editorial response by Jim Hendrix. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 22:2, pp.84-85. Hewlett, E. & Melchett, P. (2008) Can organic agriculture feed the world? A review of the research. Presentation to 16th IFOAM Organic World Congress. Modena, Italy. June 16-20. Hijweege, W. L. (ed.) (2008) Emergent practice of Adaptive Collaborative Management in natural resources management in Southern and Eastern Africa: Eight case studies, Wageningen, Wageningen University and Research Centre. Hoffmann, U. (2011) Assuring Food Security in Developing Countries Under the Challenges of Climate Change: Key Trade and Development Issues of a Fundamental Transformation of Agriculture. UNCTAD Discussion Paper, No. 201. Geneva, UNCTAD. IAASTD (2009) Agriculture at a Crossroads: International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development Global Report. Washington DC, Centre for Resource Economics. Institute for European Environmental Policy (2010) Public Goods Emerging as a Central Rationale for Future CAP Support. IEEP CAP2020 Policy Briefing, No.7. http://cap2020.ieep.eu/assets/2010/9/9/Public_Goods_Policy_Briefing.pdf accessed 23 March 2011 Jayne, T. (2008) Forces of change affecting African food markets: implications for public policy. In Mccullough, E., Pingali, P. & Stamoulis, K. (eds.) The transformation of agri-food systems: globalization, supply chains and smallholder farmers. Rome, Food and Agriculture Organisation. Jooste, A. & van Zyl, J. (1999) Regional Agricultural Trade and Changing Comparative Advantage in South Africa. Washington, DC, Agriculture, Natural Resources and Rural Enterprise Office of Sustainable Development, US Agency for International Development Bureau for Africa. King, N., Wise, R. & Bond, I. (2008) Fair deals for watershed services in South Africa. Natural Resource Issues, No. 12. London, International Institute for Environment and Development. Liang, L. & Brookfield, H. (2009) Sharing knowledge on agrodiversity for conservation and livelihood improvement. LEISA, 25:1, pp.23-25. Lobell, D. B., Schlenker, W. & Costa-Roberts, J. (2011) Climate Trends and Global Crop Production Since 1980. Science. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2011/05/04/science.1204531, accessed 9 June 2011 Louw, A., Jordaan, D., Ndanga, L. & Kirsten, J. (2008) Alternative marketing options for small-scale farmers in the wake of changing agri-food supply chains in South Africa. Agrekon, 47:3, 287308. Lu, Y., Wu, K., Jiang, Y., Xia, B., Li, P., Feng, H., Wyckhuys, K. A. G. & Guo, Y. (2010) Mirid Bug Outbreaks in Multiple Crops Correlated with Wide-Scale Adoption of Bt Cotton in China. Science, 328:5982, 1151-1154. Mankazana, M. (2008) National extension recovery implementation plan. Pretoria, NDA. Marsden, T. (1999) Rural Futures: The Consumption Countryside and its Regulation. Sociologia Ruralis, 39:4, pp.501-520. Milder, J. C., McNeely, J. A., Shames, S. A. & Scherr, S. J. (2008) Biofuels and ecoagriculture: can bioenergy production enhance landscape-scale ecosystem conservation and rural livelihoods? International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 6:2, pp.105-121. Miller, D., Saunders, R. & Oloyede, O. (2008) South African corporations and post-apartheid expansion in Africa: creating a new regional space. African Sociological Review, 12:1, pp.119. Surplus People Project 44 Towards participatory democratic agroecology: final June 2011 Monk, A. (1999) The organic manifesto: organic agriculture in the world food system. In Burch, D., Goss, J. & Lawrence, G. (eds.) Restructuring Global and Regional Agricultures: Transformations in Australasian Agri-Food Economies and Spaces. Aldershot, Ashgate. Monsanto (2008) Monsanto Technology/Stewardship Agreement. St Louis, Monsanto. Muir, P. (2010) Trends in Acreage and Yields. http://people.oregonstate.edu/~muirp/agtrends.htm, accessed 9 June 2011 National Department of Agriculture (2009) Annual report, 2008/09. Pretoria, National Department of Agriculture. National Treasury (2011) Budget Vote 26: Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. Pretoria, National Treasury. Novo, M. G. & Murphy, C. (2000) Urban Agriculture in the City of Havana: A Popular Response to Crisis. In Bakker, N., Dubbeling, M., Gundel, S., Sabel-Koschella, U. & De Zeeuw, H. (eds.) Growing Cities, Growing Food: Urban Agriculture on the Policy Agenda. Feldafing, German Foundation for International Development (DSE). Potter, C. & Tilzey, M. (2007) Agricultural multifunctionality, environmental sustainability and the WTO: Resistance or accommodation to the neoliberal project for agriculture? Geoforum, 38, pp.1290-1303. Pretty, J., Noble, A., Bossio, D., Dixon, J., Hine, R., Penning de Vries, F. & Morison, J. (2006) ResourceConserving Agriculture Increases Yields in Developing Countries. Environmental Science and Technology, 40:4, pp.1114-1119. Ramprasad, V. (2009) How sustainable is organic farming? LEISA, 25:1, pp.30-31. Reijntjes, C. (2009) Small-scale farmers: the key to preserving diversity. LEISA, 25:1, pp.6-8. Rosset, P. (2006) Moving Forward: Agrarian Reform as a Part of Food Sovereignty. In Rosset, P., Patel, R. & Courville, M. (eds.) Promised Land: Competing Visions of Agrarina Reform. Oakland, Food First Books. Rosset, P. & Altieri , M. (1997) Agroecology versus input substitution: A fundamental contradiction of sustainable agriculture. Society & Natural Resources, 10:3, pp.283-295. Rosset, P., Machín Sosa, B., Roque Jaime, M. A. & Ávila Lozano, D. R. (2011) The Campesino-toCampesino agroecology movement of ANAP in Cuba: social process methodology in the construction of sustainable peasant agriculture and food sovereignty. Journal of Peasant Studies, 38:1, pp.161-191. Salomon, M. & Letty, B. (2006) Partnering for Farmer-Led Research and Extension. Presentation to 40th Annual Conference of the South African Society for Agricultural Extension. Kruger National Park. 9-11 May. Sender, J. & Johnson, D. (2004) Searching for a Weapon of Mass Production in Rural Africa: Unconvincing Arguments for Land Reform. Journal of Agrarian Change, 4:1&2, 142-164. Shackleton, S., Shackleton, C. & Cousins, B. (2000) Re-valuing the communal lands of southern Africa: New understandings of rural livelihoods. ODI Natural Resource Perspectives. 62. http://www.odi.org.uk/resources/download/2079.pdf accessed on 15 March 2011 Statistics South Africa (1997) Rural Survey 1997. Statistical Release P0360. Pretoria, Statistics South Africa. Statistics South Africa (2002) Report on the Survey of Large and Small Scale Agriculture. Pretoria, Statistics South Africa Statistics South Africa & National Department of Agriculture (2001) An overview of the agricultural sector in South Africa: draft. Pretoria, National Department of Agriculture. Terblanche, S. (2008) Towards an improved agricultural extension service as a key role player in the settlement of new farmers in South Africa. South African Journal of Agricultural Extension, 37, pp.58-84. Terra Daily (2008) First evidence emerges of pest resistance to GM crops: scientists. http://www.terradaily.com/reports/First_evidence_emerges_of_pest_resistance_to_GM_cr ops_scientists_999.html, accessed 9 June 2011 Surplus People Project 45 Towards participatory democratic agroecology: final June 2011 Tompkins, E. L. & Adger, W. N. (2004) Does adaptive management of natural resources enhance resilience to climate change? Ecology and Society. 9:2. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art10 accessed 16 March 2011 Turpie, J. K., Marais, C. & Blignaut, J. N. (2008) The working for water programme: evolution of a payments for ecosystem services mechanism that addresses both poverty and ecosystem service delivery in South Africa. http://www.up.ac.za/dspace/bitstream/2263/5811/1/Turpie_Working%282008%29.pdf accessed 16 March 2011 UK Government Office for Science (2009) Foresight Project on Global Food and Farming Futures. Synthesis Report C9: Sustainable intensification in African agriculture – analysis of cases and common lessons. London, UK Government Office for Science. UNEP-UNCTAD (2008) Organic Agriculture and Food Security in Africa. New York/Geneva, United Nations. UNEP Finance Initiative (2009) Agribusiness. Chief Liquidity Series, No.1. Geneva, UNEP Finance Initiative. Vermeulen, H., Kirsten, J. & Sartorius, K. (2008) Contracting arrangements in agribusiness procurement practices in South Africa. Agrekon, 47:2, 198-221. Waarts, Y., Bakker, J., Snels, J. & Danse, M. (2009) Organic produce from the Republic of South Africa: Exploring the conditions for enhancing trade in organic vegetables, fruit and wine. The Hague, LEI Wageningen UR. Wezel, A. & Soldat, V. (2009) A quantitative and qualitative historical analysis of the scientific discipline of agroecology. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 7:1, pp.3-18. Wilson, G. (2008) From 'weak' to 'strong' multifunctionality: Conceptualising farm-level multifunctional transitional pathways. Journal of Rural Studies, 24, pp.367-383. Windfuhr, M. & Jonsen, J. (2005) Food Sovereignty: Towards Democracy in Localised Food Systems, Rugby, ITDG Publishing. Worth, S. (2008) An Assessment of the Appropriateness of Agricultural Extension in South Africa. DPhil (Agric.) thesis. Centre for Environment, Agriculture and Development, School of Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Science and Agriculture University of KwaZulu-Natal. Wright, B. (2009) International Grain Reserves and Other Instruments to Address Volatility in Grain Markets. Presentation to World Bank. 26 October. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTARD/Resources/102609_wright.pdf accessed 26 January 2011 Surplus People Project 46