the rights of small farmers in the face of pressures from large-scale corporate
agriculture supported by government and international policy (Desmarais, 2007).
A vision of small-scale peasant farming rooted in local markets and economies was
developed that adopted the term ‘food sovereignty’ as its rallying cry (Rosset, 2003).
A particular strand of this argument, confirmed in a series of statements and
declarations, urged the adoption of ‘agroecology’, which posed a distinctively green
agenda. Agroecology emphasizes working with nature not against it, and using low
external inputs that are non-polluting, and that do not rely on large-scale corporate
input suppliers of seeds, fertilizers, and so on (Altieri, 2009). There are overlaps,
of course, with the longer established organic movement and other agri-food move -
ments (Jamison, 2012), but the emphasis here is on the process of farming, its
groundedness in local ecologies and its relationships with economic structures, as
well as the product itself.
Since its origins the movement has grown, with some suggesting that today it
is the largest social movement in the world.
1 This growth has meant the movement
has encompassed more and more interests and issues, including linking up with
indigenous people’s movements, the women’s movement, migrants’ movements,
workers’ unions, consumer groups, and more. This ‘big tent’ approach has enabled
articulation with a range of global forces and challenges. However, it has brought
with it tensions, and for some a lack of strategic focus, and failure to concentrate
on particular political actions. The Nyeleni declaration, produced through an
intensive negotiation among movement participants, is the nearest thing that exists
to a political manifesto, and it presents a utopian ideal across a huge range of issues.
2
As an organization, La Via Campesina has evolved from a very loose federation
of groups that found common ground in and around the World Social Fora and
other events, to a more structured arrangement, with a General Coordinator
(currently from Zimbabwe, previously from Indonesia), a central committee,
advisory groups, training events, demonstration sites and a regular series of meetings
where members from across the movement gather. With its powerful slogan,
‘Globalise the struggle, globalise hope’, there is an attempt to forge a united alliance
across diverse groups around a global issue. Focused campaigns on particular issues,
whether around ‘land grabbing’, ‘GMOs’, or corporate agriculture more generally,
provide moments for mobilization (Borras et al., 2008).
Together with others, there has been considerable energy invested in recent
years in two major international policy processes. First was the International
Assessment for Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD)
that culminated in a report in 2009 that, while presented in the language of an
international report sponsored by the World Bank, reflected many of the aspirations
– and some key language – of the movement. The IAASTD, or at least selected
sections of it, has become a focus for mobilization, and a source of authority and
legitimacy (Scoones, 2009). Second has been the UN Food and Agricultural Organ -
ization’s Committee on Food Security (CFS). This is the first UN process where
non-governmental representation (not just observer status) is permitted. This has
Mobilizing for green transformations 123
agriculture supported by government and international policy (Desmarais, 2007).
A vision of small-scale peasant farming rooted in local markets and economies was
developed that adopted the term ‘food sovereignty’ as its rallying cry (Rosset, 2003).
A particular strand of this argument, confirmed in a series of statements and
declarations, urged the adoption of ‘agroecology’, which posed a distinctively green
agenda. Agroecology emphasizes working with nature not against it, and using low
external inputs that are non-polluting, and that do not rely on large-scale corporate
input suppliers of seeds, fertilizers, and so on (Altieri, 2009). There are overlaps,
of course, with the longer established organic movement and other agri-food move -
ments (Jamison, 2012), but the emphasis here is on the process of farming, its
groundedness in local ecologies and its relationships with economic structures, as
well as the product itself.
Since its origins the movement has grown, with some suggesting that today it
is the largest social movement in the world.
1 This growth has meant the movement
has encompassed more and more interests and issues, including linking up with
indigenous people’s movements, the women’s movement, migrants’ movements,
workers’ unions, consumer groups, and more. This ‘big tent’ approach has enabled
articulation with a range of global forces and challenges. However, it has brought
with it tensions, and for some a lack of strategic focus, and failure to concentrate
on particular political actions. The Nyeleni declaration, produced through an
intensive negotiation among movement participants, is the nearest thing that exists
to a political manifesto, and it presents a utopian ideal across a huge range of issues.
2
As an organization, La Via Campesina has evolved from a very loose federation
of groups that found common ground in and around the World Social Fora and
other events, to a more structured arrangement, with a General Coordinator
(currently from Zimbabwe, previously from Indonesia), a central committee,
advisory groups, training events, demonstration sites and a regular series of meetings
where members from across the movement gather. With its powerful slogan,
‘Globalise the struggle, globalise hope’, there is an attempt to forge a united alliance
across diverse groups around a global issue. Focused campaigns on particular issues,
whether around ‘land grabbing’, ‘GMOs’, or corporate agriculture more generally,
provide moments for mobilization (Borras et al., 2008).
Together with others, there has been considerable energy invested in recent
years in two major international policy processes. First was the International
Assessment for Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD)
that culminated in a report in 2009 that, while presented in the language of an
international report sponsored by the World Bank, reflected many of the aspirations
– and some key language – of the movement. The IAASTD, or at least selected
sections of it, has become a focus for mobilization, and a source of authority and
legitimacy (Scoones, 2009). Second has been the UN Food and Agricultural Organ -
ization’s Committee on Food Security (CFS). This is the first UN process where
non-governmental representation (not just observer status) is permitted. This has
Mobilizing for green transformations 123