Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

livingontheland - [Livingontheland] Agroecology, Small Farms, and Food Sovereignty

livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Healthy soil and sustainable growing

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Tradingpost" <tradingpost@lobo.net>
  • To: livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: [Livingontheland] Agroecology, Small Farms, and Food Sovereignty
  • Date: Sun, 06 Dec 2009 14:02:16 -0700



Agroecology, Small Farms, and Food Sovereignty
Miguel A. Altieiri
http://www.monthlyreview.org/090810altieri.php
July-August 2009

Global forces are challenging the ability of develop­ing countries to feed
themselves. A number of countries have organized their economies around a
competitive export-oriented agricultural sector, based mainly on
monocultures. It may be argued that agricultural exports of crops such as
soybeans from Brazil make significant contributions to the national economies
by bringing in hard currency that can be used to purchase other goods from
abroad. However, this type of industrial agriculture also brings a variety of
economic, environmental, and social problems, including negative impacts on
public health, ecosystem integrity, food quality, and in many cases
disruption of traditional rural livelihoods, while accelerating in­debtedness
among thousands of farmers.

The growing push toward industrial agriculture and globalization — with an
emphasis on export crops, lately transgenic crops, and with the rapid
expansion of biofuel crops (sugar cane, maize, soybean, oil palm,
euca­lyptus, etc.) — is increasingly reshaping the world’s agriculture and
food supply, with potentially severe economic, social, and ecological impacts
and risks. Such reshaping is occurring in the midst of a changing climate
expected to have large and far-reaching effects on crop productivity
pre­dominantly in tropical zones of the developing world. Hazards include
increased flooding in low-lying areas, greater frequency and severity of
droughts in semiarid areas, and excessive heat conditions, all of which can
limit agricultural productivity.

Globally, the Green Revolution, while enhancing crop production, proved to be
unsustainable as it damaged the environment, caused dramatic loss of
biodiversity and associat­ed traditional knowledge, favored wealthier
farmers, and left many poor farmers deeper in debt.1 The new Green Revolution
proposed for Africa via the multi-institutional Alliance for a Green
Revolution in Africa (AGRA) appears destined to repeat the tragic record left
by the fertilizer dependent miracle seeds, in Latin America and Asia by
increasing depen­dency on foreign inputs and patent-protected plant varieties
which poor farmers cannot afford (for example, fertilizer costs went up
approxi­mately 270 percent last year) and on foreign aid.2

In the face of such global trends, the concepts of food sovereignty and
ecologically based production systems have gained much attention in the last
two decades. New approaches and technologies involving application of blended
modern agroecological science and indigenous knowledge systems spearheaded by
thousands of farmers, NGOs, and some government and academic institutions
have been shown to enhance food security while conserving natural resources,
biodiversity, and soil and water throughout hundreds of rural communities in
several regions.3 The science of agroecology — the application of ecological
concepts and principles to the design and management of sustainable
agricultural ecosystems — provides a framework to assess the complexity of
agroecosystems.This approach is based on enhancing the habitat both
aboveground and in the soil to produce strong and healthy plants by promoting
beneficial organisms while adversely affecting crop pests (weeds, insects,
diseases, and nematodes).4

For centuries the agricultures of developing countries were built upon the
local resources of land, water, and other resources, as well as local
varieties and indigenous knowledge. This has nurtured biologically and
genetically diverse smallholder farms with a robustness and a built-in
resilience that has helped them to adjust to rapidly changing climates,
pests, and diseases.5 The persistence of millions of agricultural hectares
under ancient, traditional management in the form of raised fields, terraces,
polycultures (with a number of crops growing in the same field), agroforestry
systems, etc., document a successful indigenous agricultural strategy and
constitutes a tribute to the “creativity” of traditional farmers. These
microcosms of traditional agriculture offer promising models for other areas
because they promote biodiversity, thrive without agrochemicals, and sustain
year-round yields. The new models of agriculture that humanity will need to
include forms of farming that are more ecological, biodiverse, local,
sustainable, and socially just. They will be rooted in the ecological
rationale of traditional small-scale agriculture, representing long
established examples of successful community-based local agriculture. Such
systems have fed much of the world for centuries and continue to feed people
in many parts of the planet.6

Fortunately, thousands of small traditional farms still exist in most rural
landscapes of the third world. The productivity and sustainability of such
agroecosystems can be optimized with agroecological approaches and thus they
can form the basis of food sovereignty, defined as the right of each nation
or region to maintain and develop their capacity to produce basic food crops
with the corresponding productive and cultural diversity. The emerging
concept of food sovereignty emphasizes farmers’ access to land, seeds, and
water while focusing on local autonomy, local markets, local
production-consumption cycles, energy and technological sovereignty, and
farmer-to-farmer networks.

Small Farmers as Key Actors for Regional Food Security

In Latin America, there were about 16 million peasant production units in
the late 1980s, occupying close to 60.5 million hectares — 34.5 percent of
the total cultivated land. The peasant population includes 75 million people
representing almost two-thirds of Latin America’s total rural population. The
average farm size of these units is about 1.8 hectares, although the
contribution of peasant agriculture to the general food supply in the region
is significant. These small units of production were responsible for 41
percent of the agricultural output for domestic consumption and for producing
at the regional level 51 percent of the maize, 77 percent of the beans, and
61 percent of the potatoes.7 The contribution to food security of this
small-farm sector is today as crucial as twenty-five years ago.

Africa has approximately 33 million small farms, representing 80 percent of
all farms in the region. The majority of African farmers (many of them are
women) are smallholders, with two-thirds of all farms below 2 hectares and 90
percent of farms below 10 hectares. Most small farmers practice
“low-resource” agriculture which is based primarily on the use of local
resources, but which may make modest use of external inputs. Low-resource
agriculture produces the majority of grains, almost all root, tuber, and
plantain crops, and the majority of legumes. Most basic food crops are grown
by small farmers with virtually no or little use of fertilizers and improved
seed.8 This situation, however, has changed in the last two decades as food
production per capita has declined in Africa. Once self-sufficient in
cereals, Africa now has to import millions of tons to fill the gap. Despite
this increase in imports, smallholders still produce most of Africa’s food.

In Asia, China alone accounts for almost half the world’s small farms (on 193
million hectares), followed by India with 23 percent, and Indonesia,
Bangladesh, and Vietnam. Of the majority of more than 200 million rice
farmers who live in Asia, few cultivate more than 2 hectares of rice. China
has probably 75 million rice farmers who still practice methods similar to
those used more than 1,000 years ago. Local cultivars, grown mostly on upland
ecosystems and/or under rain-fed conditions, make up the bulk of the rice
produced by Asian small farmers.9

Small Farms Are More Productive and Resource Conserving

Although the conventional wisdom is that small family farms are backward and
unproductive, research shows that small farms are much more productive than
large farms if total output is considered rather than yield from a single
crop. Maize yields in traditional Mexican and Guatemalan cropping systems are
about 2 tons per hectare or about 4,320,692 calories, sufficient to cover the
annual food needs of a typical family of 5-7 people. In the 1950s the
chinampas of Mexico (raised growing beds in shallow lakes or swamps) had
maize yields of 3.5-6.3 tons per hectare. At that time, these were the
highest long-term yields achieved anywhere in Mexico. In comparison, average
maize yields in the United States in 1955 were 2.6 tons per hectare, and did
not pass the 4 tons per hectare mark until 1965.10 Each hectare of remaining
chinampa can still produce enough food for 15-20 persons per year at a modern
subsistence level.

Traditional multiple cropping systems provide as much as 20 percent of the
world food supply. Polycultures constitute at least 80 percent of the
cultivated area of West Africa, while much of the production of staple crops
in the Latin American tropics also occurs in polycultures. These diversified
farming systems in which the small-scale farmer produces grains, fruits,
vegetables, fodder, and animal products in the same field or garden
out-produce the yield per unit of single crops such as corn grown alone on
large-scale farms. A large farm may produce more corn per hectare than a
small farm in which the corn is grown as part of a polyculture that also
includes beans, squash, potatoes, and fodder. But, productivity in terms of
harvestable products per unit area of polycultures developed by smallholders
is higher than under a single crop with the same level of management. Yield
advantages can range from 20 percent to 60 percent, because polycultures
reduce losses due to weeds (by occupying space that weeds might otherwise
occupy), insects, and diseases (because of the presence of multiple species),
and make more efficient use of the available resources of water, light, and
nutrients.11

By managing fewer resources more intensively, small farmers are able to make
more profit per unit of output, and thus, make more total profits — even if
production of each commodity is less.12 In overall output, the diversified
farm produces much more food. In the United States the smallest two-hectare
farms produced $15,104 per hectare and netted about $2,902 per hectare. The
largest farms, averaging 15,581 hectares, yielded $249 per hectare and netted
about $52 per hectare. Not only do small- to medium-sized farms exhibit
higher yields than conventional larger-scale farms, but they do this with
much lower negative impacts on the environment, as research shows that small
farmers take better care of natural resources, including reducing soil
erosion and conserving biodiversity. However, an important part of the higher
per hectare income of small farms in the United States is that they tend to
by-pass middlemen and sell directly to the public, restaurants, or markets.
They also tend to receive a premium for their local, and frequently organic,
products.

The inverse relationship between farm size and output can be attributed to
the more efficient use of land, water, biodiversity, and other agricultural
resources by small farmers. So in terms of converting inputs into outputs,
society would be better off with small-scale farmers. Building strong rural
economies in the Global South based on productive small-scale farming will
allow the people of the South to remain with their families in the
countryside. This will help to stem the tide of out-migration into the slums
of cities that do not have sufficient employment opportunities. As the
world’s population continues to grow, redistributing farmland may become
central to feeding the planet, especially when large-scale agriculture
devotes itself to feeding cars through growing agrofuel feedstocks.

Small Farms Represent a Sanctuary of Agrobiodiversity Free of GMOs

Traditional small-scale farmers tend to grow a wide variety of cultivars.
Many of these plants are landraces, more genetically heterogeneous than
formal modern varieties, and grown from seed passed down from generation to
generation. These landraces offer greater defenses against vulnerability and
enhance harvest security in the midst of diseases, pests, droughts, and other
stresses.13 In a worldwide survey of crop varietal diversity on farms
involving twenty-seven crops, scientists found that considerable crop genetic
diversity continues to be maintained on farms in the from of traditional crop
varieties, especially of major staple crops. In most cases, farmers maintain
diversity as insurance to meet future environmental change or social and
economic needs. Many researchers have concluded that variety richness
enhances productivity and reduces yield variability. Given the penetration of
transgenic crops into centers of diversity, at issue is the possibility that
traits important to indigenous farmers (resistance to drought, competitive
ability, performance in polycrop systems, storage quality, etc.) could be
traded for transgenic qualities (e.g., herbicide resistance) which are of no
importance to farmers that do not use agrochemicals.14 Under this scenario,
risk will increase and farmers will lose their ability to produce relatively
stable yields with a minimum of external inputs under changing environments.
The social impacts of local crop shortfalls, resulting from changes in the
genetic integrity of local varieties due to genetic pollution, can be
considerable in the margins of the developing world.

It is crucial to protect areas of peasant agriculture free of contamination
from GMO crops. Maintaining pools of genetic diversity, geographically
isolated from any possibility of cross fertilization or genetic pollution
from uniform transgenic crops, will create “islands” of intact genetic
resources to act as safeguards against the potential ecological failure
derived from the Second Green Revolution increasingly being imposed with
programs such as the Gates-Rockefeller AGRA in Africa. These genetic
sanctuary islands will also serve as the only source of GMO-free seeds that
will be needed to repopulate the organic farms in the North that will
inevitably be contaminated by the advance of transgenic agriculture. The
small farmers and indigenous communities of the Global South, with the help
of scientists and NGOs, can continue being the creators and guardians of a
biological and genetic diversity that has enriched the food culture of the
whole planet.

Small Farms Are More Resilient to Climate Change

Most climate change models predict that damages will disproportionally affect
the regions populated by small farmers, particularly rainfed agriculturalists
in the third world. However, existing models at best provide a broad-brush
approximation of expected effects and hide the enormous variability in
internal adaptation strategies. Many rural communities and traditional
farming households, despite weather fluctuations, seem able to cope with
climatic extremes.15 In fact many farmers cope and even prepare for climate
change, minimizing crop failure through increased use of drought tolerant
local varieties, water harvesting, extensive planting, mixed cropping,
agroforestry, opportunistic weeding, wild plant gathering, and a series of
other traditional farming system techniques.16

In traditional agroecosystems the prevalence of complex and diversified
cropping systems is of key importance to the stability of peasant farming
systems, allowing crops to reach acceptable productivity levels in the midst
of environmentally stressful conditions. In general, traditional
agroecosystems are less vulnerable to catastrophic loss because they grow a
wide variety of crops and varieties in various spatial and temporal
arrangements. Researchers have found that polycultures of sorghum/peanut and
millet/peanut exhibited greater yield stability and less productivity
declines during a drought than in the case of monocultures.

One way of expressing such experimental results is in terms of
“over-yielding” — occurring when two or more crops grown together yield more
than when grown alone (for example, when one hectare of a mixture of sorghum
and peanuts yields more than a half hectare of only sorghum plus a half
hectare of only peanuts). All the intercrops over-yielded consistently at
five levels of moisture availability, ranging from 297 to 584 mm of water
applied over the cropping season. Quite interestingly, the rate of
over-yielding actually increased with water stress, such that the relative
differences in productivity between monocultures and polycultures became more
accentuated as stress increased.17 Many farmers grow crops in agroforestry
designs and shade tree cover protects crop plants against extremes in
microclimate and soil moisture fluctuation. Farmers influence microclimate by
retaining and planting trees, which reduce temperature, wind velocity,
evaporation, and direct exposure to sunlight and intercept hail and rain. In
coffee agroecosystems in Chiapas, Mexico temperature, humidity, and solar
radiation fluctuations were found to increase significantly as shade cover
decreased, indicating that shade cover was directly related to the mitigation
of variability in microclimate and soil moisture for the coffee crop.18

Surveys conducted in hillsides after Hurricane Mitch hit Central America in
1998 showed that farmers using sustainable practices such as the legume
“mucuna” cover crop, intercropping, and agroforestry suffered less “damage”
than their conventional neighbors. The study spanning 360 communities and 24
departments in Nicaragua, Honduras, and Guatemala showed that diversified
plots had 20 to 40 percent more topsoil, greater soil moisture, less erosion,
and experienced lower economic losses than their conventional neighbors.19
This points to the fact that a re-evaluation of indigenous technology can
serve as a key source of information on adaptive capacity and resilient
capabilities exhibited by small farms — features of strategic importance for
world farmers to cope with climatic change. In addition, indigenous
technologies often reflect a worldview and an understanding of our
relationship to the natural world that is more realistic and more sustainable
than those of our Western European heritage.

Enhancing the Productivity of Small Farming Systems Through Agroecology

Despite the evidence of the resiliency and productivity advantages of
small-scale and traditional farming systems, many scientists and development
specialists and organizations argue that the performance of subsistence
agriculture is unsatisfactory, and that agrochemical and transgenic
intensification of production is essential for the transition from
subsistence to commercial production. Although such intensification
approaches have met with much failure, research indicates that traditional
crop and animal combinations can often be adapted to increase productivity.
This is the case when ecological principles are used in the redesign of small
farms, enhancing the habitat so that it promotes healthy plant growth,
stresses pests, and encourages beneficial organisms while using labor and
local resources more efficiently.

Several reviews have amply documented that small farmers can produce much of
the needed food for rural and neighboring urban communities in the midst of
climate change and burgeoning energy costs.20 The evidence is conclusive: new
agroecological approaches and technologies spearheaded by farmers, NGOs, and
some local governments around the world are already making a sufficient
contribution to food security at the household, national, and regional
levels. A variety of agroecological and participatory approaches in many
countries show very positive outcomes even under adverse environmental
conditions. Potentials include: raising cereal yields from 50 to 200 percent,
increasing stability of production through diversification, improving diets
and income, and contributing to national food security (and even to exports)
and conservation of the natural resource base and biodiversity. This evidence
has been reinforced by a recent report of the United Nations Conference on
Trade and Development stating that organic agriculture could boost African
food security. Based on an analysis of 114 cases in Africa, the report
revealed that a conversion of farms to organic or near-organic production
methods increased agricultural productivity by 116 percent.

Moreover, a shift towards organic production systems has enduring impact, as
it builds up levels of natural, human, social, financial, and physical
capital in farming communities. The International Assessment of Agricultural
Knowledge, Science and Technology (AKST) commissioned by World Bank and the
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations recommended
that an increase and strengthening of AKST towards agroecological sciences
will contribute to addressing environmental issues while maintaining and
increasing productivity. The assessment also stresses that traditional and
local knowledge systems enhance agricultural soil quality and biodiversity as
well as nutrient, pest, and water management, and the capacity to respond to
environmental stresses such as climate.

Whether the potential and spread of agroecological innovations is realized
depends on several factors and major changes in policies, institutions, and
research and development approaches. Proposed agroecological strategies need
to target the poor deliberately, and not only aim at increasing production
and conserving natural resources. But they must also create employment and
provide access to local inputs and local markets. Any serious attempt at
developing sustainable agricultural technologies must bring to bear local
knowledge and skills on the research process.21 Particular emphasis must be
given to involving farmers directly in the formulation of the research agenda
and on their active participation in the process of technological innovation
and dissemination through Campesino a Campesino models that focus on sharing
experiences, strengthening local research, and problem-solving capacities.
The agroecological process requires participation and enhancement of the
farmer’s ecological literacy about their farms and resources, laying the
foundation for empowerment and continuous innovation by rural communities.22

Equitable market opportunities must also be developed, emphasizing local
commercialization and distribution schemes, fair prices, and other mechanisms
that link farmers more directly and with greater solidarity to the rest of
the population. The ultimate challenge is to increase investment and research
in agroecology and scale up projects that have already proven successful to
thousands farmers. This will generate a meaningful impact on the income, food
security, and environmental well-being of all the population, especially
small farmers who have been adversely impacted by conventional modern
agricultural policy, technology, and the penetration of multinational
agribusiness deep into the third world.23

Rural Social Movements, Agroecology, and Food Sovereignty

The development of sustainable agriculture will require significant
structural changes, in addition to technological innovation, farmer-to-farmer
networks, and farmer-to-consumer solidarity. The required change is
impossible without social movements that create political will among
decision-makers to dismantle and transform the institutions and regulations
that presently hold back sustainable agricultural development. A more radical
transformation of agriculture is needed, one guided by the notion that
ecological change in agriculture cannot be promoted without comparable
changes in the social, political, cultural, and economic arenas that help
determine agriculture.

The organized peasant and indigenous-based agrarian movements — such as the
international peasant movement La Vía Campesina and Brazil’s Landless Peasant
Movement (MST) — have long argued that farmers need land to produce food for
their own communities and for their country. For this reason they have
advocated for genuine agrarian reforms to access and control land, water, and
biodiversity that are of central importance for communities in order to meet
growing food demands.

Vía Campesina believes that in order to protect livelihoods, jobs, people’s
food security, and health as well as the environment, food production has to
remain in the hands of small-scale sustainable farmers and cannot be left
under the control of large agribusiness companies or supermarket chains. Only
by changing the export-led, free-trade based, industrial agriculture model of
large farms can the downward spiral of poverty, low wages, rural-urban
migration, hunger, and environmental degradation be halted. Social rural
movements embrace the concept of food sovereignty as an alternative to the
neoliberal approach that puts its faith in an inequitable international trade
to solve the world’s food problem. Instead, it focuses on local autonomy,
local markets, local production-consumption cycles, energy and technological
sovereignty, and farmer-to-farmer networks.

“Greening” the Green Revolution will not be sufficient to reduce hunger and
poverty and conserve biodiversity. If the root causes of hunger, poverty, and
inequity are not confronted head-on, tensions between socially equitable
development and ecologically sound conservation are bound to accentuate.
Organic farming systems that do not challenge the monoculture nature of
plantations and rely on external inputs as well as foreign and expensive
certification seals, or fair-trade systems destined only for agro-export,
offer very little to small farmers that become dependent on external inputs
and foreign and volatile markets. By keeping farmers dependent on an input
substitution approach to organic agriculture, fine-tuning of input use does
little to move farmers toward the productive redesign of agricultural
ecosystems that would move them away from dependence on external inputs.
Niche markets for the rich in the North exhibit the same problems of any
agro-export scheme that does not prioritize food sovereignty, perpetuating
dependence and hunger.

Rural social movements understand that dismantling the industrial agrifood
complex and restoring local food systems must be accompanied by the
construction of agroecological alternatives that suit the needs of
small-scale producers and the low-income non-farming population, and that
oppose corporate control over production and consumption. Given the urgency
of the problems affecting agriculture, coalitions that can rapidly foster
sustainable agriculture among farmers, civil society organizations (including
consumers), as well as relevant and committed research organizations are
needed. Moving toward a more socially just, economically viable, and
environmentally sound agriculture will be the result of the coordinated
action of emerging social movements in the rural sector in alliance with
civil society organizations that are committed to supporting the goals of
these farmers movements. As a result of constant political pressure from
organized farmers and others, politicians will, it is hoped, become more
responsive to developing policies that will enhance food sovereignty,
preserve the natural resource base, and ensure social equity and economic
agricultural viability.

Notes

1. P. M. Rosset, Food Is Different (New York: Zed Books, 2006). Go back
2. C. Rosenzweig and D. Hillel, Climate Change and the Global Harvest (New
York: Oxford University Press, 2008). Go back
3. J. Pretty, J. I. L. Morrison, and R. E. Hine, “Reducing Food Poverty by
Increasing Agricultural Sustainability in Developing Countries,” Agriculture,
Ecosystems and Environment 95 (2003): 217-34. Go back
4. S. R. Gliessman, Agroecology (Ann Arbor: Ann Arbor Press, 1998); M. A.
Altieri, Agroecology: The Science of Sustainable Agriculture (Boulder:
Westview Press, 1995); M. A. Altieri and C. I. Nicholls, Biodiversity and
Pest Management in Agroecosystems (New York: Haworth Press, 2005). Go back
5. W. M. Denevan, “Prehistoric Agricultural Methods as Models for
Sustainability,” Advanced Plant Pathology 11 (1995): 21-43. Go back
6. M. A. Altieri, “Linking Ecologists and Traditional Farmers in the
Search for Sustainable Agriculture,” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment
2 (2004): 35-42. Go back
7. E. Ortega, Peasant Agriculture in Latin America (Joint ECLAC/FAO
Agriculture Division, Santiago, 1986). Go back
8. W. K. Asenso-Okyere and G.Benneh, Sustainable Food Security in West
Africa (Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1997). Go back
9. L. Hanks, Rice and Man: Agricultural Ecology in Southeast Asia
(Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1992). Go back
10. W. T. Sanders, Tierra y Agua (Harvard University PhD dissertation,
1957). Go back
11. C. A. Francis, Multiple Cropping Systems (New York: MacMillan, 1986).
Go back
12. P. Rosset, “Small is Bountiful,” The Ecologist 29 (1999): 207. Go back
13. D. L. Clawson, “Harvest Security and Intraspecific Diversity in
Traditional Tropical Agriculture.” Economic Botany 39 (1985): 56-67. Go back
14. C. F. Jordan, “Genetic Engineering, the Farm Crisis and World Hunger,”
BioScience 52 (2001): 523-29. Go back
15. M. A. Altieri and P. Koohafkan, Enduring Farms (Malaysia: Third World
Network, 2008). Go back
16. J. O. Browder, Fragile Lands in Latin America (Boulder: Westview Press,
1989). Go back
17. M. Natarajan and R. W. Willey, “The Effects of Water Stress on Yield
Advantages of Intercropping Systems,” Field Crops Research 13 (1996): 117-31.
Go back
18. B. B. Lin, “Agroforestry Management as an Adaptive Strategy against
Potential Microclimate Extremes in Coffee Agriculture,” Agricultural and
Forest Meteorology 144 (2007): 85-94. Go back
19. E. Holt-Gimenez, “Measuring Farms Agroecological Resistance to
Hurricane Mitch,” LEISA 17 (2001): 18-20. Go back
20. N. Uphoff and M. A. Altieri, Alternatives to Conventional Modern
Agriculture for Meeting World Food Needs in the Next Century (Ithaca: Cornell
International Institute for Food, Agriculture and Development, 1999); M. A.
Altieri, “Applying Agroecology to Enhance Productivity of Peasant Farming
Systems in Latin America,” Environment, Development and Sustainability 1
(1999): 197-217. Go back
21. P. Richards, Indigenous Agricultural Revolution (Boulder: Westview
Press, 1985). Go back
22. E. Holt-Gimenez, Campesino a Campesino (Oakland, Food First Books,
2006). Go back
23. P. M. Rosset, R. Patel, and M. Courville, Promised Land(Oakland: Food
First Books, 2006). Go back






  • [Livingontheland] Agroecology, Small Farms, and Food Sovereignty, Tradingpost, 12/06/2009

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page