MST S Experience in Leveraging Agroecology in Rural Settlements Lessons Achievements and Challenges

Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems
ISSN: 2168-3565 (Print) 2168-3573 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjsa21
MST’s experience in leveraging agroecology in

rural settlements: lessons, achievements, and
challenges
Ricardo Serra Borsatto & Vanilde F. Souza-Esquerdo
To cite this article: Ricardo Serra Borsatto & Vanilde F. Souza-Esquerdo (2019): MST’s
experience in leveraging agroecology in rural settlements: lessons, achievements, and challenges,
Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, DOI: 10.1080/21683565.2019.1615024
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2019.1615024
Published online: 12 May 2019.
Submit your article to this journal
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wjsa21
AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS
https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2019.1615024
MST’s experience in leveraging agroecology in rural

settlements: lessons, achievements, and challenges
a b
Ricardo Serra Borsatto and Vanilde F. Souza-Esquerdo
a
Center of Nature Sciences, Federal University of São Carlos (UFSCar), Buri, Brazil; bIntegrated Council
of Planning and Management, College of Agricultural Engineering, State University of Campinas,
Campinas, Brazil
ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Since the mid-1990s, the Landless Workers’ Movement (MST) in peasant movements;
Brazil has promoted agroecology in its settlements as a strate- scaling-out agroecology;
gic guideline. Although agroecological production experiences MST; Brazil
have spread throughout settlements, MST has not yet suc-
ceeded in making agroecology the dominant paradigm within
its settlements. Thus, the main purpose of this article is to
understand the challenges faced by the MST in promoting
the adoption of agroecological practices by its settlers. A fra-
mework consisting of eight drivers identified as crucial to bring
agroecology to scale was used to analyze and discuss the
advances achieved and the challenges faced by the MST. Our
findings suggest that some structural characteristics of the MST
and the Brazilian State impose unique and complex challenges
for the project of scaling agroecology in rural settlements.
Therefore, we suggest that some drivers must be better
applied in a coordinated way, for example, a) investing in
less hierarchical processes of rural extension such as campe-
sino-a-campesino (peasant-to-peasant) methodology and par-
ticipatory certification; b) implementing more demonstrative
areas of agroecological production in settlements, and c)
advancing actions and partnerships that bring farmers and
consumers closer.
“Lutar! Construir Reforma Agrária Popular”

(Struggle! Build People’s Agrarian Reform)
MST’s motto
Introduction
As proposed in this special issue, this article addresses the challenge of
scaling-out the adoption of agroecological practices in family and peasant
agriculture. Rosset and Altieri (2017) and Mier et al. (2018) defined scaling-
out agroecology as the adoption of agroecological principles by an increasing
number of families, over increasingly larger territories.
CONTACT Ricardo Serra Borsatto ricardo.borsatto@ufscar.br Federal University of São Carlos (UFSCar),
Center of Nature Sciences, Buri 18245-970, Brazil
© 2019 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
2 R. S. BORSATTO AND V. F. SOUZA-ESQUERDO
Agroecology offers fundamentals and principles that allow us to question

the entire current food system (McMichael 2009a, Mier et al. 2018) and at the
same time propose a new one, based on new principles (Altieri and Nicholls
2012; Altieri and Toledo 2011; Giraldo 2018; Gliessman 2015; Rosset and
Altieri 2017). Thus, both theoretical and practical propositions drawn from
agroecology have been increasingly embraced by social movements repre-
senting the interests of peasants, because it is the peasants who are most
affected by the externalities of the current food system (Rosset and Martínez-
Torres 2014; Rosset and Maria Elena 2012; Desmarais 2008; La Via
Campesina 2016).
This paper is inserted in this field, by reflecting on scaling agroecology
intending to build an agri-food system based on new values and social
relations, where peasant agriculture plays a leading role. Therefore, its
scope differs from the efforts that intend to institutionalize agroecology
promoted by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
(FAO) and policy-makers around the world. As a general rule, the interests
of these agents are from a reformist perspective, considering that agroecology
may be a tool to help mitigate the negative externalities of the dominant food
system. On the other hand, peasant movements view agroecology as the way
to construct a new, more just, and equitable agri-food system (Giraldo and
Rosset 2018; Rivera-Ferre 2018; Rosset and Altieri 2017).
The Brazilian context offers a rich background to understand how these
different perspectives on agroecology coexist and influence its scaling. Brazil
stands out worldwide for having developed and implemented different poli-
cies explicitly aimed at family1 and peasant farming, which seek to promote
the adoption of more sustainable production systems based on agroecological
principles (Candiotto2018; da Costa et al. 2017; FAO, and IFAD 2017;
Gliessman 2014; Petersen, Mussoi, and Dalsoglio 2012). On the other hand,
the implementation of these policies has never threatened the growing state
support to the agro-export sector of agricultural commodities (Sauer and
Mészáros, 2017). Thus, Brazil is recognized as both a pioneer in the institu-
tionalization of agroecology and simultaneously one of the world’s largest
consumers of agro-chemicals and a huge exporter of agricultural commod-
ities (Bojanic 2017; Jardim and Caldas 2012).
In this setting of enormous contradictions, Brazil’s Landless Workers’
Movement (MST- Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra) is con-
sidered one of the most important social movements in the world.
Throughout its history it has supported approximately 350,000 farm families
who occupied land (Fernandes 2009; Wolford 2003).
MST began to see agroecology as an important tool for the development of
its settlements in the mid-1990s. Different drivers led the Movement to
question the model it had defended until then, mainly a) the advance of
the neoliberal wave in Brazil, which opened agricultural markets and
AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 3
eliminated subsidies, and b) the formation and participation of the MST in

La Via Campesina. This context created conditions for the MST to revise its
guidelines, which opened room for the Movement to absorb new ideas,
among them, agroecology (Borsatto and Do Carmo 2013; Frade and Sauer
2017).
Although agroecological production experiences within rural settlements
linked to the MST have multiplied and spread throughout different regions
of the country in recent decades, the Movement has not yet succeeded in
making agroecological principles the technical guideline of the majority of its
settlers. Despite the lack of data, it is possible to infer that the conventional
model of production, dependent on agrochemicals, sometimes with the use
of transgenic seeds, is still predominant in most rural settlements. Based on
this reality, this paper is a theoretical reflection about the challenges faced by
MST in scaling-out agroecology in its rural settlements.
The framework for our analysis and reflections was based on a set of eight
key factors for understanding the scaling of agroecology proposed by Mier
et al. (2018), based on the study of some emblematic cases: (1) recognition of
a crisis that motivates the search for alternatives, (2) social organization, (3)
constructivist learning processes, (4) effective agroecological practices, (5)
mobilizing discourses, (6) external allies, (7) favorable markets, and (8)
favorable policies.
The data presented and discussed in this paper came from an extensive
literature review about experiences with agroecology within the MST.
Moreover, the authors have performed research with MST for approximately
two decades, conducting field research, attending events, presenting courses,
talking to leadership, among other activities that have provided them with
privileged access, enabling direct observations.
In addition to this introduction, we have organized this text into three
sections. The next section presents a brief description of the MST and how
the agroecology discourse has advanced in the Movement. In the following
section, the key-drivers proposed by Mier et al. (2018) are used as a frame-
work to analyze the advances and challenges of the MST in relation to
agroecology. In the conclusions, we summarize our findings and point to
actions that can help the MST in its effort to scale out agroecology in rural
settlements.
MST
The MST was founded in 1984 and is considered one of the most important
peasant movements in the world (Fernandes 2009; Wolford 2003). In its first
decade of existence, MST advocated a model of rural settlement guided by an
orthodox Marxist reading, inspired by the experiences of Soviet kolkhozes
and the Cuban Cooperativas de Producción Agropecuaria (Agricultural
Production Cooperatives – CPAs). The focus was on promoting highly

productive settlements, heavily mechanized, with intensive use of agrochem-
icals, specialized in few crops, vertically integrated, and with all work activ-
ities collectivized (Diniz and Gilbert 2013; Fabrini 2002).
Despite the presence of people inside the MST defending principles that
are now part of the agroecological approach – such as food sovereignty,
environmental preservation, use of alternative technologies, and valorization
of peasant knowledge – the dominant political ideology within the
Movement was headed in another direction (Andrade Neto 2015).
At that time, MST advocated a model of cooperation that encouraged a
rigid organization and specialization of labor, inspired by the industrial
model. The Movement recognized in this model the path for economic
viability of the settlements, as well as the political organization of its social
base in developing a revolutionary consciousness (Borsatto and Do Carmo
2013). The guideline of MST was to eliminate, as far as possible, the peasant
autonomy of its settlers by promoting the collectivization of all the activities
in the settlements (Andrade Neto 2015; Borges 2010; Brenneisen 2002; Diniz
and Gilbert 2013).
MST indicated a uniform model for settlements, centered on a predomi-
nantly economic view. Following the Cuban example, the Movement encour-
aged the implementation of Cooperativas de Produção Agropecuárias (CPAs)
in the settlements. More than 40 CPAs were organized in different regions of
the Brazilian territory (Andrade Neto 2015; Diniz and Gilbert 2013; Scopinho
2007).
However, both the Movement’s internal issues and the country’s economic
situation led MST to recognize that the collectivist model of CPAs with
production systems highly dependent on the Green Revolution technological
package was not the best way, much less the only one for most of the
settlements. Internally, it became clear that a more flexible approach on
cooperation was needed, since a significant part of the MST’s social base
desired greater autonomy and did not want to adhere to the CPAs project.
Moreover, administration of the CPAs required management skills that were
still scarce among the settlers (Scopinho 2007).
Externally, the neoliberal reforms carried out by the Brazilian government
in the 1990s ended with sectoral policies that protected the agricultural
market. Subsidies were eliminated, the currency was devaluated, markets
were opened, and credit lines for rural settlers were terminated. These
reforms directly impacted the settlers and the CPA model. Gains in produc-
tivity were not enough to enable the settlements. In general, the settlers were
indebted and confronting a severe financial crisis (Borges 2010; Brenneisen
2002; Diniz and Gilbert 2013).
Considering this juncture, in the mid-1990s, the Movement began to
consider and experiment with new forms of settlement organization.
Instead of emphasizing the formation of “cooperatives,” the Movement

started to defend “cooperation” in different forms and intensities. In this
new context, ideas close to the agroecological field began to gain relevance
inside the MST (Borges 2007; Frade and Sauer 2017; Grossi 2017).
Since then, MST has looked to new references to broaden its discourse on
the agrarian question and its agenda. This can be seen in the Agrarian
Reform Proposal of 1995 (MST 2005), which contains criticisms of the
CPA model. Moreover, proposals were made for a new productive model
for the settlers.
Undoubtedly, the formation of La Via Campesina during the same period
was of crucial importance for the reflections carried out by the MST. The
MST’s participation in La Via Campesina expanded its range of institutional
relations, by placing the Movement in contact with other international social
movements that had already incorporated environmental issues into their
agendas, and incorporated new theoretical references (Barcellos 2011;
Borsatto and Do Carmo 2013; Picolotto and Piccin 2008).
At its IV National Congress held in 2000, the MST centered its discussions
on “organization of settlements” and explicitly assumed agroecology as a
guideline. MST recognized that it was necessary to improve the settlement
model, which was characterized by emphasizing dimensions related to work
and production, which ended up prioritizing the economic aspects of exis-
tence and relegated other dimensions of life to the background. Since then,
the guideline has become that the settlers’ production should primarily be
focused on ensuring quality and abundant food for families (Barcellos 2011;
Borges 2007; Frade and Sauer 2017).
In line with the discussion promoted by La Via Campesina, the agroeco-
logical discourse gained strength within MST, not only as an agricultural
practice less aggressive to the environment but conjugated with an intense
political questioning about the agricultural policies adopted by the Brazilian
State. Following the IV National Congress, the Movement carried out several
measures designed to internalize agroecology within rural settlements. Of
course, these actions were not implemented with the same intensity through-
out the national territory; differences at the state level are easily observed.
The state of Paraná is one of the regions in which the MST’s leaders have made
significant efforts in scaling-out agroecology. For example, since 2002, the MST in
partnership with other organizations linked to peasant causes has organized, once
a year, an event named Jornada de Agroecologia, a meeting to discuss agroecology
that assembles between 4000 and 6000 peasants, most of them settlers linked with
MST (Meek 2015; Tardin 2009; Valadão and da Costa 2012). In addition to the
Jornadas, the MST of Paraná also has advanced in the implementation of training
and research centers dedicated to agroecology (Gonçalves 2011).
In 2007 at its V National Congress, the MST adopted a sharp criticism of the
capitalist agriculture model promoted by the large multinational companies,
pointing to its dire consequences. Thus, it has advanced the defense of agroecology
as a paradigm that must guide the production systems of its settlers (Rosset and
Martínez-Torres 2012; MST 2007, 2009).
Since its VI National Congress in 2014, the Movement has focused its forces in
defense of the People’s Agrarian Reform. The proposal of the People’s Agrarian
Reform reinforces the strategic role of agroecology. Framed under the food
sovereignty discourse, agroecology is seen as a path to articulate the common
struggle of both urban and rural popular forces. Thus, agroecology is considered
more than a set of practices to support production processes in settlements; it is
considered a priority policy line for the MST, fundamental for advancing its project
of society (MST 2015).
In short, in the last two decades, the agroecological discourse framed by the
perspective of food sovereignty is on an upward curve within the MST. On the
other hand, although numerous and important agroecological experiences can be
observed, these experiences are still exceptions within the universe of rural settle-
ments linked to the MST (Gonçalves 2011; Pahnke 2015; Valadão 2012).
Thus, the Movement has focused its efforts on the construction of agroecolo-
gical territories in its settlements, seeking to reduce the distance between its socio-
political discourse (“agroecology as framing,” by Rosset and Martínez-
Torres 2012) and the adoption of agroecological production systems by its settlers
(“agroecology as farming,” by the same authors).
The MST’s advances and challenges in scaling-out agroecology

MST’s social base reaches more than 350,000 families (approximately 1.5
million people), distributed in thousands of camps and rural settlements
(MST 2018b). Estimates, based on interviews with leadership, indicate that
at least 5% of this social base implements agroecological principles in their
production systems, which means more than 10,000 farmers families (Pahnke
2015).
Bear in mind that the MST is a peasant movement with a national dimension,
geographically dispersed throughout Brazil, with a presence in almost all the states
of that continental country. This diversity and scale are important starting points to
understand the advances and challenges related to the massification of agroecology
in the MST’s settlements.
With almost 35 years of existence, settlements initiated at different times are part
of MST, from those established in the 1980s and 1990s, including some CPAs that
still exist, to recent settlements still lacking basic infrastructure, such as housing,
sanitation, or water.
There is also a wide diversity of types of rural settlements. Some are
located in the Amazon region and follow an extractive model, with their
settlers making their living from latex or fruit collections from the forest.
Others have been established within regions characterized by the production
of export-oriented monocultures. Some settlements are on the fringes of

highly urbanized areas, while the access to others is precarious and several
days travel from the nearest city. There are settlements where all families live
close together, and the production areas are set aside, as well as settlements
where each family lives and produces on its own individual plot.
Consequently, analysis of the MST’s efforts in promoting agroecology must
discuss a scaling process that occurs in different cultures, biomes, histories,
climates, soils, degrees of involvement, etc. This heterogeneity that makes up
the MST is perhaps one of its most striking characteristics.
Even with this significant heterogeneity the Movement has an organicity,2
which allows the MST to join its militants in a common struggle. From this
organicity emerges the strength of the MST.
Furthermore, the social base of the MST includes at least two different
subjects, one that is still struggling to access a piece of land and another one
that has already been settled. While for the former, MST offers means to
solve their main problem – access to land, the second group has more
diffused everyday demands such as housing, education, irrigation, credit,
work tools, healthcare, and of course to produce – which are negotiated
daily with or without the support of MST.
Thus, a rural settlement, far from the ideological vision of being an
isolated territory on which the MST has a strong influence, is a territory
characterized by a political, ideological, and economic dispute with the
bourgeoisie and other forces of capital for its control. Every moment, the
promises of higher productivity of the agribusiness agricultural model and
the charms of clientelist government policies seduce the settled families
(Nunes, Marjotta-Maistro, and Santos 2016). Consequently, the influence
that the MST has, while peasants are still struggling to gain access to a piece
of land (camped), partially fades with the formation of the settlement.
Considering this complex context, the lack of a simple answer to bring
agroecology to scale within rural settlements is evident. Multiple paths must
be traveled simultaneously for agroecology to become the dominant para-
digm in settlements linked to MST.
The research of Mier et al. (2018) presents some common key drivers in
successful agroecology scaling processes that, despite being identified in
much more homogeneous contexts, may be useful in identifying the advances
and challenges faced by MST in this process.
Driver 1: recognize a crisis that motivates the search for alternatives

As occurred in the cases studied by Mier et al. (2018), MST began to
internalize agroecology as a guideline after recognizing a crisis. The wave
of neoliberal policies that plagued Brazil from the beginning of the 1990s
called into question the model of agricultural production advocated by the
MST because the indebtedness of the settlers prevented access to new

resources for continuing the production model based on the technological
package of the Green Revolution. In this context, isolated production
experiences based on agroecological principles gained visibility and impor-
tance within the Movement. (Borges 2007; Borsatto and Do Carmo 2013;
Guhur 2010).
The analysis of specific cases where a significant number of settlers decided to
adopt agroecological principles in their production systems also demonstrates that
a crisis was the propeller of this process. For example, in the settlements in the
Metropolitan Region of Porto Alegre that produce rice using agroecological
principles on more than 3,600 hectares, involving 445 farm families, a profound
crisis of rice cultivation was the driver that encouraged the first experiences of
organic rice planting (Martins 2017).
However, our inferences suggest if on the one hand, a crisis may be the
triggering factor for scaling agroecology, on the other hand, its absence may
be an inhibiting factor. Perhaps, the lack of perception of a crisis could be the
main factor inhibiting the expansion of agroecology in Brazil and,
consequently, in rural settlements.
Beginning the mid-1990s and more intensively during the Lula and Dilma
governments (2003–2016), a set of policies aimed at supporting family farming
have been implemented in Brazil, which ends up creating favorable conditions,
albeit minimal, for the social reproduction of this group of farmers (Grisa and
Schneider 2015). This situation allows a significant portion of the Brazilian small-
holder farmers, including the settlers, to gain access to subsidized credit lines,
institutional markets, rural extension, and insurance. All these policies encourage
the farmers to maintain their conventional production systems (Carneiro 1997;
Grisa and Porto 2015).
Obviously, when compared to policies aimed at the large agribusiness-exporter
sector, these policies move volumes that can be considered derisory. Moreover,
some of these policies are directed at inserting family farming into the
agroindustrial chains of the corporate food system (Carneiro 1997; Gazolla and
Schneider 2013).
Driver 2: social organization and intentional social process

According to Mier et al. (2018) “social organization is the culture medium
upon which agroecology grows.” Successful experiences of scaling agroecol-
ogy within settlements confirm the importance of social organization as a key
driver in this process.
Valadão (2012) identified, in the state of Paraná, 660 settled families that
cultivated agroecological production systems in settlements which he
classified “with a strong MST’s presence,” characterized by their high degree
of involvement with the MST.
The case of Bionatur, a network of organic seed producers that brings

together about 160 settlers, who produce more than 20 tons of seeds per year,
corroborates the importance of social organization. Research that analyzed
this experience evidenced that its organizational structure based on values of
cooperation and commitment among associates is the main strength of
Bionatur, and is a fundamental factor to overcome adversities (Silva 2015;
Silva et al. 2014).
A similar situation is observed among the farmers producing organic rice
in the Metropolitan Region of Porto Alegre, where, through the MST’s
coordination, several groups have been organized to help each other make
the entire organic rice production and marketing process possible (Martins
2017).
Our findings suggest that in settlements where the MST has little repre-
sentation or where the settlers cannot organize themselves, agroecology does
not advance. In such cases, farmers tend to follow a pattern that replicates the
logic of the large business farmer as individualized and specialized forms of
agricultural practice that strives to enter into the agribusiness chains of the
corporate food system (Barcellos 2011; De’Carli 2013; Frade and Sauer 2017).
Driver 3: effective and simple agroecological farming practices

The implementation of demonstration areas cultivated following agroecolo-
gical principles is a powerful tool to help in scaling-out agroecology within
rural settlements. These areas can serve as “agroecological lighthouses” to
encourage farmers to start agroecological transition processes, as they
demonstrate the viability of another way of producing (Nicholls and Altieri
2018).
Generally, rural settlements are established in areas with a high degree of
environmental degradation caused by intensive farming based on the Green
Revolution technological package. Moreover, these areas have environmental
liabilities, degraded soil, scarce water sources, and poor access. This often
inhospitable environment is where settlers have to start producing
(Bergamascoand Norder 2003; Bueno et al. 2007). Another point to be
considered is the propaganda perpetrated by agribusiness agents on settlers,
with the promises of higher productivity of the agribusiness agricultural
model.
Based on these characteristics, the promotion of effective and simple
agroecological farming practices by settlers is crucially important to build
confidence in the farmers for moving in that direction.
Production systems based on agroecological principles exist in a significant
number within settlements, but apparently they are more concentrated in the
southern region of the country. For instance, Gonçalves (2011) identified that
approximately 8% of the families connected to the MST in the state of Paraná

cultivated their agricultural systems based on agroecological principles.
According to information provided by leadership, the MST’s Production,
Cooperation, and Environment Sector3 has been striving to implement
agroecological experiences in all the settlements, but the difficulties are
immense. Considering the magnitude of the number of settlements, their
distribution in different types of soil and climate, and the diversity of
production systems and cultural heritage, MST is probably facing an unpre-
cedented task in promoting effective and simple agroecological farming
practices that fit all this diversity. However, successful experiences in
bringing agroecology to scale in settlements have shown the existence of
agroecological demonstration areas is an effective way to promote this
process (Bezerra et al. 2018).
Driver 4. constructivist teaching–learning processes

Constructivist teaching-learning processes are widely used in the different
instances and activities of the MST, which are influenced by the teachings of
the pedagogue Paulo Freire (Caldart 2000). Furthermore, all the Movement’s
teaching-learning activities are preceded by a mística, which is a process of
sensitization that mixes spiritual, emotional, and ideological components,
originating in the spiritual mysticism of Liberation Theology (Issa 2007).
Horizontal teaching-learning processes that value peasant knowledge and
consider different dimensions beyond a material one are widely used in the
MST to promote agroecology.
Furthermore, MST has established schools that offer agroecological
training to its members. For example, the state of Paraná has five schools
that offer long-term agroecology courses, which have already qualified more
than 400 professionals. In addition, in this state, three research centers have
been formed to develop agroecological technologies (Gonçalves 2011;
Piresand Novaes 2016). However, many of the students trained in schools
like these – most of them children of settlers – face resistance from their
parents to implement the acquired knowledge when they return to their
farms (Pontes et al. 2017). Moreover, these trained professionals often face
difficulties to find a job as extension workers in rural settlements, since
responsibility for providing rural extension services in rural settlements
belongs to the public authority, which often hires providers without
knowledge in agroecology or participatory approaches.
Nevertheless, MST has room to advance in the promotion of activities based on
less hierarchical processes that encourage agroecology and that have already
demonstrated high effectiveness, such as the peasant-to-peasant (campesino-a-
campesino) methodology (Rosset et al. 2011). Successful cases in scaling
agroecology demonstrate that the most effective way to spread the adoption of
agroecological principles by peasant farmers is to invest in processes in which

farmers assume a central role in the dissemination of agroecological knowledge
(Khadse et al. 2018; Mier et al. 2018; Rosset et al. 2011).
Following a similar pattern, the experience of the Rede Ecovida, considered a
Brazilian case of success in scaling agroecology, encourages constant exchange of
knowledge among participating farmers (some of them, MST’ settlers), and
demonstrates that when farmers are the main actors in the knowledge exchange
process, adoption of agroecological practices advances faster (Perez-Cassarino and
Ferreira 2016; Rover, de Gennaro, and Roselli 2016).
Driver 5. mobilizing discourse

As already discussed in this paper, MST adopted a political discourse in
which agroecology is one of the central elements both for offering principles
for the cultivation of more sustainable agricultural systems and for providing
elements of resistance to the corporate-based agri-food system. MST’s dis-
course in defense of agroecology has followed an upward curve since the
mid-1990s.
This mobilizing discourse materializes in didactic materials, courses, occupa-
tions of agrochemical companies, and many other activities that promote agroe-
cology. The propagated discourse plays a crucial role in raising awareness of the
MST’s social basis for the importance of agroecology and in contesting immaterial
territories with framing arguments (Rosset and Martínez-Torres 2012).
However, adoption of this discourse by settlers is not necessarily reflected in the
concomitant adoption of agroecological practices in their production systems.
Research has pointed out that many of the settlers recognize the importance of
agroecology and defend it, but adopting agroecological production systems on
their land is another step. Doubts about the technical and economic viability of
agroecological production seem to be the most significant resistance factor
(Barcellos 2011; Veras 2005).
Driver 6. external allies

MST has made efforts to establish partnerships that help promote agroecol-
ogy among its settlers. These partnerships take place with NGOs, universities,
research institutes, other social movements, religious institutions, and other
organizations.
Historically, these partnerships have been the pillars that underpin many
of the MST’s activities related to the promotion of agroecology. As described
by Correa (2007), in the mid-1980s, when the debate on agroecology was not
yet part of the MST guidelines, NGOs were on the frontline in promoting
agroecological principles in settlements. Subsequently, establishment of La
Via Campesina and contact of the MST with other international peasant
movements helped agroecology enter into the MST’s political agenda.
Nowadays, people from institutions, although not part of the Movement,
support their struggle and staff many of the MST-sponsored courses, as well
as its schools. On the other hand, these processes are permeated by conflicts
that end up limiting the scope of these experiences (Freitas 2011).
In cases where agroecology has become the dominant paradigm in settlements,
the formation of networks with different actors that have supported this process is
evident. For example, in the state of Paraná, MST is part of a collective of dozens of
institutions working together to promote agroecology (Valadão 2012).
In the case of organic rice production in the Metropolitan Region of Porto
Alegre, the beginning of the rice harvest season is used as a political instrument to
dialogue with society. During this period, settlers promote events in which urban
sectors of the union movement, parliamentarians, representatives of political
parties, as well as representatives of diverse public institutions participate. In
2015, President Dilma Rousseff participated in one of these events amid the
offensive for her impeachment (Martins 2017).
The cases of Sepé Tiarajú, Milton Santos, and Mario Lago settlements,
located in the state of São Paulo, with 100, 70, and 264 settled families
respectively, also reflect the importance of partnerships for the advancement
of agroecology. These settlements are established in the middle of the
country’s most important sugarcane region, surrounded literally by a sea of
sugarcane cultivated by large landowners. Implementation of these settle-
ments was only possible after a series of agreements that made it compulsory
for the settlers to adopt sustainable practices. Thus, these farmers should
cultivate agricultural systems that do not use agrochemicals and synthetic
fertilizers. In all three settlements, partnerships with research institutes and
universities support farmers to overcome the large number of problems they
face on a daily basis to produce under agroecological principles in areas
highly degraded and under different kinds of pressures from their neighbors
(Marques et al. 2014; Nunes, Marjotta-Maistro, and Santos 2016; Souza et al.
2014).
Studies have pointed out that these partnerships are not without tensions and
conflicts (Barcellos 2011; Freitas2011; Meek 2015). However, settlements that have
succeeded in making their members implement productions systems based on
agroecological principles have been helped by networks of partners supporting this
process.
Driver 7. construction of markets favorable to agroecology

In the last 15 years, the Brazilian government has created programs aimed at
the development of institutional markets for family farming. Two national
programs, the Food Acquisition Program (PAA) and the National School
Feeding Program (PNAE), receive funds to purchase food directly from

family farmers, giving priority to agrarian reform settlers, and paying a
30% price premium for certified organic food. In theory, these programs
assure that settlers who wish to produce following agroecological principles
and obtain certification of their products have access to a guaranteed market
that pays fair prices for part of their production (Belik and Fornazier 2017;
Porto 2014; Rocha 2007). Nevertheless, research has found that different
reasons (e.g., bureaucracy, budget cuts, poor organization by farmers, poli-
tical persecution of leadership) contribute to the limited impact of these
programs in scaling agroecology (Sambuichi et al. 2017;).
However, the case of agroecological production of rice in the settlements
of the Metropolitan Region of Porto Alegre, where settlers commercialize
more than 90% of their production through these programs, points out that
when the other drivers described in this section are present, public procure-
ment can serve as an important support for scaling agroecology (Martins
2017).
On the other hand, literature has increasingly shown that markets that
place farmers and consumers in direct contact with each other may be more
relevant for the promotion of agroecology than institutional markets (Ploeg,
Jingzhong, and Schneider 2012). Farmers’ markets, consumer cooperatives,
community supported agriculture (CSA), basket subscriptions, among other
possibilities are ways in which farmers feel valued for producing healthy
food. Proximity relationship between consumers and farmers creates incen-
tives for agroecological production that go beyond the economic aspect
(Perez-Cassarino and Ferreira 2016).
Although still a recent effort, MST has invested in activities that bring its
settlers closer to the consumers of their products. For example, it organized
and promoted the National Fair of Agrarian Reform, with the third gathering
held in 2018. Held in the central region of São Paulo city, the largest
metropolis in the country, the fair brings together more than 900 settlers
from all over the country to exhibit and sell their products, attracting a large
audience. Moreover, the Movement has sought to promote similar fairs in all
Brazilian states, in a quest to strengthen its dialogue with society (MST
2018a).
Driver 8. favorable policies and political opportunities

As we presented in the introduction of this article, Brazil stands out as one of
the countries where institutionalization of agroecology has most advanced.
The country developed a set of policies friendly to agroecology (for a reflec-
tion on the limits of the institutionalization of agroecology by the State see
Giraldo and McCune, in this issue). Despite being considered a significant
conquest by the Brazilian agroecological movement, research has pointed out
that different factors determine that the strength of the Brazilian State in
scaling agroecology may be limited. (Sambuichi et al. 2017). More research is
required to understand better what the drivers are that determine the effec-
tiveness of these policies in fostering agroecology.
On the other hand, the funds put towards these programs are just a drop
in the bucket compared to those aimed at supporting the corporate agri-food
system and are used only to demonstrate the good intentions of the govern-
ment. Thus, while currently there are policies that encourage settlers to start
the agroecological transition processes, there is simultaneously a whole uni-
verse of policies aimed at this public that help them to maintain production
systems based on the agrochemical package.
The Brazilian case reinforces the thesis that institutionalization of agroe-
cological discourse by State structures weakens and distances the Movement
from its revolutionary perspective (Giraldo and Rosset 2018; Giraldo and
McCune, in this issue). Thus, policies intending to promote agroecology, at
least initially, serve as a support for actions that have already been carried out
by other social agents (social movements, educational institutions, NGOs,
etc.), or create minimum conditions for these agents to continue to exist. The
Brazilian experience has shown that favorable policies isolated from the other
drivers presented in this section have not been able to scale-out agroecology
(Sambuichi et al. 2017).
Furthermore, in the Brazilian case, policies that question the structure of
the corporate agri-food system have not found room to advance in the
Brazilian political agenda. Some emblematic examples are the failure to
advance an agrarian reform policy and the ban on the use of transgenic seeds.
Conclusions
Currently, agroecology is a strategic guideline for the MST in its struggle for
the People’s Agrarian Reform. Its massification through settlements can
guarantee unprecedented social support for the project of society defended
by the MST.
Although significant advances are perceptible, a significant gap remains
between the MST’s discourse and the observable reality in the settlements. In
the face of these contradictions, reflecting on why MST has not yet succeeded
in scaling-out agroecology in its settlements is crucial. To recapitulate, there
is in the Movement: social organization, constructivist teaching-learning
processes, the presence of agroecological practices, mobilizing discourse,
external alliances, favorable markets, and policies.
In this text, we argue that some structural characteristics of the MST and
the Brazilian State impose unique and complex challenges for the project of
scaling agroecology in rural settlements. The size of the Movement (350,000
families), the geographical dispersion of its settlements in different
edaphoclimatic conditions, and the heterogeneity of its social base are char-
acteristics that must be considered in the MST’s scaling efforts. Moreover, in
Brazil, a set of policies aimed at benefitting family farming and the provision
of a social safety net through cash transfer (Bolsa Familia) offer some degree
of security, albeit a minimum, for settlers to feel comfortable in maintaining
their conventional production systems.
Our perception is that these characteristics determine that: a) policies of
social protection and support to family farming obfuscate the perception that
there is a crisis, a fundamental driver according to Mier et al. (2018) in
agroecology scaling processes; b) the size, heterogeneity, and geographical
distribution of the MST make the dissemination of concrete agroecological
practices through different territories a significant challenge.
Based on these hypotheses, we suggest that MST needs specific strategies
to advance its project of scaling agroecology in rural settlements, requiring a
deeper reflection on how the drivers identified by Mier et al. (2018) inter-
connect in the Movement’s context.
We have identified in the case of the MST some drivers that must be better
implemented in a conjugated way, for example:
(a) invest in less hierarchical processes of knowledge exchange such as

campesino-a-campesino (peasant-to-peasant) methodology and partici-
patory certification, since the MST has not extensively encouraged
these processes or shown them to effectively promote agroecological
practices in different situations;
(b) implement in settlements more demonstration areas of agroecological
production with the objective of showing the feasibility of agroecolo-
gical production and reducing the distance between the leadership’s
discourse and the settler’s practices.
(c) advance partnerships with urban sectors based on the promotion of
agroecology and in the construction of local markets (farmers markets,
baskets, CSAs, etc.), since closer relations between producers and
consumers of food have been shown to be an essential driver in
promoting agroecology in Brazil.
The recent election of an extreme right-wing President, Jair Bolsonaro,

imposes a new context for Brazilian peasant movements like the MST. In this
new context, an agenda of criminalization of social movements will advance,
as well as cuts in public policies that benefit peasant agriculture.
This juncture tends to accentuate the crisis already experienced by settlers and
others in the peasant agriculture sector. Hence, the massification of agroecology
tends to gain momentum within rural settlements, both as a peasant strategy of
resistance and as an MST tactic to gain support from urban sectors for its struggles.
Finally, our analysis suggests the MST can be considered a social movement at
the forefront of promoting agroecology. Analysis of the difficulties faced by the
Movement in this process, as well as the achievements reached, offer valuable
lessons to better understand the factors that constrain or leverage the adoption of
agroecological-based productive systems in contexts of high heterogeneity.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the grants #472738/2014-3 and #427726/2016-6, National Council for
Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) - Brazil. Ricardo Borsatto was partially sup-
ported in this research by the grant #2017/04577-1, São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP). We
would also like to thank Peter Rosset and Omar Giraldo for valuable comments on an earlier draft.
Funding
This work was supported by the Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo
[#2017/04577-1];Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico [#427726/
2016-6,#472738/2014-3].
Notes
1. In Brazil, family farming is defined by the Family Farming Law (Law 11,326/2006), based on
four criteria: a maximum land tenure defined regionally; a predominant recourse to non-
wage family labor; a significant part of the income originated from the farming activity; and a
farm managed by the family. For La Via Campesina, “the term family farming is vast, and
may include almost any agricultural model or method whose direct beneficiaries are not
corporations or investors. It includes both small-scale and large-scale producers (with farms
covering thousands of hectares), as well as small-scale producers who are entirely dependent
on the private sector, through contract farming or other forms of economic exploitation […]
This is why La Vía Campesina defends family farming in terms of peasant based ecological
farming, as opposed to the large-scale, industrial, toxic farming of agribusinesses, which expel
peasants and small farmers and grab the world’s lands.” (La Via Campesina 2014).
2. “Organicity is a term present in the MST and signifies the organic movement present in its
organizational structures and the relations between them” (Babniuk and Camini 2012).
3. The Production, Cooperation, and Environment Sector is one of the MST’s coordinating
bodies and is responsible for supporting issues related to organizing production within rural
settlements. Other MST’s sectors are: Training, Communication, Finance, Education,
Mobilization, Human Rights, Gender, and Health.
ORCID
Ricardo Serra Borsatto http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7594-479X
Vanilde F. Souza-Esquerdo http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5015-1216
References
Altieri, M. A., and C. I. Nicholls. 2012. Agroecology scaling up for food sovereignty and
resiliency. In Sustainable agriculture reviews, ed. E. Lichtfouse, 1–29. Dordrecht: Springer.
doi:10.1007/978-94-007-5449-2_1.
Altieri, M. A., and V. M. Toledo. 2011. The agroecological revolution in latin america:
rescuing nature, ensuring food sovereignty and empowering peasants. Journal of Peasant
Studies 38 (3):587–612. doi:10.1080/03066150.2011.582947.
Andrade Neto, J. A. 2015. A Teoria e a Prática Do MST Para a Cooperação e a Organização
Em Assentamentos Rurais. Revista NERA 18 (27):159–82.
Babniuk, C., and I. Camini. 2012. Escola Intinerante. In Dicionário Da Educação Do Campo,
ed. R. S. Caldart, I. B. Pereira, P. Alentejano, and G. Frigotto, 331–36. São Paulo: Expressão
Popular.
Barcellos, S. B. 2011. As Iniciativas e Experiências Em Agroecologia Como Estratégia de
Desenvolvimento Local Em Um Assentamento de Reforma Agrária. Mundo Agrario 12
(23). http://www.scielo.org.ar/scielo.php?pid=S1515-59942011000200006&script=sci_art
text&tlng=en.
Belik, W., and A. Fornazier. 2017. Public policy and the construction of new markets to
family farms: analyzing the case of school meals in São Paulo, Brazil. In Advances in food
security and sustainability, 2:69–86. Elsevier. doi:10.1016/bs.af2s.2017.09.001.
Bergamasco, S., M. P. P, and L. A. C. Norder. 2003. A Alternativa Dos Assentamentos Rurais:
Organização Social, Trabalho e Política. São Paulo: Terceira Margem.
Bezerra, L. P., F. S. Franco, V. F. Souza-Esquerdo, and R. Borsatto. 2018. Participatory
construction in agroforestry systems in family farming : ways for the agroecological
transition in Brazil. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 43 (2):180–200. Taylor &
Francis. doi:10.1080/21683565.2018.1509167.
Bojanic, A. 2017. The rapid agricultural development of Brazil in the last 20 years.
EuroChoices 16 (1):5–10. doi:10.1111/1746-692X.12143.
Borges, J. L. 2007. A Transição Do MST Para a Agroecologia. Master thesis, Universidade
Estadual de Londrina. doi:10.1094/PDIS-91-4-0467B.
Borges, J. L. 2010. Bases Históricas Do Cooperativismo No MST. Revista Fato & Versões 2
(3):157–73.
Borsatto, R. S., and M. S. Do Carmo. 2013. A Construção Do Discurso Agroecológico No
Movimento Dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem-Terra (MST). Revista De Economia E
Sociologia Rural 51 (4). Sociedade Brasileira De Economia E Sociologia Rural: 645–60.
doi:10.1590/S0103-20032013000400002.
Brenneisen, E. C. 2002. Relações de Poder, Dominação e Resistência: O MST e Os
Assentamentos Rurais. Cascavel: Edunioeste.
Bueno, O., R. de Carvalho, L. V. Boas, D. M. Fernandes, and L. J. Gava Godoy. 2007. Mapa de
Fertilidade Dos Solos de Assentamentos Rurais Do Estado de São Paulo: Contribuição Ao
Estudo de Territórios. Botucatu: FEPAF/UNESP.
Caldart, R. S. 2000. Pedagogia Do Movimento Sem Terra: Escola é Mais Do Que Escola. 2nd
ed. Petrópolis: Vozes.
Candiotto, L.P.Z. 2018. Organic products policy in Brazil. Land Use Policy 71 (December
2017):422–30. Elsevier. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.12.014.
Carneiro, M. J. 1997. Política Pública e Agricultura Familiar: Uma Leitura Do Pronaf. Estudos
Sociedade E Agricultura 8:70–82.
Célia de Abreu, F. H. 2011. O Curso Técnico Em Agropecuária Da Escola 25 de Maio:
Conflitos Em Torno Da Construção Da Proposta Agroecológica. Revista Brasileira De
Agroecologia 6 (2):13–29.
Correa, C. 2007. MST Em Marcha Para a Agroecologia: Uma Aproximação à Construção

Histórica Da Agroecologia No MST. Master Thesis Universidade Internacional da
Andalucía. doi:10.1094/PDIS-91-4-0467B.
Da Costa, M. B. B., M. Souza, V. M. Júnior, J. J. Comin, and P. E. Lovato. 2017. Agroecology
development in Brazil between 1970 and 2015. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems
41 (3–4):276–95. Taylor & Francis. doi:10.1080/21683565.2017.1285382.
De’Carli, C. 2013. O Discurso Político Da Agroecologia No MST: O Caso Do Assentamento
17 de Abril Em Eldorado Dos Carajás, Pará. Revista Crítica De Ciências Sociais, No
100:105–30. doi:10.4000/rccs.5245.
Desmarais, A. A. 2008. The power of peasants: reflections on the meanings of La Vía
Campesina. Journal of Rural Studies 24 (2):138–49. doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2007.12.002.
Diniz, A. S., and B. Gilbert. 2013. Socialist values and cooperation in Brazil’s landless rural
workers movement. Latin American Perspectives 40 (4):19–34. doi:10.1177/
0094582X13484290.
Fabrini, J. E. 2002. O Projeto Do MST de Desenvolvimento Territorial Dos Assentamentos e
Campesinato. Terra Livre (19). http://www.agb.org.br/publicacoes/index.php/terralivre/arti
cle/view/159.
FAO, and IFAD. 2017. Overcoming hunger and rural poverty: Brazilian experiences. Rome:
FAO/IFAD.
Fernandes, B. M. 2009. The MST and agrarian reform in Brazil. Socialism and Democracy 23
(3):90–99. Routledge. doi:10.1080/08854300903155541.
Frade, F., and S. Sauer. 2017. O MST e a Experiência de Agroecologia Em Assentamentos de
Reforma Agrária. Revista Latinoamericana De Estudios Rurales 2 (3):64–95.
Gazolla, M., and S. Schneider. 2013. Qual ‘Fortalecimento’ Da Agricultura Familiar?: Uma
Análise Do Pronaf Crédito de Custeio e Investimento No Rio Grande Do Sul. Revista De
Economia E Sociologia Rural 51:45–68. doi:10.1590/S0103-20032013000100003.
Giraldo, O. F. 2018. Ecología Política de La Agricultura: Agroecología y Posdesarrollo. 1st ed.
San Cristóbal de las Casas: El Colegio de la Frontera Sur.
Giraldo, O. F., and P. M. Rosset. 2018. Agroecology as a territory in dispute: between
institutionality and social movements. Journal of Peasant Studies 45 (3):545–64. Taylor &
Francis. doi:10.1080/03066150.2017.1353496.
Gliessman, S. 2014. Networking the national plan for agroecology in Brazil. Agroecology and
Sustainable Food Systems 38 (4):367–68. doi:10.1080/21683565.2013.873758.
Gliessman, S. 2015. Agroecology: the ecology of sustainable food systems. 3rd ed. Boca Raton:
CRC Press/Taylor and Francis.
Gonçalves, S. 2011. “Campesinato, Resistência e Emancipação. O Modelo Agroecológico
Adotado Pelo MST No Estado Do Paraná.” Revista Geográfica De América Central 2
(47E): 1–13.
Grisa, C., and S. I. Porto. 2015. Dez Anos de PAA: As Contribuições e Os Desafios Para o
Desenvolvimento Rural. In Políticas Públicas de Desenvolvimento Rural No Brasil, ed. C.
Grisa and S. Schneider, 155–80. Porto Alegre: Editora da UFRGS.
Grisa, C., and S. Schneider. 2015. Três Gerações de Políticas Públicas Para a Agricultura
Familiar e Formas de Interação Entre Sociedade e Estado No Brasil. Revista De Economia E
Sociologia Rural 52 (1):S125–46. doi:10.1590/S0103-20032014000600007.
Grossi, M. 2017. Questão Ambiental, Reforma Agrária e Agroecologia : Desafios Políticos Ao
MST. Revista Libertas 17 (2):17–28.
Guhur, D. M. P. 2010. Contribuições Do Diálogo de Saberes à Educação Profissional Em
Agroecologia No MST: Desafios Da Educação Do Campo Na Construção Do Projeto
Popular. Master Thesis, Universidade Estadual de Maringá.
Issa, D. 2007. Praxis of Empowerment: Mística and Mobilization in Brazil’s Landless Rural
Workers ’ Movement. Latin American Perspectives 34 (153):124–38. doi:10.1177/
0094582X06298745.
Jardim, A. N. O., and E. D. Caldas. 2012. Brazilian monitoring programs for pesticide
residues in food - results from 2001 to 2010. Food Control 25 (2):607–16. Elsevier Ltd.
doi:10.1016/j.foodcont.2011.11.001.
Khadse, A., P. M. Rosset, H. Morales, and B. G. Ferguson. 2018. Taking agroecology to scale:
the zero budget natural farming peasant movement in Karnataka, India. Journal of Peasant
Studies 45 (1):192–219. Taylor & Francis. doi:10.1080/03066150.2016.1276450.
Marques, P. E. M., M. F. Le Moal, and A. G. F. Andrade. 2014. Programa de Aquisição de
Alimentos (PAA) No Estado de São Paulo: Agricultura de Proximidade Em Questão. Ruris
8 (1):63–89. https://www.ifch.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/ruris/article/view/1741.
Rosset, P.M., and M.E. Martínez-Torres 2014. Diálogo de Saberes in La Vía Campesina: Food
Sovereignty and Agroecology. Journal of Peasant Studies 41 (6):979–97. Taylor & Francis.
doi:10.1080/03066150.2013.872632.
Martins, A.F.G. 2017. "A Produção Ecológica de Arroz Nos Assentamentos Da Região
Metropolitana de Porto Alegre: Territórios de Resistência.” Universidade Federal do Rio
Grande do Sul.
McMichael, P. 2009a. A food regime analysis of the ‘World Food Crisis.’. Agriculture and
Human Values 26 (4):281–95. doi:10.1007/s10460-009-9218-5.
Meek, D. 2015. Learning as territoriality: the political ecology of education in the Brazilian
landless workers’ movement. Journal of Peasant Studies 42 (6):1179–200. Taylor & Francis.
doi:10.1080/03066150.2014.978299.
Mier, Y. T., M. G. Cacho, O. F. Giraldo, M. A. Aldasoro, H. Morales, B. G. Ferguson, P.
Rosset, A. Khadse, and C. Campos. 2018. Bringing agroecology to scale : an overview of
key drivers and emblematic cases. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems. Taylor &
Francis. doi:10.1080/21683565.2018.1443313.
MST. 2005. Proposta de Reforma Agrária Do MST – 1995. In A Questão Agrária No Brasil:
Programas de Reforma Agrária 1946-2003, ed. J. P. Stédile, 177–79. São Paulo: Expressão
Popular.
Nicholls, C. I., and M. A. Altieri. 2018. Pathways for the amplification of agroecology.
Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 42 (10):1170–93. Taylor & Francis.
doi:10.1080/21683565.2018.1499578.
Pahnke, A. 2015. Institutionalizing economies of opposition: explaining and evaluating the
success of the MST’s cooperatives and agroecological repeasantization. Journal of Peasant
Studies 42 (6):1087–107. Taylor & Francis. doi:10.1080/03066150.2014.991720.
Nunes, P. J., M. C. Marjotta-Maistro, and R. V. Santos. 2016. Agroecologia No Movimento
Dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra: Reflexões Acerca de Avanços e Limites Em
Assentamentos Rurais Do Estado de São Paulo. In Anais Do VII Simpósio Sobre Reforma
Agrária e Questões Rurais. Araraquara: Nupedor/Uniara. https://www.uniara.com.br/arqui
vos/file/eventos/2016/vii-simposio-reforma-agraria-questoes-rurais/sessao1c/agroecologia-
movimento-trabalhadores-rurais-sem-terra.pdf.
Perez-Cassarino, J., and A. D. D. Ferreira 2016. Redesenhando Os Mercados: A Proposta Dos
Circuitos de Proximidade. Espacio Regional 1 (13):49–65.
Petersen, P., E. M. Mussoi, and F. Dalsoglio. 2012 October. Institutionalization of the
agroecological approach in Brazil: advances and challenges. Journal of Sustainable
Agriculture. Taylor & Francis Group, 121005074109006. doi:10.1080/
10440046.2012.735632.
Picolotto, E. L., and M. B. Piccin. 2008. Movimentos Camponeses e Questões Ambientais:
Positivação Da Agricultura Camponesa? Revista Extensão Rural 15 (16):5–36.
Pires, J. H. S., and H. T. Novaes. 2016. Estudo, Trabalho e Agroecologia: A Proposta Política
Pedagógica Dos Cursos de Agroecologia Do MST No Paraná. Germinal: Marxismo E
Educação Em Debate 8 (2):110–24. doi:10.9771/gmed.v8i2.18144.
Ploeg, J. D. V. D., Y. Jingzhong, and S. Schneider. 2012. Rural development through the
construction of new, nested, markets: comparative perspectives from China, Brazil and the
European Union. Journal of Peasant Studies 39 (1):133–73. doi:10.1080/
03066150.2011.652619.
Pontes, F. A., V. L. S. B. Ferrante, L. A. Barone, and M. B. B. Costa. 2017. Transição
Agroecológica a Partir Da Formação Técnica No Assentamento Gleba XV de Novembro
Em Rosana - SP. Retratos De Assentamentos 20 (1):246–74. doi:10.25059/2527-2594/retra-
tosdeassentamentos/2017.v20i1.265.
Porto, S. I. 2014. Programa de Aquisição de Alimentos (PAA): Política Pública de
Fortalecimento Da Agricultura Familiar e Da Agroecologia No Brasil. Master Thesis,
Universidad Internacional de Andalucía. http://www.reformaagrariaemdados.org.br/sites/
default/files/2014DissertaçãoISECSilvioPorto.pdf.
Rivera-Ferre, M. G. 2018. The resignification process of agroecology: competing narratives
from governments, civil society and intergovernmental organizations. Agroecology and
Sustainable Food Systems 42 (6):666–85. Taylor & Francis. doi:10.1080/
21683565.2018.1437498.
Rocha, C. 2007. Food insecurity as market failure: a contribution from economics. Journal of
Hunger & Environmental Nutrition 1 (January):5–22. doi:10.1300/J477v01n04.
Rosset, P. M., and M. A. Altieri. 2017. Agroecology: science and politics. Black Point:
Fernwood Publishing.
Rosset, P. M., and M.E. Martínez-Torres 2012. Rural social movements and agroecology:
context, theory, and process. Ecology and Society 17 (3):art17. doi:10.5751/ES-05000-
170317.
Rosset, P. M., B. M. Sosa, R. J. Adilén María, and Á. L. Dana Rocío. 2011. The Campesino-to-
Campesino agroecology movement of ANAP in Cuba: social process methodology in the
construction of sustainable peasant agriculture and food sovereignty. Journal of Peasant
Studies 38 (1):161–91. doi:10.1080/03066150.2010.538584.
Rover, O., B. de Gennaro, and L. Roselli. 2016. Social innovation and sustainable rural
development: the case of a Brazilian agroecology network. Sustainability 9(1).
Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute: 3. doi:10.3390/su9010003.
Sambuichi, R. H. R., M. L. Ávila, I. F. Moura, L. M. Mattos, and P. A. C. Spínola. 2017.
Avalização Do Plano Nacional de Agroecologia e Produção OrgâNica 2013-2015. In A
Política Nacional de Agroecologia e Produção OrgâNica No Brasil : Uma Trajetória de Luta
Pelo Desenvolvimento Rural Sustentável, edited by Regina Helena Rosa Sambuichi, Iracema
Ferreira de Moura, Luciano Mansor de Mattos, Mário Lúcio de Ávila, Paulo Asafe Campos
Spínola, and Ana Paula Moreira Silva,147–93. Brasília: IPEA.
Sauer and G. Mészáros. 2017. The political economy of land struggle in Brazil under workers’
party governments. Journal of Agrarian Change 17 (2):397–414. doi:10.1111/joac.12206.
Scopinho, R. A. 2007. Sobre Cooperação e Cooperativas Em Assentamentos Rurais. Psicologia
& Sociedade 19 (Spe). Associação Brasileira de Psicologia Social: 84–94. doi:10.1590/S0102-
71822007000400012.
Silva, P. M. D. 2015. Processo Identitário Da Rede de Sementes Agroecológicas Bionatur: A
Experiência Na Percepção Dos Agricultores. Universidade Federal de Pelotas.
Silva, P. M. D., A. Gaiardo, A. Inhaia, M. G. Morales, and I. F. Antunes. 2014. Rede de
Sementes Agroecológicas Bionatur: Uma Trajetória de Luta e Superação. Agriculturas 11
(1):33–37.
Souza, T. D. J., H. G. Nobre, J. C. Canuto, A. Da Costa Junqueira, and N. J. Aun. 2014. A

Utilização de Ferramentas Participativas Na Construção Do Conhecimento Agroecológico
Nos Assentamentos Pirituba e Sepé Tiarajú, No Estado de São Paulo. Revista Brasileira de
Agroecologia9 (1):72–85.
MST2007. Carta Do 5° Congresso Nacional Do MST. doi:10.1094/PDIS-91-4-0467B.
MST 2009. A Reforma Agrária Necessária: Por Um Projeto Popular Para a Agricultura
Brasileira.
MST 2015. Programa Agrário Do MST: Natureza, Fundamentos, Proposta e Lema de Luta
(2013). InSURgência 1 (1):247–79.
MST 2018a. III Feira Nacional Da Reforma Agrária. http://www.mst.org.br/III-feira-nacional-
da-reforma-agraria/.
MST 2018b. Quem Somos. http://www.mst.org.br/quem-somos/#full-text.
Tardin, J. M. 2009. Jornada de Agroecologia: Camponesas e Camponeses Em Movimento
Construindo o Sustento Da Vida e a Transformação Da Sociedade. Revista Brasileira De
Agroecologia 4 (2):382–86.
Valadão, A.C. 2012. Transição Agroecológica Em Assentamentos Rurais: Estratégias de
Resistência e Produção de Novidades. PhD Thesis, Universidade Federal do Paraná.
doi:10.1094/PDIS-11-11-0999-PDN.
Veras, M. M. 2005. Agroecologia Em Assentamentos Do MST No Rio Grande Do Sul: Entre as
Virtudes Do Discurso e Os Desafios Da Prática. Master Thesis, Universidade Federal de
Santa Catarina.
Via Campesina, L. 2014. Speech by La Via Campesina Delegation in the Closing Ceremony of
International Year of Family Farming, Manila, Philippines. https://viacampesina.org/en/
speech-by-la-via-campesina-delegation-in-the-closing-ceremony-of-international-year-of-
family-farming-manila-philippines/.
Via Campesina, L. 2016. Annual Report 2016. Harare: La Via Campesina. https://viacampe
sina.org/en/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2017/07/EN-Annual_Report_2016.pdf.
Wolford, W. 2003. Producing community: the MST and land reform settlements in Brazil.
Journal of Agrarian Change 3 (4):500–20. Wiley/Blackwell (10.1111). doi:10.1111/1471-
0366.00064.

MST S Experience in Leveraging Agroecology in Rural Settlements Lessons Achievements and Challenges

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

MST S Experience in Leveraging Agroecology in Rural Settlements Lessons Achievements and Challenges

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems

ISSN: 2168-3565 (Print) 2168-3573 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjsa21

MST’s experience in leveraging agroecology in

Ricardo Serra Borsatto & Vanilde F. Souza-Esquerdo

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2019.1615024

Published online: 12 May 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

MST’s experience in leveraging agroecology in rural

“Lutar! Construir Reforma Agrária Popular”

Agroecology offers fundamentals and principles that allow us to question

eliminated subsidies, and b) the formation and participation of the MST in

Production Cooperatives – CPAs). The focus was on promoting highly

Instead of emphasizing the formation of “cooperatives,” the Movement

The MST’s advances and challenges in scaling-out agroecology

of export-oriented monocultures. Some settlements are on the fringes of

Driver 1: recognize a crisis that motivates the search for alternatives

MST because the indebtedness of the settlers prevented access to new

Driver 2: social organization and intentional social process

The case of Bionatur, a network of organic seed producers that brings

Driver 3: effective and simple agroecological farming practices

approximately 8% of the families connected to the MST in the state of Paraná

Driver 4. constructivist teaching–learning processes

agroecological principles by peasant farmers is to invest in processes in which

Driver 5. mobilizing discourse

Driver 6. external allies

Driver 7. construction of markets favorable to agroecology

Feeding Program (PNAE), receive funds to purchase food directly from

Driver 8. favorable policies and political opportunities

(a) invest in less hierarchical processes of knowledge exchange such as

The recent election of an extreme right-wing President, Jair Bolsonaro,

Correa, C. 2007. MST Em Marcha Para a Agroecologia: Uma Aproximação à Construção

Souza, T. D. J., H. G. Nobre, J. C. Canuto, A. Da Costa Junqueira, and N. J. Aun. 2014. A

You might also like