Researcher and author:

Marina Yamaoka
 Introduction

05
A transition towards agroecology

11
contents

Frameworks used in the research

14

Agroecology in South America: origin and history

22

Thought leaders working with agroecology in South America

27

Conclusion
54

References Notes Annex

61
57

58
Agroecology will be able to contribute to
transform food systems by applying ecological
principles to agriculture and ensuring a
regenerative use of natural resources and
ecosystem services, while also addressing the
need for socially equitable food systems within
which people can exercise choice over what
they eat and how and where it is produced.1
05

introduction

The current global food system needs to be reshaped to guarantee food and nutrition security
to all while being environmentally sustainable and resilient, and more inclusive of poor and
marginalised populations.2 Nevertheless, the debate around agricultural development pathways
is not settled and it stands at a crossroads with regards to potential different trajectories.3 On the
spectrum of possible paths, agricultural systems could move towards more industrial practices
or to more sustainable paradigms, such as agroecology. Under each potential avenue lies a
specific type of knowledge, economics, culture, and, of course, a particular kind of farming.4
Overall, industrial and mechanised agriculture is input-intensive, based on crop monocultures
and industrial-scale feedlots, relying on chemical fertilisers, pesticides, and preventive use of
antibiotics, and leads to adverse outcomes and vulnerabilities.5 And although this system has led
to the collapse of food and agricultural systems worldwide, it is still the dominant paradigm6,
06
often being called ‘conventional agriculture.’
The increasing visibility and acknowledgment
of industrial farming failures and its social,
economic, and environmental costs stressed
the need to reform its agricultural practices.
Alongside, other visions and principles for
agriculture have evolved and gained ground.
Agroecology is one of them, and is based
on diversified farms and farming landscapes,
replacing chemical inputs, optimising
biodiversity and stimulating interactions
between different species, as part of holistic
strategies to build long-term fertility, healthy
agro-ecosystems and secure just livelihoods.7
There is no single and ‘official’ definition
for Agroecology nor for Regenerative
Agriculture – the latter being one of the good
practices that Mustardseed Trust supports to
contribute and enable care economies. Both
terms have been defined in diverse ways
by different stakeholders8, with such a wide
range of understandings and applications
that international organisations9 are making
attempts to build a database of definitions.10
It is important to acknowledge not only the
diversity of definitions11 but also that the
concepts of Regenerative Agriculture and
Agroecology share common ground and
principles, and even overlap (see definitions
below). Therefore, to avoid further confusion,
this report will adopt the use of Agroecology
to refer to the complementary dimensions of
the practice, science, and movement12 that
seeks to build sustainable food systems that
restore the balance and connection between
people and the earth.
This choice can be justified by the growing
body of literature, both scientific and grey13,
that, despite the discussion around its
semantics, uses agroecology to designate
agricultural systems that are biodiverse,
resilient, energetically efficient and socially
just, and that comprise the basis of an
energy, productive, and food sovereignty
strategy.14 It has also been adopted by a
broad international community15 as well as
by national and sub-national movements,
initiatives, and practitioners. Its use becomes
even more relevant as the region that is
analysed in this report – South America – has
a long history with the term (see Chapter 3),
and scholars that have prolifically
published papers on sustainable agricultural
practices in the region are well-known
advocates of agroecology.
07
As we can note from the definitions of
Regenerative Agriculture and Agroecology,
both terms share the objective of promoting
ecological agricultural practices that restore the
soil, increase biodiversity, and help to tackle
climate change while securing crop productivity
and yields. They are also concerned with
building healthier and more just and equitable
social and economic relations for people within
the whole food system, guaranteeing food and
nutrition security for all.
regenerative agriculture
Regenerative Agriculture is a system of farming principles
and practices that increases biodiversity, enriches soils,
improves watersheds, and enhances ecosystem services.
Regenerative Agriculture aims to capture carbon in soil
and aboveground biomass, reversing current global
trends of atmosphericaccumulation. At the same time, it
offers increased yields, resilience to climate instability, and
higher health and vitality for farming and ranching
communities. The system draws from decades of scientific
and applied research by the global communities of
organic farming, agroecology, Holistic Management,
and agroforestry.
some of the practices are:
contribution to building soils and soil 1
fertility and health;
increase water percolation, water retention, 2
and clean and safe water runoff;
increase biodiversity and ecosystem health
3
and resiliency;
invert the carbon emissions of our current
agriculture to one of remarkably significant
4 6 production of a wide range of less homogeneous
carbon sequestration thereby cleansing the
atmosphere of legacy levels of CO2.
agroecology
Agroecology is often described as a science, as a
movement, and as a practice. Overall, it is possible to
accept its definition “as the application of ecological
concepts and principles to the design and manage-
ment of sustainable agro-ecosystems”.
Measures based on agroecology have a “potential
strong contribution to farming system resilience
against climate change impacts, to the conservation of
biodiversity, and to reversing land degradation trends.”
They can also increase and preserve biodiversity, such
as soil microorganisms, promoting high crop producti-
vity while protecting the environment. Moreover,
agroecology approaches food systems from a holistic
perspective and is rooted in the reconstruction of
relationships between agriculture and the environment,
and between food systems and society.
some of the practices are:
1 temporal diversification (e.g., crop rotation) and
spatial diversification (e.g., intercropping; mixed
farming);
2 diversification employed at various levels,
including plot, farm, and landscape;
3 use of a wide range of species and less uniform,
locally-adapted varieties/breeds, based on
multiple uses (including traditional methods),
cultural preferences, taste, productivity and other
criteria;
natural synergies emphasized and production
4
types integrated (e.g., mixed crop-livestock-tree
farming systems and landscapes);
5 low external inputs: recycling of the waste within
full nutrient cycling and circular economy
approaches;
products often destined for short value chains;
multiple sources of production, income, and
livelihood.
08
Another important concept that should be
defined in this report is the concept of Care
Economy, as it is at the core of the work
of Mustardseed Trust. The Care Economy
sees a move from a growth, debt-based,
entropic economic system managed by
large, centralised institutions, to a network
of decentralised, transparent, and mutually
sustaining economies. It supports a shift,
which can be gradual and build on the
existing reality, to markets that fully respect
and account for all types of labour and
natural resources; it also is an economy of
creativity and collaboration that manifests
universal values of dignity, fairness, and
compassion for all. It encourages a transition
from access to capital for the few to access
to essential capital for all, and a switch from
closed systems of knowledge to transparent
systems of shared knowledge and wisdom,
offering the healthiest, most sustainable option
for the planet and for society.16
There is a lot of synergy between Agroecology
and the broader Care Economy. Vandana
Shiva, a well-known advocate of the
agroecological and food sovereignty
movements, writes that at the heart of the
industrial, agricultural paradigm are the
Laws of Exploitation and Domination, which
see the world as a machine and nature as
dead matter. Nature is understood as being
separate from human beings and is at their
disposal. In opposition, at the centre of the
agroecological paradigm lies the Law of
Return, by which all living beings give and
take in mutuality. This ecological paradigm
of agriculture “is based on the life and
interconnectedness, and it recognises the
potential of fertile seeds and fertile soils to
feed humanity and diverse species to whom
we are all related as Earth Citizens.”17 The
Law of Return is the backbone of both
Agroecology and the Care Economy, and
make an undeniable bridge between both.
The transition towards sustainable food
systems will require the transformation of
agriculture, which will, at the same time,
have to make it possible to produce enough
healthy and nutritious food for a growing
population, to preserve and sustainably
regenerate natural resources, to offer jobs
and decent incomes to people, especially
youth that arrives in the labour market, all
in a context of increasing tensions around
access to natural resources and the impacts
of climate change. In this context, a question
that arises is: what are the factors and
who are the actors enhancing or inhibiting
a shift towards agroecology?
09
This is the question that this research aims
to answer. By doing so, it will contribute
to the objective of Mustardseed Trust of
creating a body of knowledge and getting
the latest insights in the field of Regenerative
Agriculture/Agroecology. It is essential to
highlight that the geographical scope of
the research was limited to South America.
Moreover, to facilitate responding to the
question and to bring out the specificities and
nuances of the development of agroecology
in the region, the main research question
was broken into sub-questions, which are the
following:
1. Who are the most influential people
and organisations that are enhancing
and/or driving the practice of Agroecology
in South America?
2. What innovation do they present?
3. What are the most influential factors
that are enhancing and/or driving
the practice of Agroecology in South
America?
4. What are the most critical factors that
are inhibiting the practice of Agroecology
in South America?
This research is based on a qualitative
approach. The methodology applied to this
work consists of a bibliographic review and
semi-structured interviews with some key actors
who play a role in relevant agroecological
initiatives in the region that were considered to
be influential. With diversity being one of the
key features of agroecology, the actors and
organisations working in this field illustrate the
multiplicity of possible actions and innovations
to promote a transition towards sustainable
agriculture, with their work being focused
on the optimization of their practices. This
relates to farm outputs, but also to ecological
services such as the recovery of soil fertility
and the protection of biodiversity through
the protection of native seeds. It wouldn’t
be possible therefore to set one or two
specific criteria or indicators to measure a
‘common level’ of influence of the initiatives.
Nevertheless, when possible, the research
attempted to find quantitative indicators that
could suggest the impact of the innovations
that such actors and organisations are putting
in place, and ‘how’ influential they are.
10
A few examples are income generated through
farming activities, hectares of degraded land
that were recovered, number of watersheds
recovered, operations that began small and
scaled up, number of farmers – and their
families – involved in agroecological practices
or learning sessions, historical advocates,
government financing schemes that promote
agroecology, and so on.
This report is structured in four chapters.
First, it will briefly present an overview of the
industrial farming system, and why there is a
need to shift from the current paradigm to a
more sustainable one that fits into the Care
Economy. The second chapter presents the
conceptual and analytical frameworks used
in this research that allowed the exploration
of the obstacles and levers related to
agroecological practices. This is followed by
a short context of the origins and historical
development of agroecology in South America.
The fourth and last chapter will dive into who
the actors are and what factors trigger or
hinder the agroecological transition in the
region. In conclusion, a summary of the details
of promising innovations and trials related to
agroecological practices will be presented.
11

Chapter 1

A transition
towards
agroecology
12

The use of industrial agriculture practices

is associated with environmental problems
such as soil erosion and loss of biodiversity18,
the reduction of the latter being estimated
at 75% in one century.19 Besides, the current
food system contributes to climate change
as it is responsible for 25% to 30% of total
greenhouse gas emissions.20 The most
significant direct emissions from agriculture
are due to the overuse of fertilisers and
pesticides21, the destruction of ecosystems 80% of the food consumed in Asia and sub-
to obtain new land, soil degradation, and Saharan Africa.
the intensive livestock farming model. 22 23
The current industrial agriculture paradigm
Furthermore, the extensive application of
also fails food producers, especially women,
chemicals such as synthetic fertilisers and
who often lack credit, technical support, and
other chemical inputs lead to environmental
markets or face the uncertainties of volatile
impacts such as the pollution of soil, aquifers,
prices on global commodity markets.30 In
and watercourses24, as well as effects on living
many cases, they struggle to stay above
beings such as the decline of pollinators25,
the subsistence level: in 2015, farming
threatening the very basis of agriculture.
communities made up about 50% of the
Studies also point to the adverse outcomes of
hungry 31, and some of the most abject
agrochemical exposure to human health.26
poverty in the world is concentrated in
Climate change and environmental farming communities.32 Many smallholder
degradation also push many food producers farmers rely on a precarious balance of
to the breaking point. There are some 500 multiple livelihoods, in which hunger is a daily
million smallholder farms worldwide, and fact of life, and access to essential services,
more than 2 billion people depending on education, health, and water supplies is even
them for their livelihoods , with many of them more difficult than for the urban poor.33
presently living in vulnerable environments.
With the limitations and negative impacts of
These populations will bear the brunt of large-
the dominant industrial agriculture model, it
scale environmental change , together with
becomes then necessary to foster a transition
those who rely on the food they produce, as
towards more sustainable agriculture and
these small farms are responsible for about
food systems. Agroecology can help redesign
13

agricultural systems in ways that “maximise biodiversity and stimulate interactions between
different plants and species, as part of holistic strategies to build long-term fertility, healthy agro-
ecosystems, and secure livelihoods.”34 It reconciles economic efficiency, respect for ecosystems
and preservation of natural resources, while guaranteeing the right to food for all and decent
living conditions for peasants.35
Moreover, agroecology’s holistic approach incorporates the traditional knowledge and skills
of the world’s farming communities with cutting edge ecological, agronomic, economic and
sociological research that has the potential to support strong, democratically based food systems
that provide health and livelihoods to small-scale family farmers and rural communities, as
well as environmental benefits. It is through such a process of regeneration that another kind of
agricultural civilisation can be built.36
Agroecology is gaining importance in scientific, agricultural and political debates37, with
progressive attempts to define it, as well as its objectives and measure its impacts.38 FAO’s
attention to agroecology illustrates how this paradigm has gained strength and became a central
topic in the debates around how to build more sustainable and resilient food and agricultural
systems. In 2018, the organisation has synthesised what it considers to be the ten elements of
agroecology39, which serve as useful guidelines for practitioners, policymakers, and researchers.
14

Chapter 2

Frameworks used
in the research
15
To explore what the factors are and
who the actors are who are enhancing
or inhibiting a shift to sustainable
agriculture and food systems in South
America, and to understand the
current state of play of agroecological
initiatives in the region, this research
has adopted well-established
frameworks that supported data
collection – mapping the influential
people and organisations – and, more
importantly, data analysis that will be
further presented and discussed in
Chapter 4.
barriers inhibiting the shift towards
agroecology
One of the characteristics of agroecological practices
is that they are deeply linked to the local contexts in
which they take place, acknowledging and embracing
their specificities. Therefore, when approaching the
obstacles that the people and organisations working
with agroecology face and overcome in South
America, this research had to be able to encompass
the different types of barriers that would emerge from
the particular experiences of such actors. There is
vast literature analysing the obstacles hindering the
overall transition to sustainable agriculture – access
to resources such as land and inputs, access to
financing and markets, and so on – and this was used
as a starting point to explore the potential barriers.
The following step was to confirm if these obstacles
identified in the literature review were related to or
could be found in the South American context. To do
that, this research explored the Final Report on the
Regional Meeting on Agroecology in Latin America
and the Caribbean.40 This document sums up the
discussions of four multistakeholder round tables
that took place in Brazil in 2015, and which were
widely attended by South American participants. The
report provides recommendations on how to promote
agroecology in the region. From the cross-checking
of the obstacles that emerged from the broader
literature review with the more specific regional
recommendations, it was possible to come up with
seven main challenges that might hinder agroecology
in South America, which are:
16

lack of financing ..... This obstacle is related to the need for securing financial
resources for the development of agroecology.

lack of resources ..... This obstacle is linked to various resources, such as having
access to land, water, seeds, and other inputs. Under this
obstacle, the knowledge of agroecological practices was also
considered as a resource, which often is not prioritised in
formal agronomics studies, for example.

fragmentation
between
..... There is space to foster the collaboration between the
agroecological different actors working with agroecology in South America.
supporters Exchanging best practices and information regarding
agroecology would help foster the dialogue between farmers,
consumers, the academic sector, governments, and social
movements.

compartmentalized
knowledge
..... Education, research, and learning processes often are not
articulated and based on agroecology pillars and institutions
of an interdisciplinary and intersectoral nature.

lack of recognition
of agroecology
..... Most national decision-makers consider more or less explicitly
that agroecological practices are not up to the task of
ensuring the food and nutritional security of their countries.
Disseminating evidence regarding the multifunctional role
that agroecology plays in preserving soils, water, biodiversity,
as well as other ecological functions, guaranteeing environ-
mental preservation in a socially inclusive and economically,
while being productive, would help to foster the transition
towards agroecology.
17

lack of supportive
policies
..... This obstacle is related to the need to promote public policies
that boost agroecology and food sovereignty. It can be
related to their absence or to the lack of their implementation
and further monitoring and evaluation.
This obstacle is also related to the need for assuring the
necessary budget for the implementation of such policies.

lack of access
to market
..... Food producers might face difficulties to access markets for
their products. Some of the problems they face are inadequa
te infrastructure, high transport costs, or limited market
information. Although this can be applied to all agricultural
systems, it is more a burden for small producers that don’t
have bargain power to negotiate with the ‘middlemen’ that
often buy their produce.

Despite having identified these seven obstacles
that were used to guide data collection and
analysis, the mapping activity was approached
as an ‘open-ended’ exercise. This means that
the research was receptive to the adding of
more constraints and new obstacles if they
had been pointed out by the practices of the
encountered actors in the region.
innovations and levers to overcome
the barriers
The innovations that are implemented on the
ground by the identified actors are diverse,
ranging from a shift from chemical to organic
inputs to recovering indigenous and local
agricultural practices. They can also be
related to the design and implementation
of online social platforms that give farmers
advice and find solutions for their questions
about when to harvest or the creation of
peasants’ agroecological schools, and even
a new curriculum and methodology related
18

to peer-to-peer research and education on
agroecology. With a myriad of possibilities for
innovations, it became necessary to encounter
a manner of grouping them under categories
that would allow for an analysis of what the
most explored types of innovations are and
where there is still space to act upon. The
framework chosen to support this sub-section
of the research was derived from two
IPES-Food reports.
First, the study Breaking away from industrial
food and farming systems: Seven case studies
of agroecological transition41 was used
due to its analytical framework that allows
understanding the nature of innovations
that help foster the transition towards
agroecological systems. As stated in the report,
While shifts in production practices continue
to be the most documented, the importance of
change in multiple dimensions is nonetheless
highlighted across the literature. In particular,
four different dimensions of change emerge
as key components of agroecological
transition: changes in production practices, in
knowledge generation and dissemination,
in social and economic relations, and an
institutional framework.42
These were the four types of innovations
adopted in this research.

four key dimensions of change

1 production practices
Agroecological farming approaches are based around recycling and minimizing losses of resources
and biomass, fostering their multi-functionality and optimizing biodiversity, as well as stimulating
interactions between different species.
Basic changes in practices such as replacing chemical inputs with ecologically-based materials,
practices, and processes may be important for early adoption, given that they show relatively fast
and visible results that may appeal to farmers.
In turn, more complex agroecological management, which leads to a slower accrual of benefits
and requires landscape-level coordination, may be more difficult to promote and tends to be
introduced once farmers are already familiar with the basic concepts of agroecology and have
been motivated by initial successes.43
19

knowledge generation and dissemination

2
Deep and ongoing engagement with farmers’ knowledge and experience is necessary to pave
the way for holistic agroecologically-managed production systems, which are highly knowledge-
intensive and location-specific.44 Farmer-led, bottom-up innovation processes are seen as crucial
to identify and spread the most appropriate farming practices and to drive research needs.
New forms of knowledge generation and dissemination have been central to agroecological
movements and transitions to date, taking the form of campesino-a-campesino (farmer-to-farmer)
knowledge dissemination, farmer field schools, and farmer-led participatory research projects.45

social and economic relations

3
The emergence of new norms rooted in direct exchange, proximity, transparency, and ethical
production and consumption – a shift from a global ‘food from nowhere regime’ to a ‘food from
somewhere regime’ – has been emphasized as central to transition.46
Moreover, authors highlight collective action as a core driver of change – and thus emphasize the
need for farmers to have a high degree of social capital to work cooperatively in regional and
landscape-level initiatives.47

4 institutional framework

Public policies can set the underlying conditions and economic incentives for agroecological
practices and sustainable food systems to emerge. These include policies that secure access to
land, water, forests, common property resources, and seeds; policies providing access to credit;
supporting urban and peri-urban agroecological production, particularly of small- and medium-
sized enterprises; providing incentives for multi-functional agriculture and the provision of
ecosystem services.
20

Moreover, besides understanding the ‘broad’ allows for a greater understanding of which
nature of the innovation to which a certain techniques are most efficient and best-
actor or factor might be related to, it was of adapted to local contexts.
equal importance to shed light on which levers • Sustainable and Healthy Sourcing:
allowed for the barriers to be overcome. Thus, concerns about nutrition and diets due
the identified opportunities for a transition to concerns about the health impacts of
to agroecological systems from the report pesticides, and growing awareness of the
From Uniformity to Diversity48 were used as benefits of dietary diversity. Also, a concern
an analytical framework to understand upon about environmental sustainability and equity
what the mapped initiatives in South America in food systems due to public awareness.
were building their actions and work. This
framework49 emerges from concrete examples • Short supply chains: a variety of schemes
that were, and are, taking place in different and initiatives aimed at reducing the distance
parts of the world, and highlights opportunities between producers and consumers
that can enhance agroecological practices.
• Policy incentives for diversification
and agroecology: government provides
support and incentives to support sustainable
agricultural practices.50
• Integrated landscape thinking:
management of resources that ensure healthy
ecosystems across territories at multiple levels
(fields, farms, landscapes, regions)
• Integrated food systems science and
education: Educational structures and
programmes more focused on systems
analysis and collaborative research
programmes around agroecology and high-
diversity farming systems.
• Peer-to-peer action research: spread of
agroecological research through participatory,
practical applications. This type of research
21

the “levels” of food system change based on agroecology

Lastly, this research benefited from Gliessman’s framework which analyses the ‘level’ of food
system transitions to agroecology to understand the current state of play of the countries and
the region based on the mapped initiatives . As stated previously, this research has decided
to adopt the use of Agroecology as a term and the frameworks related to it; nevertheless, it
is important to notice that there are other frameworks offering ways to discern at which level
an initiative or a project is in a ‘scale of transformation’ towards sustainable agriculture and
food systems. One framework worth mentioning is the Four Levels of Regenerative Agriculture,
proposed by Ethan Soloviev and Gregory Landua.

the five levels transition framework53

Level 1 Increase the efficiency of industrial/conventional practices

to reduce the use and consumption of costly, scarce, or
environmentally damaging inputs.

Level 2 Substitute alternative practices for industrial/conventional inputs

and practices.

Level 3 Redesign the agro-ecosystem so that it functions based on a

new set of ecological processes.

Level 4 Re-establish a more direct connection between those who grow

food and those who consume it.

Level 5 On the foundation created by the sustainable farm-scale agro-

ecosystems achieved at Level 3, and on the new relationships
developed through Level 4, build a new global food system
based on equity, participation, democracy, and justice, that is
not only sustainable but helps restore and protect Earth’s life
support systems.
22

Chapter 3

Agroecology in
South America:
origin and history
23

The history of agroecology in South America, like in other regions and

countries, does not follow a linear and uniform path. It consists of different
parallel processes, connected around objectives, approaches, and
actors.54 Nevertheless, it is possible to outline a few common elements that
1980 tie together a historical narrative of the development of agroecology in
the region and its countries. In the 1980s, agroecology re-emerged as a
reaction from rural organisations and institutions to the increasingly evident
consequences of an environmentally unsustainable and socially exclusive
agricultural model, derived from the Green Revolution.55 56 From the mid-
1990

1980s, and more strongly in the 1990s, it went beyond farmers practicing
agroecology, and agroecological practices and knowledge started to have
a more substantial presence in research institutions and universities.57 This
is followed by an overall ‘third’ moment of recognition of agroecological
practices in South America in the 2000s. With an economic crisis and
a greater perception of environmental problems related to industrial
2000

agriculture practices, agroecology also gains space in the public debate

within governments. Since the turn of the 2000s, a series of public
policies and regulatory frameworks linked to agroecological and organic
production practices have been debated and created in South America at
the national level.

agroecology and non-governmental organisations (ngos)

Towards the end of the 1970s, agriculture reached a critical point due
to the shortcomings of the Green Revolution. The aggravation of rural
poverty, strong migration to the cities, and the absence of policies for
small farmers58, together with the environmental unsustainability of the
Green Revolution and its inaccessibility to most farmers59, sparked the
re-engagement of NGO’s with agroecology in the region.60 Alongside
development institutions and peasants, these organisations took up the
challenge of addressing the adverse social and environmental outcomes
of industrial agriculture and proposed alternative technologies to
conventional agriculture. These NGOs felt “the urgent need to combat
rural poverty and to conserve and regenerate the deteriorated resource
24

base of small farms and saw in agroecology

a new approach to agricultural research and
resource management strategies that lent
itself to a more participatory approach for
technology development and dissemination.”61
The Consorcio Latino Americano de
Agroecologia y Desarrollo (CLADES)62,
for example, played a crucial role in capacity
building on agroecology of hundreds of
NGO technicians and peasant promoters.
They, in turn, disseminated agroecological
principles and practices which crystallised
in a variety of projects featuring resource-
conserving yet highly productive systems.63
In general, evidence shows that over time
these agroecologically-managed systems
in South America exhibited stable levels of
total production per unit area and produced
economically favorable rates of return,
guaranteeing an acceptable livelihood to
small farmers and their families. These systems
also ensured soil protection and conservation
as well as enhanced biodiversity.64 There was
also an emphasis of the work of these NGOs
on rescuing ancestral knowledge, cultures,
and traditional agricultural practices65
that promoted a diversity of technological
approaches. Coupled with social processes
that valued community involvement and
participation, such approaches increased rural
people’s options, especially for resource-poor
farmers.66
25
agroecology and academia
Miguel Altieri, a Chilean born agronomist and
entomologist, and a Professor of Agroecology
at the University of California, traces the
adoption of agroecology by academic
institutions in Latin America back to the
beginning of the 1980s.67 After the publication
in 1982 of the Spanish version of his book
Agroecology: the scientific basis of alternative
agriculture, interest in agroecology grew rapidly
in the region, especially among agronomists
who started to see the value of ecology in
guiding agricultural design and management.
Interest also arose with some ecologists who
began to use the farming systems as study
plots to test the various ecological hypothesis.68
These were the foundations of a new emerging
agroecological science in South America.
In 1992, CLADES developed a course to
train young university professors, who later on
introduced agroecology into the agricultural
curriculum of their institutions as well as
developing research programs.69 Therefore,
the Consorcio was instrumental in bringing
agroecological practices and Academia
closer. Moreover, many agroecologists and
students affiliated with CLADES created
important university initiatives in Bolivia, Brazil,
and Mexico, and other tailored extension
programmes with an agroecological approach
directed at family farmers in many parts of
Brazil.70 Since then, the academic current
of agroecology grew stronger in the region,
being consolidated at the Latin American
level with the creation, in 2007, of the Latin
American Scientific Society of Agroecology
(SOCLA) and their two doctoral agroecology
programs, forming a high-level critical mass
of agroecologists in the region.71
agroecology and institutional
frameworks
The expansion of agroecology in Latin
America initiated an interesting process of
cognitive, technological, and sociopolitical
innovation, intimately linked to new
political scenarios such as the emergence
of progressive governments and resistance
movements of peasants and indigenous
people.72 More recently, national government
bodies and institutions of South American
countries have begun to incorporate the
agroecological approach and the concern for
family agriculture into their agendas in a more
or less explicit form and with greater or lesser
impact.
A few examples can be highlighted. In
2013, in Argentina, the Secretariat of Family
Agriculture created an agroecology area to
promote its approach throughout the country.
With an interdisciplinary team and a territorial
strategy, the applied methodology highlighted
the recovery of natural resources and the
exchange of knowledge. It also supported
the processes of agroecological transition.73
Meanwhile, in Bolivia, from 2006 onwards, a
26
new stage of agroecological transition began
with the creation of a regulatory instrument
that promoted ecological agriculture and
non-timber forest production.74 Moreover,
Venezuela’s Constitution institutionalises
sustainable agriculture as a practice in the
country with its Article 2015 that mentions
that “the State shall promote sustainable
agriculture as the strategic basis for overall
rural development.”75
All of these examples of institutional political
changes in the region are crucial to support the
transition to sustainable agriculture practices;
nevertheless, they are not enough. Despite
these significant advances, the agroecological
process in South America still faces substantial
challenges.76 These include the effective
implementation of these regulations and
national policies related to agroecology,
including the required budgetary resources
for this purpose.77 Moreover, it is essential to
be able to rely on professionals, researchers,
and extension workers who know how to
help implement such frameworks; therefore,
the role of universities and academia is
irreplaceable in training skilled professionals.78
27

Chapter 4

Thought leaders
working with
agroecology in
South America
28
This research is anchored in an extensive, but
not exhaustive, review of the scientific and grey
literature on the obstacles and levers that are
related to a shift to more sustainable thinking
and practices in agriculture, and in the food
system. Besides analysing the factors that
enhance or inhibit such transition, the research
also aims at understanding who is promoting
or blocking it. Therefore, a mapping exercise
was conducted to find these actors and the
innovations they are putting in place. In the first
moment, more than two hundred individuals,
organisations, or projects were found in
South America and gathered in a database.79
As one of the objectives of the research
is to find those considered to be the most
influential actors, a second moment of the
mapping exercise consisted in analysing each
individual, organisation or project to classify
them according to the frameworks described in
Chapter 2, as well as looking for quantitative
indicators that could be used as a measure of
the impact and scale of their work. During this
second phase of the mapping exercise, some
actors were excluded from the database due
to the lack of information on them. Although
some appear in reports as examples of actors
promoting a shift to sustainable agriculture
and food system, it was sometimes impossible
to find their website or any other information
to corroborate the preliminary findings. After
eliminating the actors for which there was no
available information, the mapping exercise
ended up gathering 115 actors.
The database was built on Airtable, which
works like a spreadsheet, but allows for more
straightforward data analysis due to the
possibility of combining a series of commands
such as grouping and filtering information.
It is essential to mention that three important
regional actors that were part of the historical
institutionalisation of agroecology in South
America were not added to the database.
They are the Consorcio Latino Americano
de Agroecologia y Desarrollo (CLADES),
the Latin American Scientific Society of
Agroecology (SOCLA), and the Movimiento
Latinoamericano de Agroecología (MAELA).
Although they aim at transforming agriculture
and food systems – and tackle many obstacles
to reach this objective – and the fact that
they help to shape the agroecological
scientific and political spheres in the region,
they are umbrella organisations that gather
many others; it was not possible therefore
to measure with precision and accuracy
the impact of their work as individual
organisations. In large part, their strength relies
on the fact that they are a strong network
representing many other organisations.
The database is available on the link:
https://bit.ly/regagrisouthamerica
29
who are the thought leaders of
agroecology in south america?
If one had to choose a single word to describe
the mapped actors for this research, that
single word would be diverse. Some of the
thought leaders that are promoting the
shift to agroecology in South America are
organisations that have been working intheir
countries, and in the region, for almost fifty
years, as is the case of Foundation for
the Application and Teaching of the Sciences
(Fundaec), in Colombia. This NGO, for
example, has been dedicated to fostering
processes of agroecological learning,
training, and development in the rural areas
of Colombia and an increasing number of
countries in Latin America. One of its main
programmes, the Tutorial Learning System, is
an innovative secondary level educational
system used by over 25,000 students. Other
actors are much more recent, such as Canopy
Bridge, in Ecuador, created in 2018. However,
this doesn’t mean that they are not promoting
change. This sourcing network connects
businesses, producer associations, and
community groups buying and selling natural
products that aim to contribute to improved
livelihoods, social empowerment, and healthy
ecosystems. Its online directory provides an
easily accessible, global meeting place that
allows buyers and suppliers of sustainable
crops and wild-harvested products to find
each other, build relationships, and start
conversations about direct trade opportunities.
In their Ecuadorian platform, for example,
there are already 160 producers.
The 115 individuals, organisations, and
projects are located in ten South American
countries: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile,
Colombia, Ecuador, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay,
and Venezuela. They are involved in different
sectors (civil society, research, private and
public sector) at different scales (local, sub-
national, national, regional, international).
Some focus only on one scale, while others
have an impact on more than one, as is
the case of Fundaec which has both national
and regional relevance. Overall, the mapped
actors were more focused on promoting
agroecology at the sub-national and
national levels.
30

what obstacles are inhibiting that deserves attention and that some
an agroecological transition in organisations and individuals are currently
south america? trying to tackle. Agroecological practices are
grounded in interdisciplinary and intersectoral
An analysis of the institutional websites of the
knowledge, this means that they relate to
mapped actors coupled with secondary sources
biophysical, technical and socioeconomic
pointed to obstacles that these actors encounter
components of farming systems while involving
or are trying to overcome to promote a shift to
farmers, researchers, private players, and
sustainable agriculture. Three main challenges
other actors. Nevertheless, it is common to see
were identified: lack of resources, lack of
a top-down approach with technical assistants
access to markets, and the compartmentalized
or agronomists teaching ‘universal’ techniques
knowledge.
that might not be the most adequate to
In the first obstacle, resources are related to a certain locality. Agroecology proposes
inputs such as native seeds, organic fertilisers, to flip this logic and to adopt a bottom-
and even knowledge of agroecological up strategy that builds on the needs of the
practices. Almost 70% of the mapped actors farmers. Although there has been a growing
are working to overcome this barrier through and stronger presence of agroecological
different types of innovations, as discussed practices in Academia in South America (see
further. The issue of accessing markets can Chapter 3), which might lead to researchers
also be highlighted. It is related to two and practitioners learning how to put in
types of difficulties: first, to physically make practice the interdisciplinarity of agroecology
agroecological and organic products to reach in the future, this is still scattered. Moreover,
fairs and markets. Often, producers that this doesn’t cover less formal and practical
practice sustainable farming are doing it on training that can benefit peasants and young
small farms, and it is not easy for them to sell students.
their produce to supermarkets. They might
also need to overcome poor infrastructure to
reach consumers. The second overarching
issue concerning markets relates to the need
to guarantee certification schemes so that
consumers can have access to agroecological
and organic products and can be aware of
what they are buying. Lastly, compartmentalized
knowledge also appeared as an obstacle
31
Lack of Financing
Lack of Resources
Lack of Access to Market
“Fragmentation” between Agroecological Supporters
Compartmentalized Knowledge
Lack of Recognition of Agroecology
Lack of Supportive Policies
what innovations do these
actors present?
Overall, there is a balance between the three
main types of change and innovation that
these actors promote: production practices,
social and economic relations, and knowledge
generation and dissemination.
Actors working with changes in production
practices focus on shifting from chemical
fertilisers to organic ones, promoting
sustainable integration of crop-livestock
systems, rebuilding the landscape
with agroforestries, recovering traditional
techniques such as Suka Kollus (raised
platforms surrounded by water channels) in
Bolivia, among other practices. Regarding
social and economic relations, there is an
emphasis on connecting producers and
consumers with the emergence of short
supply chains. Actors work with a variety of
schemes and initiatives aimed at reducing the
distance between producers and consumers.
This can be done by the setting of specific
sale points, such as Ecotiendas, in Uruguay,
through online platforms, as the case of
Canopy Bridge, in Ecuador, or even through
the creation of ‘consumer cells’ in the South
of Brazil, that promote the direct sale of
agroecological food baskets to groups of
32
consumers that make pre-orders, allowing for
producers to organise themselves better.
Regarding knowledge generation and
dissemination, practices put in place by
these actors are also very diverse. They can
be individuals who had started to practice
agroecology due to their interest in biodiversity
conservation and environmental preservation
and who, little by little, have drawn attention
and started to open their farms for students
and the public to visit and learn more. Some
examples that fit into this case are Huerta
Asano in Bolivia, Ernst Gotsch farm in Brazil,
Pacho Gangontena farm in Ecuador, and
Finca La Cosmopolitana and Finca Gabeno,
both in Colombia. The size of the farms in the
cited examples range from 3.5 hectares to
almost 500 hectares. Still, they are all places
where knowledge is created and exchanged;
for instance, Paco Gangotena farm has
received more than 24,000 farmers and nearly
4,000 technicians. Initiatives innovating in
knowledge generation can also be peasants’
rural schools supported by social movements
such as La Via Campesina, or even the
promotion of social networks for farmers to
learn more about agricultural practices, as is
the case at ManejeBem in Brazil.
Changes in institutional frameworks seem to
have less emphasis as a type of innovation that
these actors are promoting. One hypothesis
that could explain such phenomena is that,
as described in Chapter 3, there are already
national regulatory frameworks and policies
in the region. Even though they could be
strengthened, the first step would be actually
to implement these. Moreover, a second
hypothesis related to implementation issues
could be that there is a sense of discredit of
the actors regarding the effectiveness of such
policies as they exist, some for more than a
decade, but have faced difficulties with being
put in place and foster the expected changes.
social network for family farmers:
Manejebem is a technology-based
company that generates intelligence
for the development of family rural
communities.
Through the implementation
of technologies, dissemination of
information and connection between
technicians and farmers through a
social network, ManejeBem intend
to mitigate the lack of specialized
technical assistance in sustainable
production and positively impact the
lives of family farmers.
33

Production
Practices

84 Institutional
Social Framework
and Economic Relations
Relations
Knowledge
26
75 Generation and
Dissemination

75

on which levers do these innovations rely?

There are three main levers, or opportunities, that these actors
are using to promote their innovations and, more broadly, a
transition to agroecology. First, there is growing momentum
for managing and improving the outcomes of food systems at
the landscape or territorial level. Actors that are focused on
changes in agricultural production systems are concentrated on
redesigning agro-ecosystems and are also concerned with the
promotion of more equitable and just economic relations for
both producers and consumers. They often have a holistic view
of the food system and promote integrated landscape thinking.
Secondly, there is also a new impetus to developing and
spreading knowledge on building resilience in food systems,
often emphasising the needs of small-scale farmers, especially
women, in the face of the depletion of natural resources and
volatile international markets. Moreover, it seems that due
34

to the strong link of agroecological practices to farmer’s

movements in South America, there has been a recent spread
of agroecological research through participatory, practical
applications, allowing for a greater understanding of which
techniques are most efficient and best adapted to local contexts.
Therefore, integrated food systems and science education,
together with peer-to-peer action research, appear as essential
levers in the promotion of agroecology in the region.
Lastly, concerns about nutrition and diets are gaining ground
alongside increasing concerns about the health impacts of
pesticides, and growing awareness of the benefits of dietary
diversity. In parallel, public awareness about environmental
sustainability and equity in food systems has been steadily rising,
which helps to explain that Sustainable and Healthy Sourcing
is a vital lever helping to promote agroecological practices in
South America. This can be seen by the multiple initiatives in
the region that promote organic production and certification
and is also related to the already described strong emphasis on
the creation of short supply chains in the region.

Policy incentives for diversification and agroecology 11

Integrated landscape thinking 89

Integrated food systems science and education 49

Peer-to-peer action research 43

Sustainable and Healthy Sourcing 67

Short supply chains 23

35

overall state of play of agroecology in

south america
Amount of The application of Gliessman’s framework of the “levels”
initiatives in
each level
of food system change80 is an attempt to understand the
current state of play of the countries and the region based
on the mapped initiatives and the information collected
Level 1 about them. As this research is based on qualitative
Increase the efficiency 1 methods, the result being discussed here is not statistically
significant. Still, it serves more as a beacon to illuminate
of conventional practices.
and inform potential discussions on the development of
agroecology in South America.
Level 2 Overall, the actors were more engaged with Levels 3, 4,
Substitute for 15 and 5 of change. This means that they are concretely
alternative practices. taking measures on their farms – or helping the farmers
that they work with to do so – to convert from conventional
agro-ecosystems. Being engaged with Level 3 means that
Level 3
they are more focused on redesigning the agro-ecosystem
Redesign the agroecosystem
/new ecological practices.
39 so that it functions based more on a new set of ecological
processes than focusing on incremental changes such as
input substitution (Level 3). Moreover, some actors go
beyond the farm level and encompass broader societal
Level 4
and food system changes. This resonates with the previous
Re-establish a more direct discussions of South America actors using Sustainable
connection between those
who grow food and those
26 and Healthy Sourcing as an opportunity to promote short
who consume it.
supply chains and connect producers and consumers (Level
4). There are also actors who, through their actions and
initiatives, are working to reform food systems as a whole,
Level 5 which corresponds to Level 5 of change.
Build a new global 34 These actors provide ways to build on farm-scale and
food system. farmer-driven change processes to engage in a full re-
thinking of how we relate to each other and to the earth
that supports us. As Gliessman highlights,
36

The expanding awareness that is part of this process

then extends to other facets of environmental and
social relationships beyond food, bringing about
a paradigm shift focused on how the agriculture
and food systems of the future can help reduce our
ecological footprint, recognise that there are limits
to growth, and what it means to live sustainably.81

interviews to further explore obstacles and

opportunities for agroecology in south america

As part of the research, semi-structured interviews were conducted

with a small sample of five actors exploring further obstacles and
opportunities for agroecology in the countries they work in and in
the South American region. The interviews were also used as an
opportunity to use the snowball sampling technique, which consisted
of asking for the interviewees to indicate other actors whom they
considered to be thought leaders in the region. It served to either
confirm actors that had already been mapped or to add new actors
into the database.
Moreover, the interviews allow to make a bridge between the
previous analysis of obstacles and levers presented in Chapter 4,
which is based in the data collected during desk research, and a new
contribution regarding who are the actors addressing obstacles or
using levers to promote agroecology in South America.
37

sampling The sampling process is intentional and not

random.It seeks to approach influential actors
who could give insights that help to answer

criteria the research question while maximising the

representativeness of views. As the whole
research lasted five weeks, only five actors
were sampled to be interviewed due to time
constraints. Five criteria were used to sample
and find the actors to be interviewed.

1 Influence: the objective of the research is to find thought leaders. The quantitative
indicators were used as a first criterion to help to select the most influential actors.
Thirty-four actors didn’t have any data regarding their impact; they were therefore
discarded. Those who didn’t have any information that allowed them to be
contacted were also dropped.82

2 For the remaining actors in the database, the second criterion prioritised diversity
in their innovations. Therefore, the actors were grouped by type of change.

3 A second grouping was done considering the obstacles to guarantee that there
would be a diversity of views on the factors that are hindering sustainable
agricultural practices in South America.

4 The fourth criterion was to ensure geographical diversity. Therefore, each one of
the five actors had to come from a different country.

5 Lastly, the sample tried, as much as possible, to encompass actors coming from
different sectors (civil society, private sector, public sector, and research).
38

obstacles

That can be moved

with the help of

levers
main
main

3
3

Guaranteeing
Lack of Access Integrated
resources
to Resources landscape thinking

Proving it works
and disseminating
knowledge
Integrated food
systems science and Consolidating
Compartmentalized
education + agroecological hubs
Knowledge
Peer-to-peer action
research

Lack of Access Sustainable and Getting to the

to Markets Health Sourcing fork: consumers
39

4
Venezuela
19

Colombia

Ecuador

12

Brazil
Peru
7
Bolivia 18

14

Paraguay

Level 1 Uruguay
Chile
7
9
Level 2
Argentina

Level 3 11

Level 4

Level 5
40

1.guaranteeing resources

Interview: Rede de Sementes do Xingu, Brazil

The Xingu Seed Network is a network of exchanges and sales of

seeds from trees and other plants native to the Xingu, Araguaia,
and Teles Pires regions. With thirteen years of existence, more
than 6,600 hectares of degraded areas in the Xingu and
Araguaia River Basin and other regions of the Cerrado
and Amazon have been recovered using 249 tons of seeds
from more than 220 native species collected by the Network.
The seeds are collected and processed by 568 collectors and
generated an income of R$ 4 million which was passed on
directly to the communities.
41
The Network helps to overcome the
barrier of protecting resources (seeds)
and allowing for other farmers and
producers to have access to them.
Moreover, according to Dannyel Sá, a social
and environmental advisor for the Instituto
Socioambiental, a substantial obstacle
to be overcome is the weak knowledge
sharing and communication about
agroecological experiences. He says,
I believe that communication is important
regarding experiences that are already
taking place as they can be showcased as
real solutions and concrete proposals. For
instance, if Brazil had to recover millions
of hectares of degraded land, other seed
networks would have to be established,
and the Xingu Seed Network experience
could serve as an example. But for this, it is
necessary that the experiences that already
happen can gain visibility, and arrangements
allow for initiatives to share experiences.
who else should be part of this
conversation?
• Reserva Natural El Hatico, Colombia:
It has been fundamental in the purpose
of generating a change of attitude and
practices of the cattlemen towards the
conservation of the environment. The work
of nine generations has allowed hundreds of
scholars and people interested in sustainable
agricultural production to visit El Hatico and
show that it is possible to turn cattle ranchers
into allies of biodiversity conservation, while
at the same time achieving economic benefits
thanks to: increased productivity and costs
avoided by reducing external inputs. It has
around 500 hectares of agrosylvopastoral
system. The Hatico receives between 1,500
and 2,000 people a year who are given
environmental education.
• Naturaleza Viva Farm, Argentina:
It keeps the concepts of integration and
diversity at the heart of their work and their life.
Its production supplies the domestic market by
offering a wide variety of fresh and processed
products. A farm of nearly 180 ha that has
been practicing agroecology and biodynamic
agriculture for more than 20 years, and it has
been internationally recognized by its work.
42

• Grupo Semillas, Colombia:

In the social arena, the contributions made
by the Grupo Semillas and the agronomist
Germán Vélez have been outstanding. For
the last two decades, Mr. Vélez has been
playing a key role in the defense of native
seeds and in political discussions about the
use of genetically modified organisms in
the country. It is a historical NGO, founded
in 1994, that seeks the protection and
local control of territories, natural resources,
biodiversity, sustainable production systems,
and food sovereignty and autonomy of
rural populations and communities. It could
be interesting to talk to them as they seem
to make a bridge between the practice
(sustainable production while protecting
biodiversity) and the political sphere.

• Emiliana Organic Vineyards, Chile:

Located in the main wine valleys of Chile,
Emiliana is characterized by producing only
organic and biodynamic wines, in a way
that helps preserve the natural balance of life,
human beings, and the environment. They
cultivate in a total of 1300 hectares, 523
hectares are destined for biodiversity. In all
fields at least 10% is destined for biodiversity.
Good example of a medium to large scale
business that shifted towards
more sustainable practices and that
promote nature conservation.
43

2. proving it works and disseminating knowledge

Interview: Fundación Ecotop, Bolivia

Fundación Ecotop’s mission is to build new approaches in ecological

production, generating changes of aptitude and attitude within producing
families, social organisations, public and private institutions, participating
in networks, institutional platforms, and forming agents of change.
They promote the idea of natural succession dynamics – growing
a combination of various crops and trees at different stages
depending on their life cycle – to maximise agricultural density
and diversity. By adopting this crop management system, farmers can
produce high yields from a range of crops without external inputs
while keeping the soil healthy and reducing pests. They estimate
that their projects impacted by 3,500 hectares, with around 2,000 direct
beneficiaries affected. Luis Lohse, an agronomist, and general manager
of Fundación Ecotop, highlights that the main barriers for sustainable
agricultural practices to be developed in Bolivia are
Knowledge and political support. What happens is that we [agroecological
practitioners in general] have to put in place projects, try things, and try to
arrive at political instances, at the government, with a very clear proposal that
convinces them that what we are doing works. Otherwise, they already have
their lines of work defined, and that’s it.
44

Interview: Tierra Nueva, Paraguay

Tierra Nueva strengthens communities in an integral way, through

citizen participation and organisation, based on the promotion of
rights and democracy in Paraguay. Since its beginning, Tierra Nueva
has managed a total of twenty projects with funds from different
partners or contractors. It has carried out awareness and
information campaigns in the field of citizenship, reaching
more than 460,000 people, according to technical records,
through different means. It has provided training courses to
leaders of thirteen departments in the country (national scope). They
are currently implementing projects related to rural development
with an emphasis on the use of clean technology and organic
production, such as the use of rainwater harvesting, and the
implementation of drip irrigation systems.
45
Ana Lucia Giménez, Executive director of
Tierra Nueva, highlights that their projects
have a strong gender component. For her, the
main challenge to be overcome in Paraguay
so that an agroecological transition can be
fostered is the lack of knowledge.
In Paraguay, the main barrier is ignorance.
Some experiences are promoting agroecology,
mainly from peasant organisations, but
there is not much discussion and diffusion of
these experiences. We also lack the scientific
validation that allows us to say that these
practices work, that they are profitable and
sustainable. The agroecological movement
is not fragmented; what they lack is to ally
with other institutions such as Academia
and the central government to validate
the work they are doing, replicate them,
and gain scale.
who else should be part of this
conversation?
• Fundaec, Colombia: Acronym in Spanish
for “The Foundation for the Application and
Teaching of the Sciences”, is a not-for-profit,
non-governmental organization that has
dedicated over 30 years to fostering processes
of learning, training, and development in the
rural areas of Colombia and an increasing
number of countries in Latin America. It
has two main programs – the Tutorial
Learning System (better known by its Spanish
acronym, SAT), an innovative secondary level
educational system used by over 25,000
students throughout the Americas, and the
University Center for Rural Well-Being (CUBR).
It is an historical example able to interconnect
Academia and the public sector as the SAT
program is recognized by the Ministry of
Education in Colombia, helping to strengthen
agroecology nationally and paving the way
for other actors.
• School of Agroecology of Pirque, Chile:
The agro-ecological school of Pirque (in the
Santiago metropolitan area of Chile) offers
to young people aged 14-18 the possibility
of obtaining a diploma of secondary school
education and of an agricultural technology
diploma as part of its project for sustainable
education. This establishment operates on the
pioneering principles of student-teacher trust
and features a complementary environmental
46
sector. The goal of the school is to improve
the life of students and of the community
in general, through agro-ecology and by
teaching “culturally acceptable, socially just
and ecologically sound education.” More
than 2,000 students have passed through
its halls. It could be very enriching to get
their perspective of how they were able to
put in place an uncommon educational
practice that is based on trust and how they
see it being possible to be scaled up so that
agroecological knowledge is disseminated.
• Rural Alternative Schools, Colombia:
Rural Alternative Schools (ERAs) are productive
and educational collaboration platforms
where private, public and community
resources are used to promote sustainable
rural development. With the support of its
network of partners, PASO Colombia has
been able to set up 21 ERAs throughout
the country, supporting 1,406 participants.
The schools operate as productive and
educational collaboration platforms that
harness public, private and community
resources to develop sustainable agricultural
projects. They also promote Collaborative
Commercial Partnerships where communities
sign agreements with companies that
guarantee the purchase of their agricultural
products at a fair price for a specific period
of time. In its first two years of implementation
the ERA model has created 2,224 jobs and
generated USD 11.5 million in commercial
agreements. In addition, the ERAs have
yielded important cost savings for the
participants through projects that allow them
how to produce their own food.
• Serta (Alternative Technology Service),
Brazil:
Civil Society Organization of Public Interest
(Oscip) whose mission is to train people to
act in the transformation of their educational,
economic, social, environmental, cultural
and political circumstances and in the
promotion of sustainable development. The
organization was founded in 1989 from a
group of farmers, technicians and educators
who developed in rural communities their
own methodology for the promotion of the
environment, the improvement of property
and income and the use of appropriate
technologies. Since its inception, it has
focused on the development and recognition
of the importance of family agriculture. They
trained more than 100.000 people.
47

3. consolidating agroecological knowledge hubs

Interview: Finca Cosmopolitana, Colombia

Monika Hesse and Roberto Rodríguez established their farm

Cosmopolitana in 1994, in the Orinoquia, in Colombia, and have
become a critical agroecology model in the region. They consider
the Finca to be a Living Classroom of Training, a model of
conservation and clean production, that promotes the use
of appropriate technologies, put at the service of education,
health, agro-ecotourism, culture, spirituality and the integral
development of people, communities, the country, and
internationality. Some 720,000 national and international people
have passed through the farm. They estimate that 90% have been
concerned about conserving nature, 50% have done something
about it, and 10% have put it into practice in many ways.
48
Roberto sees the need to change education
systems as the main barrier hindering
agroecological practices:
The education systems have to change
to be oriented to the local contexts, to
the local biodiversity and to value
farmers’ knowledge. It is also a matter
of understanding that there are other
methodologies to practice farming, that it
is possible to have a diverse agricultural
production system that protects the
environment, and that this is not an invention.
And to use the evidence that comes
from these successful examples to show
that this can be done, and for scientists,
schools, and other institutions to see that
this is possible.
who else should be part of this
conversation?
• Granja Modelo Pairumani, Bolivia:
The Pairumani Model Farm operates on
an agro-organic model based on the
relationships between soil, plants, animals and
humans. The farm aims to cultivate products
of high organic quality, whilst respecting the
environment. It is a reference at the national
level for the production and research on
ethno-veterinary practices and homeopathy
in dairy cattle. The farm extends over an area
of 500 hectares, 200 of which are suitable for
agriculture. The remaining land is made up
of forest and a 46-hectare ecotourism park,
which is open to the local population. As
Finca Cosmopolitana, it is a good example of
a farm with sustainable production practices
while also serving as an open place for visitors,
helping to disseminate knowledge regarding
agroecology and showcasing it works.
• Colonia Piraí, Bolivia: The Colonia Piraí
Foundation (CPF) is a not-for-profit technical
education foundation that was founded in
Santa Cruz in 1973. Its main objective is to
provide livestock and agricultural education
and training to young indigenous farmers
aged between 17 and 25 who have a
primary school qualification. It also manages
a number of livestock and agricultural
production units. This enables the foundation
to remain self-sustainable and provide
training programmes on a tuition-free basis.
One of CPF’s cornerstones is its focus on
environmental protection and eco-friendly
practices. On average, CPF trains around
150 young people a year in an abandoned
farm of a bit more than 100 hectares. The
financial sustainability of Colonia Piraí could
give insights on how to set business plans
with farmers as well as how to set a successful
organisation dedicated to spread knowledge
on agroecology.
• Ernst Gotsch farm, Brazil: In 1982, Ernst
moved with his family to the 480 hectares
destined for the project in the South of Bahia,
in Brazil. In addition to the employment
opportunity, it would also be a chance to
test whether the methods he had developed
49
in Europe and especially in Costa Rica
would serve the dual purpose of reversing
soil degradation and establishing the cocoa
plantation on the farm. In the following years
he reforested the farm, introducing cocoa
as a key crop, and published the results in
“Breakthrough in Agriculture” (1995). Since
then, he has been applying Successional
Agroforestry in his property, recovered 500
hectares and 14 watersheds. Moreover, he
is internationally recognized as a key figure
in the promotion of Successional Agroforesty,
and as of today still gives trainings to other
farmers that wants to transition to sustainable
agriculture practices.
• Pacho Gangontena farm, Ecuador: Thirty
years ago, Pacho and his family decided to
go to the countryside and started their organic
farm in Ecuador. The first years were solidly
hard, uphill. Then, after four years, they
opened the doors for those who wanted to
be able to go, see, “and hear with their eyes
and all their senses” what could be done if
farmers allied with nature. Pacho has trained
more than 24000 farmers and nearly 4,000
technicians have passed through his farm.
• Huerta Asano, Bolivia: Asano initially
worked in a conventional way, with
agrochemicals for pest control. “I spent five
years like that, but in 1991 I switched to
organic farming.” He says he also partially
failed, which made him evaluate what had
happened, but he persevered and noticed that
nature was doing its thing, so he had to adapt
to the new type of land management, which
later gave him very good results. His farm
has 3.5 hectares and although it might seem
a small plot of land, Asano is recognized
for his practices in the region and has been
giving lectures and training other farmers.
He has also given interviews for different
South American media outlets due to the
importance of his work.
• Finca Gabeno, Colombia: Gabeno, a
farm managed by Brígida Valderrama, rapidly
became a mandatory focal point not only
with regard to ecological agriculture, but also
to educational processes and the practice
of biodynamic agriculture. The farm has
6 hectares and there has been an effort to
recover the soil fertility, to restructure the
environment, plant trees for shelter and
protection (living fences and windbreaks)
and promote biodiversity. A study group
on Biodynamic Agriculture was maintained
in this place, where readings from Rudolf
Steiner’s Agriculture course and other related
readings alternated with practice in the
preparation of preparations, their application
and work in the vegetable garden. Alongside
Finca Cosmopolitana, it is recognized as an
example of practice of sustainable agriculture
while making the case that biodynamic
agriculture works.
50

4. getting to the fork: consumers

Interview: Ecotiendas, Montevideo, Uruguay

Ecotiendas is a market managed by two farmers’ cooperatives in

Montevideo: Punto Verde and Ecogranjas. It allows producers to
have a market for their agroecological products while giving
consumers access to healthy and sustainable products, free of
pesticides, transgenic, and of any synthetic chemical product.
It gathers around 50 to 60 small ecological producers, and it has
a database of more than 2000 people that are considered to
be ‘members’ of Ecotiendas. The members not only buy their
food at Ecotiendas, but they also have the opportunity to
participate in activities such as talks, knowledge exchanges,
and other kinds of meetings and gatherings. In this sense, the
initiative is more than a regular market, and it promotes solidarity
economy and direct exchange between producers and consumers.
51
According to Martin Bonilla, manager of
Ecotiendas, what hinders the transition from
conventional to agroecological practices in
Uruguay is the dissemination of knowledge
regarding ecological farming practices as
well as the lack of education regarding
the need of sustainable food systems.
I believe that, first, the support has to go
to creating awareness on the importance
of water and soil, and how to take care
of these vital aspects. And, then, to
support financially those that are
keen to make a transition, to find
ways to support them, for example, with
insurance so that they can continue
producing even if one seasonal crop is,
for example, impacted by climate change.
It is not only about the financial resources
to make the transition, but also about
raising awareness regarding ecology and
changing the systemic perception of the
role of food in our society”, says Martin.
who else should be part of this
conversation?
• Biotrópico, Colombia: The first Colombian
certification company, it was also the first to
set courses for organic inspectors in 1995.
It is the most representative in this field of
organic and sustainable certification in
Colombia, and also retains credibility in the
international market. As certification appears
as an obstacle for organic and agroecological
produce to be identified in the markets, it
would be interesting to get their perspective
on how their work has helped to shape the
organic agriculture sector in the country,
which obstacles they faced and helped to
overcome specifically.
• Origens Brasil, Brazil: This is a network
that connects companies to sustainable
production chains in priority areas of
conservation in the Amazon, generating
value for the protected forest and the people
who live from it. Origens Brasil enables
businesses in favor of the standing forest with
guarantee of origin, traceability, transparency
and promoting ethical trade. They work
with 1600 local producers, 40 different
indigenous groups, and with a territory of 51
million hectares of protected land. Although
not being a market, Origens Brasil allows
for consumers to be more connected to the
producers and to be aware of sustainable
practices and fairer work relations for those
52
producing food-related products. They can
bring their perspective regarding sustainable
and healthy sourcing that differs from
physical markets and in regards of the use
of a simple technology that is QR-code that
allows for consumers to quickly understand
the traceability and the history of a certain
product.
• Association of Organic Producers (APRO),
Paraguay: Associación Paraguay Orgánico
is an inter-sectorial space of articulation for
organic and agroecological production and
market access for family agriculture, being a
pioneering initiative at the regional level that
works to achieve its objectives of common
good as an innovative mechanism for local
development. They work with 7934 Beneficiary
Families and have trained 3250 Trained
People. They are pioneers in Paraguay working
with Participatory Guarantee Schemes
(PGS)84, which represent an alternative to
third party certification, especially adapted
to local markets and short supply chains.85
PGS enables the direct participation of
producers, consumers and other stakeholders
in: the choice and definition of the standards,
the development and implementation of
certification procedures, and the certification
decisions. PGS is a promising field that helps
to differentiate agroecological produce in the
market and that is less costly than third party
certification, it also helps to build relations
between producers and consumers that work
together to decide what will be part of this
‘standard’. Such practice helps to break the
silos between producers and consumers as
they think together about food.
• Canopy Bridge, Ecuador: This is a
sourcing network connecting businesses,
producer associations and community groups
buying and selling natural products that aim
to contribute to improved livelihoods, social
empowerment and healthy ecosystems. The
Canopy Bridge on-line directory provides an
easily accessible, global meeting place that
allows buyers and suppliers of sustainable
crops and wild-harvested products to find
each other and build relationships by
allowing users to create personalized profiles
highlighting their capabilities, stories and
products. The directory provides a free, easy
way for potential partners to connect and start
conversations about direct trade opportunities.
While Origens Brasil connects producers and
consumers, this platform connects producers
and traders and it could be enriching to
compare their lessons learned regarding what
helps agroecological products to reach the
market and consumers.
53
• Responsible Consumer Cells /Rede
Ecovida de Agroecologia, Brazil:
The Responsible Consumer Cells is a project
of the Federal University of Santa Catarina
that promotes the direct sale of organic and
agroecological food baskets through advance
orders between consumer groups and groups
of organic farmers certified by the Ecovida
Agroecology Network. The Network operates
horizontally and in a decentralized manner
and is based on the organization of producer
families into informal groups, associations
or cooperatives. These organizations
articulate with consumer associations or
cooperatives, NGOs and other institutions.
Instead of creating physical markets, this
project is grounded on building relationships
between groups of producers and groups of
consumers and in short supply chains. It could
be interesting to compare financial gains, and
other positive outcomes, of the project to a
more traditional organic and agroecological
market. It is a recent project, created in 2016,
and that started with one group and has
already expanded to eleven groups in three
different States in Brazil.
54

Chapter 5

Conclusion
55
Agroecology has a long trajectory in South
America, and due to its holistic approach, its
actors are working on different fronts of the
food system. As this research has shown, there
is a diversity of actors, organisations, and
initiatives that are implicated in the transition
towards agroecology in the region. Moreover,
the change they want to bring about might be
related, for example, to direct soil and water
conservation while increasing farmer’s crops,
or helping spread knowledge regarding more
sustainable agricultural practices relying on
farmers and practitioner’s expertise or even
with the support of technology such as social
media and other online tools. Therefore,
with this myriad of potential avenues to be
explored, I’ve chosen to follow a scientific
methodological approach and to ground the
analysis of the data in established frameworks.
This has allowed me to structure the findings
from the mapping exercise and to support
the construction of hypotheses regarding the
barriers and the levers of the agroecological
transition in South America. Then, these
hypotheses were explored in semi-structured
interviews with a few actors and led to the
construction of a particular typology of the
thought leaders with whom Mustardseed Trust
can potentially work together. It is important
to state that the work I developed for this
research is exploratory, which means that
it is based on readings and conversations
that helped me to get a sense of potential
partners in the region, but that is far from
being exhaustive. Therefore, to get a more
accurate perspective on barriers and levers,
I would recommend that more interviews are
conducted with other actors.
Moreover, from my perspective, to unblock
the barriers that are hindering the transition
towards agroecology, I would advise
Mustardseed Trust to either work with the
agroecological knowledge hubs or the
actors that are guaranteeing resources.
The first group because while they are
involved with the practice of agroecology, they
have also become regional and international
cases of success that support the recognition
of agroecology. Therefore, they have a
vast capillarity to disseminate knowledge
and represent an opportunity to work with
thousands of other farmers, researchers,
students, among others, and to help the
change that they are already promoting to
gain scale. The second group – the actors
that are guaranteeing resources – deserves
attention as they are working in the very first
link of the food chain and provide different
resources that sustain the very basis of
agricultural production, and this is key to
secure that an agroecological transition is
possible. Some of the chosen actors in this
category directly provide inputs such as
native seeds; others are farms or commercial
businesses that were able to ally production
with the recovery of resources such as soil,
water, and biodiversity.
56

Lastly, as a researcher, I would be interested in further analysing two topics. During the
interviews, three actors mentioned the role of agriculture beyond its production outputs and
the need to understand and promote other non-monetary aspects of agriculture. As the
transition towards agroecology often requires evidence that proves that it works to convince
farmers, researchers, and even policymakers, it would be interesting to find ways co-creating
with farmers and other researchers variables that are able to measure and capture the impact
of these non-monetary aspects and to generate evidence in this sense. Dimensions such as
the satisfaction regarding their work or the importance of preserving crops that are related to
cultural elements could be examples. They are more subjective but would allow us to defend
the value of agroecology beyond yield production and income for farmers, which seemed to
be important for some of the actors interviewed. The second topic that I would like to explore is
the hypotheses outlined previously regarding why changes in institutional frameworks seem to
have less emphasis as a type of innovation in the region. If it is due to the fact that there already
national regulatory frameworks in the countries in the region or if it is because there is a sense
of discredit of the actors regarding the effectiveness of such policies, this could give interesting
insights about the role that political support has played in the past in the region concerning the
development of agroecology, as well as how it was done and how it can be strengthened for
future progress.
 57

citizens while ensuring the autonomy and decent

annex
definition of agroecology as a
science, as a movement, and as
a practice
As a scientific discipline, agroecology aims
to characterise the ecology of agricultural
environments to study and design modes of
production based on the responsible use of
natural resources. It recognises, draws inspiration
from, and aims to enhance the value of farmers’
knowledge, know-how, and practices, as well as
their adaptation, through research and action
research, to meet new challenges (demographic,
ecological, climatic and socio-economic, etc.).
As agricultural practices, agroecology
encompasses a set of production techniques
including, for example, crop combination,
rotation, and diversification, minimum tillage,
dynamic management of cultivated biodiversity
by autonomous peasant seed systems, the use
of plant cover to limit the usage of irrigation and
avoid soil degradation, the use of organic manure
through the integration of livestock farming into
income of farmers. It aims at supporting rural
employment and revaluing the role of farmers
in society to recreate the link between cities
and rural areas while respecting ecosystems’
natural cycles. Agroecology is, therefore, part
of a political project that aims for greater
environmental and social justice based on respect
for human rights. Thus, agroecology represents a
significant lever for strengthening social cohesion
by reducing social inequalities, promoting local
governance, food sovereignty, and the autonomy
of local communities and farmers.
the three
dimensions of
agroecology
These dimensions are complementary and
cannot be considered separately:

agriculture, etc. To be relevant, these practices

must be adapted to each context according to 1 a science of agricultural ecosystems;
locally available resources and local know-how
and require, first of all, the securing of farmers’
access to land and natural resources. They agricultural practices that respect
2 the environment;
must also be replicable at low cost and freely
reproducible by farmers at different scales.
Finally, agroecology cannot be understood solely a social movement in defence of
by its technical or environmental dimensions,
3 sustainable and equitable agricultural
and food systems.
and it is also a social movement. It is based on a
global overhaul of agricultural and food systems
that must guarantee access to quality food for all
 58

1. HLPE, 2019, p.13 and nutrition was established as part of the 2009
notes
reform of the international governance of food secu-
2. FAO, 2018a rity, to advise the Committee on World Food Security
(CFS) which is the leading intergovernmental and
3. Shiva, 2016 international platform dealing with food security
and nutrition. Some of its essential functions are: (1)
4. Ibid. assess and analyse the current state of food security
and nutrition and its underlying causes; (2) provide
scientific and knowledge-based analysis and advice
5. IPES-Food, 2016
on specific policy-relevant issues, utilising existing
high-quality research, data and technical studies;
6. Shiva, 2016
(3) identify emerging issues, and help members pri-
oritise future actions and attentions on critical focal
7. IPES-Food, 2016 areas.

8. Loconto and Fouilleux, 2019 16. The Care Economy, n.d.

9. The work of the Food and Agriculture Organization 17. Shiva, 2016, p.xx
of the United Nations (FAO) with its Agroecology
Knowledge Hub can be highlighted.
18. Shiva, 2000

10. FAO, n.d.

19. IPCC, 2014

11. Other commonly used terms with similar meanings

20. Ibid.
are: permaculture, restoration agriculture, agrofor-
estry, ecosystem based agriculture, nature inclusive
21. Vermeulen et al., 2012
farming, holistic farming, analog forestry, syntropic
farming, among others.
22. FAO, 2006
12. Wezel et al., 2009
23. For example, Brazil has become an agricultural
powerhouse, producing roughly 30% of the world’s
13. The term grey literature refers to research that is ei-
soy and 15% of its beef —yet, historically, much of
ther unpublished or has been published in non-com-
that growth has come at the expense of its native
mercial form. Examples of grey literature are gov-
ecosystems, with pastures and croplands having
ernment reports, policy statements, issues papers,
replaced nearly 65 million hectares of forests and
reports, or briefings from non-governmental organi-
savannas in the legal Amazon since 1985. (see
sations, among others.
Stabile et al., 2020)
14. Altieri, Funes-Monzote, and Petersen, 2011
24. Parris, 2011
15. For instance, the last report from the High-Level
25. Van Lexmond et al., 2015
Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition is
dedicated to agroecology and its innovations. The
High-Level Panel of Experts (HLPE) on food security 26. The use of organochlorine pesticides linked to in-
tensive greenhouse agriculture in Southern Spain,
 59

for example, is associated with breast cancer, 46. Wezel et al., 2016
notes
cryptorchidism, and a higher prevalence of type 2
diabetes, among other pathologies (see Arrebola et 47. Campbell, 2009
al., 2013)
48. IPES-Food, 2016
27. IFAD, 2016
49. From the eight opportunities highlighted in the orig-
28. Fischer et al., 2002 inal framework, two were discarded as they didn’t
apply to the region: (1) Building joined-up ‘food
29. IFAD, 2016 policies’ was discarded as there is no initiative of
a food policy in the region. The closest experience
30. FAO, 2017 towards a food policy used to be the Brazilian Na-
tional Council on Food Security that was dismantled
31. WFP, 2015 in 2019; (2) Agroecology on the global governance
agenda: this is an important lever as it helps to place
32. FAO and World Bank, 2001 agroecology at the centre of the food governance
debate and to gain international prominence as a
solution. Nevertheless, there was no mapped initia-
33. Ibid.
tive that related to this global agenda despite the
possibility of benefiting indirectly from it.
34. IPES-Food, 2016, p.11
50. Few examples in the region: such as the Peruvian
35. Coordination Sud, 2020
Law for Organic Agriculture (2003) and the Bra-
zilian National Plan for Agroecology and Organic
36. FAO, 2015a Production (2013)

37. HLPE, 2019 51. Gliessman, 2016

38. FAO, GTAE methodology 52. Soloviev and Landua, 2016

39. FAO, 2018b 53. Gliessman, 2016

40. FAO, 2015b 54. Catacora-Vargas et al., 2017

41. IPES-Food, 2018 55. The ‘‘Green Revolution’’ was a phrase coined to re-
fer to the development of so-called ‘miracle seeds’
42. Ibid. – the high yielding (or at any rate highly responsive)
varieties (HYVs) especially of wheat and rice, which
43. Mier y Terán Giménez Cacho et al., 2018 held out the prospect for spectacular increases in
cereal production and the transformation of devel-
44. Silici, 2014 oping world agriculture (…) the key elements of its
technological thrust are undisputed: the set of pro-
45. Freire, 1973 duction practices for farmers in developing countries
rested on the development of Mendelian genetics,
 60
applied plant breeding, the ability to manufacture
notes
and market inexpensive nitrogen fertilizer, and the
controlled supply of water through irrigation tech-
nologies. See Thompson and Scoones, 2009.
56. Sarandon and Marasas, 2017
57. Altieri and Nicholls, 2017
58. Alvarado, Siura, and Manrique, 2017
59. Sarandon and Marasas, 2017
60. Altieri, 1999
61. Altieri, 2002
62. CLADES is a network of NGOs led by the Centro
de Educacion y Tecnologia (CET) in Chile, Centro
de Investigacion, Educacion y Desarrollo in Peru,
and Agricultura Familiar e Agroecologia in Brazil,
63. Altieri and Nicholls, 2017
64. Altieri and Nicholls, 2012
65. Alvarado, Siura, and Manrique, 2017
66. Altieri and Nicholls, 2017
67. Ibid.
68. Altieri, 1987
69. Altieri and Nicholls, 2017
70. Ibid.
71. Ibid.
72. Ibid.
73. Sarandon and Marasas, 2017
74. Catacora-Vargas et al., 2017
75. Herrera, Domené-Painenao, and Cruces, 2017
76. Ibid.
77. Catacora-Vargas et al., 2017
78. Sarandon and Marasas, 2017
79. The database is available on the link: https://bit.
ly/regagrisouthamerica
80. Gliessman, 2016
81. Gliessman, 2016, p.188-189
82. It is worth mentioning the case of Pacho Gangote-
na in Ecuador. Some 19,000 farmers have come
to learn agroecological practices from him over the
past two decades. He is considered to be among
the most influential actors in the organic agriculture/
agroecology movement in the Andes. Nevertheless,
it was not possible to get in touch with him.
83. This is na attempt of categorizing the different
actors so that it becomes easier to understand
which obstacles they are tackling, and which levers
they are using, nevertheless, they fall into different
categories at once. For instance, the Xingu Seed
Network tackles access to resources, but also work
towards building bridges between different actors so
that they can exchange knowledge regarding their
practices.
84. Other organizations in the region applying PGS are
Red de Agroecologia do Uruguai and the Uruguay-
an Center of Appropriate Technologies (CEUTA).
85. They can also complement third party certification
with a private label that brings additional guaran-
tees and transparency.
 61

• Altieri, M. (1987). Agroecology: The scientific basis of alternative agriculture. Colorado:

references
Westview Press

• Altieri, M. (1999). Applying agroecology to enhance productivity of peasant farming systems in

Latin America. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 1, 197-217

• Altieri, M. (2002). Agroecology: The science of natural resource management for poor farmers
in marginal environments. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 93, 1-24
• Altieri, M., Funes-Monzote, F., and Petersen, P. (2011). Agroecologically efficient agricultural
systems for smallholder farmers: Contributions to food sovereignty. Agronomy for Sustainable
Development, 32, 1-13
• Altieri, M., and Nicholls, C. (2012). Agroecology: Scaling up for food sovereignty and
resiliency. Sustainable Agriculture Reviews, 11, 1-29
• Altieri, M., and Nicholls, C. (2017). Agroecology: A brief account of its origins and currents of
thought in Latin America. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 41(3–4), 231-237
• Alvarado, F., Siura, S., and Manrique, A. (2017). Peru: Agroecological movement history
1980–2015. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 41(3–4), 366-379
• Arrebola, J., Pumarega, J., Gasull, M., Fernandez, M., Martin-Olmedo, P., Molina-Molina,
J., Fernández-Rodríguez, M., Porta, M., and Olea, N. (2013). Adipose tissue concentrations of
persistent organic pollutants and prevalence of type 2 diabetes in adults from Southern Spain.
Environmental Research, 122, 31-37
• Campbell, H. (2009). Breaking new ground in food regime theory: corporate
environmentalism, ecological feedbacks and the ‘food from somewhere’ regime?, Agriculture and
Human Values, 26, 309

• Catacora-Vargas, G., Piepenstock, A., Sotomayor, C., Cuentas, D., Cruz, A., and Delgado,
F. (2017). Brief historical review of agroecology in Bolivia. Agroecology and Sustainable Food
Systems, 41(3–4), 429-447

• Clapp, J., and Fuchs, D. (2009). ​Corporate power in global agrifood governance. Cambridge:
MIT Press

• Coordination Sud. (2020). L’agroécologie paysanne : alternative sociétale pour des systèmes
 62

agricoles et alimentaires durables. Les notes de Sud, 22

references
• FAO. (n.d.). Agroecology definitions. Retrieved from: http://www.fao.org/agroecology/
knowledge/definitions/en/ (Last accessed: 5th of May 2020)

• FAO. (2006). Livestock’s long shadow: environmental issues and options. Rome
• FAO. (2015). Final report: Regional meeting on Agroecology in Latin America and the
Caribbean. Rome
• FAO. (2017) The future of food and agriculture: trends and challenges. Rome
• FAO. (2018a). Sustainable food systems: Concept and framework. Rome
• FAO (2018b). The 10 elements of agroecology: guiding the transition to sustainable food and
agricultural systems. Rome
• FAO. (2019). The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World. Rome
• FAO and World Bank. (2001). Farming Systems and Poverty – Improving farmer’s livelihoods in
a changing world. Rome and Washington DC
• Fischer, G., Shah, M., Velthuizen, H. (2002). Climate change and agricultural vulnerability.
International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Vienna
• Freire, P. (1973).  Education for critical consciousness (Vol. 1). Bloomsbury Publishing, London.
• Gliessman, S. (1998). Agroecology: Ecological Processes in Sustainable Agriculture. Michigan:
Ann Arbor Press

• Gliessman, S. (2016). Transforming food systems with agroecology. Agroecology and

Sustainable Food Systems, 40, 187-189

• Herrera, F., Domené-Painenao, O., and Cruces, J. (2017). The history of agroecology in
Venezuela: A complex and multifocal process. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 41(3–
4), 401-415
• HLPE. (2019). Agroecological and other innovative approaches for sustainable agriculture and
food systems that enhance food security and nutrition. A report by the High Level Panel of Experts
on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security. Rome
• IFAD. (2016). Smallholders can feed the world. Retrieved from: https://bit.ly/
 63

ifadsmallholderfarmers (Last accessed: 6th of May 2020)

references
• IFAD. (2019). How agroecology can respond to a changing climate and benefit farmers?
Retrieved from: https://www.ifad.org/en/web/latest/story/asset/41485825 (Last accessed: 5th of
May 2020)
• Intriago, R., Gortaire Amézcua, R., Bravo, E., and O’Connell, C. (2017). Agroecology in
Ecuador: Historical processes, achievements, and challenges. Agroecology and Sustainable Food
Systems, 41(3–4), 311-328
• IPCC. (2014). AR5 Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability.
• IPES-Food. (2016). From uniformity to diversity: a paradigm shift from industrial agriculture to
diversifed agroecological systems.
• IPES-Food. (2018). Breaking away from industrial food and farming systems: Seven case
studies of agroecological transition.
• Loconto, A., and Fouilleux, E. (2019). Defining agroecology: Exploring the circulation of
knowledge in FAO’s Global Dialogue. International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food,
25(2), 116-137
• Mier y Terán Giménez Cacho, M., Giraldo, O., Aldasoro, M., Morales, H., Ferguson, B.G.,
Rosset, P., Khadse, A., Campos, C. (2018). Bringing agroecology to scale: key drivers and
emblematic cases. Agroecological Sustainable Food Systems, 42, 637–665

• Parris, K. (2011). Impact of agriculture on water pollution in OECD countries: recent trends
and future prospects. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 27, 33-52

• Regenerative Agriculture Initiative. (2017). What is Regenerative Agriculture?. Retrieved from:

https://bit.ly/RegAgDefinition (Last accessed: 5th of May 2020)

• Rivera-Ferre, M. (2018). The resignification process of Agroecology: Competing narratives

from governments, civil society and intergovernmental organizations. Agroecology and
Sustainable Food Systems, 42(6), 666-685

• Sarandon, S., and Marasas, M. (2017). Brief history of agroecology in Argentina: Origins,
evolution, and future prospects. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 41(3–4), 238-255

• Shiva, V. (2000). ​Stolen harvest: hijacking the global food supply. ​London: South End Press
 64

• Shiva, V. (2016). Who really feeds the world? The failures of agribusiness and the promise of
references
agroecology. California: North Atlantic Books
• Silici, L. (2014). Agroecology. What it is and what it has to offer. IIED, London.
• Soloviev, E., and Landua, G. (2016). Levels of Regenerative Agriculture. Terra Genesis
International
• Stabile, M., Guimarães, A., Silva, D., Ribeiro, V., Macedo, M., Coe, M., Pinto, E., Moutinho,
P., and Alencar, A. (2020). Solving Brazil’s land use puzzle: Increasing production and slowing
Amazon deforestation. Land Use Policy, 91, 1-6
• Terra Genesis International. (n.d). Regenerative Agriculture. Retrieved from: http://www.
regenerativeagriculturedefinition.com/ (Last accessed: 5th of May 2020)
• The Care Economy. (n.d.). Purpose. Retrieved from: https://tce.polymoney.org/ (Last accessed:
5th of May 2020)
• Thompson, J., and Scoones, I. (2009). Addressing the dynamics of agri-food systems: an
emerging agenda for social science research. Environmental Science & Policy, 12, 386-397

• Van Lexmond, M., Bonmatin, J., Goulson, D., Noome, D. (2015). Worldwide integrated
assessment on systemic pesticides: Global collapse of the entomofauna: exploring the role of
systemic insecticides. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 22, 1-4

• Vermeulen, S., Campbell, B., and Ingram, J. (2012). Climate change and food systems.
Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 37, 195-222
• Wezel, A., Bellon, S., Doré, T. and al. (2009). Agroecology as a science, a movement and a
practice. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 29, 503-515

• Wezel, A., Brives, H., Casagrande, M., Clément, C., Dufour, A., Vandenbroucke, P. (2016).
Agroecology territories: places for sustainable agricultural and food systems and biodiversity
conservation. Agroecological Sustainable Food Systems, 40, 132–144

• WFP. (2015). Who are the hungry ?. Rome.

• Wise, T., and Murphy, S. (2012). Resolving the food crisis: assessing global policy reforms
since 2007. Global Development and Environment Institute and Institute for Agriculture and
Trade Policy, Boston