Response by Dr. Biksham Gujja and Dr. Norman Uphoff

Dr. Bas Bouman’s blog on SRI “Why the animosity?” is very welcome and a positive contribution to making progress in the rice sector. Since the common goal is to “contribute to a more food-secure, less poor and more environmentally friendly world,” Dr. Bouman suggests that there be collaboration with the powerful “movement” of SRI. Surely everyone working on improving rice production around the world should work together and avoid animosity.

It is important to recognize, however, the history, the nature, and the extent of whatever animosity exists in order to put it behind us and move on towards productive collaboration. Without that understanding, cooperation would be superficial, and it would not be possible to foster fruitful relationships.

The animosity started in 2004 with the complete dismissal of SRI in an invited article in IRRI's magazine RICE TODAY which started off by arguing that SRI does not deserve "serious consideration." Why? Because reported SRI increases in yield were not possible according to certain principles(that have been shown now to be empirically incorrect).

Almost a decade after SRI was dismissed in IRRI's RICE TODAY, SRI benefits have now been demonstrated in over 50 countries, benefits that would have been forgone if the premature IRRI conclusions had been followed. Many governments have specific targets to expand SRI use on the ground. The Indonesian Ministry of Agriculture has announced a goal of 1.5 million hectares of SRI by 2015; the Bihar state government in India has a target of 2.5 million hectares under SRI management in 2013-14. Use of the new methods in Bihar has expanded from 30 hectares in 2007 to 335,000 hectares five years later; SRI yields there in 2012 averaged about three times Bihar's usual paddy yield. In Vietnam, use of SRI practices has grown from less than 10,000 farmers in 2007 to over 1.3 million farmers last year. The hostile attitude toward SRI expressed in 2004 has been shown to be completely misguided; yet IRRI has not dissociated itself from this 'animosity.'

Today, SRI methods are being used by about 5 million farmers, possibly more, who benefit from its insights and recommendations.National rice research centers in India, China, Vietnam and elsewhere, the counterparts of IRRI at national level, after conducting their own research are advising their governments to invest in this method as part of strategies to improve the food security and income of small and marginal farmers. Almost 400 papers have been published in scientific journals assessing the merits of the SRI on the ground. All this has happened without IRRI’s research or support. On the contrary, IRRI has consistently either opposing SRI, or dismissingit as 'nothing new,' or at best has equatingit with some of its own existing methods.

Today governments in the major rice-producing countries are funding SRI projects; and major international donors and international NGOs –the World Bank, FAO, IFAD, USAID, GIZ, NORAD, DANIDA, WWF, Oxfam, AKF, CARITAS, World Vision, among others -- have become involved in promoting SRI.

With so much is going in the field, IRRI has still not undertaken anysignificant project to study SRI and evaluate its elements systematically, working with those who know the most about SRI. Not a single workshop or training program has been conducted. Early on, in 2002, IRRI's national programs in Bangladesh and in Laos got involved in evaluating SRI with local NGOs and other partners, but such cooperation was withdrawn thereafter, and no national IRRI offices are now involved in studying or promoting SRI as far as we know.

Not just governments, even some major corporations such as Syngenta and Nippon Koei have started promoting SRI in a number of countries. Private sector companies are getting involved in producing weeders, markers and other implements for SRI.

All this institutional interest in SRI has happened mostly because farmers have embraced SRI. They haveinternalized it, modified it, and have promoted it from farmer to farmer, by word of mouth. Supporting and complementing this have been the efforts ofmany civil society organizations that work with directly poor and marginal farmers. These organizations have worked hard in promoting SRI in many countries, investing their own limited resources.

So it is true that, as Bas Bouman puts it, SRIhas becomea major international movement. However, such a characterization distracts attention from the scientific merits of SRI. The SRI movement is in fact undergirded by well-tested scientific elements for improving paddy cultivation, while at the same time addressing the crises of growing water shortages and escalating costs of cultivation. SRI is not a movement based on either miracle or emotion; solid agronomic and economic data are validating it. SRI is a household name now in many rice-producing farming communities, and it is also a global brand, with many local interpretations and local narratives that indigenize it.

SRI has thrived despitedismissal, ridicule, and animosity. A method that was considered as a waste of time, not worthy even of discussion, has emerged as a major global response to food insecurity, ecological degradation, and even to climate change. Now hundreds of young people are doing research in many universities and research stations not just from an agronomic point of view but from many perspectives as well. Moreover, SRI has not stoppedwith rice. It is now spreading to other production,with results similarly impressive for wheat, sugarcane, millet and other crops. Today in India alone, every day there are newspaper reports on SRI in most of the Indian languages.

While focusing on obtaining results on the ground by working directly with farmers, some of us who were working with SRI have made sincere efforts to involve IRRI. In March 2006, a workshop organized in collaboration with a WWF-ICRISAT project and PhilRice was held in Los Bañosto share experiences, including farmers who could testify on their personal experience. This effort -- held at IRRI headquarters-- ended in utter disappointment, however, as IRRI staff completely ignored it. We were pleased to have Dr. Bouman attendthe workshop, but others stayed away, and nothing came out of it.

But we did not leave it there.In 2008, there was an effort to plan a joint evaluation research project involving WWF, Cornell, Wageningen, and IRRI scientists, preparing a joint research proposal to evaluate SRI that was submitted to the Gates Foundation. After the Foundation declined to fund the proposal, there was no expression of any interest from IRRI's side in any further collaborative efforts. Cooperation was dropped.

We can and should, however, put that all behind us for establishing collaboration in the broader interest of food security and the welfare of small farmers. If IRRI is willing to begin communicating and collaborating openly and collegially, we are sure there will be a serious and friendly response.

We agree with Bas Bouman that current rice science and practice are not sufficiently meeting the needs of farmers, of consumers, or the natural environment. The SRI ideas and methods, still evolving and still being improved, can make many contributions that benefit farmers, the general public, and agro ecosystems; but we know they are not complete or perfect or relevant to all situations. We have never claimed that they are. There is nothing magic or miraculous about SRI; it must have scientific underpinnings as well as practical applicability.

We have been ready to work together for many years and hope that Bas’s blog indicates that IRRI is now ready for collaboration. We would be glad to engage in a dialogue at IRRI, to exchange views, review the situation, and work out a framework for collaboration. Such dialogue will build trust and start a process for co-operation which is long overdue.

With Bas we too want "to look for opportunities for collaboration rather than to perpetuate real or perceived discord." Indeed, "we all share the same goals and ideals: to contribute to a more food-secure, less poor, and more environmentally-friendly world." So let us work together on the ground with farmers and learn from each other.

Dr. Biksham Gujja and Dr. Norman Uphoff

25 April 2013

Through an inexpensive SMS service that reaches the whole country, farmers can find out where to get the best price for their products. Armed with this knowledge, they can join others in order to sell larger volumes and thus ensure a higher price. Information is delivered via basic mobile phones, which are increasingly widely available.

James Nguo, Regional Director of ALIN notes the impact: “This has enabled previously marginalised sections of society, particularly women and youth, to access market information on an equal footing with men. The growth of mobile phone technology is changing the situation we saw before, where brokers decided prices for farmers.

Once this pilot phase is complete, ALIN plans to support farmers to organise themselves into groups around various commodities in order to increase their bargaining power. The Sokopepe system will be scaled out to all of the 12 Maarifa Centres over the next two years, and will be extended to facilitate online transactions through mobile money transfers.

This happens in the framework of the AGROECO project in Peru, which analyses the contribution of organic agriculture to food security in the Andean region. ETC Andes is in charge of disseminating and sharing the results of the project to students, extension agents, researchers and policy makers in the region, and to the thousands of readers of LEISA revista de agroecología. Rural radio is one of the tools used by ETC. The first 33 programmes have now been aired, discussing the link between local products and the population’s health and nutrition.

Farmers who have been tuning to the programme stressed the importance of receiving information in their native language about nutrition, the meaning of organic production and nutritious recipes for dishes based on local biodiversity resources. They also requested more information about gender issues.

The Cusco Farmers’ Federation has asked that similar programmes be made for other areas. These new scripts are ready, and agreements have been made for the programmes to be broadcast by other radio stations. They will also be made available on the Internet.

For example, they organized a national forum on assisted natural regeneration, followed by a special publication on the same topic and a day of activities organized in Kaffrine, Senegal. Community radios such as Radio Fissel, Radio Koungheul and Radio Mékhé are playing an important role in this initiative. They air programmes on agro-forestry and disseminate the information compiled in the publication. Community radios are important platforms for communication and exchange in the rural world.

Senegal-based IED Afrique, which was created in 2005, works to promote sustainable farming practices, including agro-forestry, in Western Africa with a special focus on participatory approaches. Its goal is to restore natural resources and also to put in place inclusive governance mechanisms like local conventions.

Agro-forestry in practice

Agro-forestry is an approach which uses the complementarities between trees and crops in a way that allows a more efficient exploitation of the available resources. For example, according to the French Institut national de la recherche agronomique (INRA), trees on the farm can act as a windbreaker, which in turn provides shelter from the sun and wind, helping soil to stay in place and promoting microfauna and microflora to thrive.

From an economic perspective, agro-forestry generates greater revenues as arable land is not exclusively set aside for forests, but farm activities can be undertaken simultaneously. This practice provides farmers with a vast array of benefits such as food security, resilience, household energy supply, and helps them adapt to climate change.

Another advantage of on-farm trees is that they help maintain or even improve soil organic matter and by the same token reduce the need to use non-organic fertilizers. Villagers’ practices have also changed. Whereas twenty years ago they used manure as a source of energy, with the introduction of trees on their land they now have sufficient firewood. This allows farmers to use the manure for their fields. In addition, agroforestry helps ensure feed for livestock.

The United Nations come to visit

In February 2013, the executive secretary of the UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) visited a re-greening project in the Zinder region of Niger. The purpose of the visit was to measure the effect of the re-greening strategy on crop yields and livelihoods. Chris Reij, who is the facilitator of the Africa Regreening Initiative: “This visit helped demystify some of the common assumptions about the use of livestock in agricultural practices.”

For instance, villagers from the region of Zinder clearly demonstrated to the UN that livestock does not necessarily lead to land degradation. They showed that manure can help the re-greening process as they contain seeds from trees and bushes.

In short, the benefits of agro-forestry are numerous. IED’s director Bara Gueye: “Trees on the farm are the pillar of sustainable agriculture in Africa”.

Further reading:

• IED Afrique
• Initiative pour "le reverdissement de l’Afrique" (African Regreening Initiative)
• Interview with Chris Reij in Farming Matters

Text: Awa Faly Ba and Geneviève Lavoie-Mathieu

A theatre play with the title ‘Zefinha is getting marred’, staged by the Theatre Group of Polo Borborema, was the kick-off of the day. It took place in front of the headquarters of the Rural Workers Union of Solapur. In the play, Margarida prepares his daughter Zefinha to marry, making her feel pressured by the perpetuation of patriarchal relations.

After the play, women farmers gave testimonies, sharing their life stories. They honoured young leader Alice Ana Macedo, of the Union of Rural Workers of Fires, who was kidnapped, raped and murdered in September last year. The words of her mother, Angineide Macêdo, moved the audience: "If she had not been taken from us, she'd be here today, participating, cheering the bus with the farmers. People say to me, 'you are very strong' but it's not that I'm strong, it's moments like these that help me get through the day, and give me strength. And that's why I'm here today, to ensure that what happened to my daughter does not happen to anyone else", she declared.

Life experiences and live music

The farmers marched through the streets of the city center. Halfway the route, the crowd was surprised by speeches of several women farmers who courageously shared moments of pain they suffered. One, two, three, many women reported that domestic violence is not an isolated case, but is something that happens to many of us. They also stated that the painful experiences can be overcome.

The march went on to the November 26 Square, where there was a market to share experiences and exchange farmer products. The market demonstrated the results of the broad movement of women farmers as social, political and economic innovators. Maia Gilvanisa, singer and author of the song "Woman to Appeal", performed. Later, she said: "The song became an anthem of this march, and I'm very proud of that, because it is about life experiences of several women I got to know when I worked with rural people. "

At the end of the march, unionist Margarida Maria Alves was commemorated. She was murdered for defying the local power of the large landowners in the region. Afterwards, participants danced to the lively performance of the ensemble Caiana of the Creoles, of the Black Community of Alagoa Grande in Paraiba. Closure happened at around 13h with the reading of the Charter of the March, reaffirming the struggles of rural women and their demands.

A process for change

As every year, the march marked the close of a series of events. Since the end of 2012, farmers and leaders of Polo Borborema, Brazil had been meeting to prepare the IV March. More than 800 women and about 50 men participated in the process.

Maria do Ceu Silva, leader of the Union of Solan and coordination of Polo Borborema stressed the importance of these preparations: "Just here in Solan we held eight community meetings. This preparatory work was very important, not only for the actions that strengthen us, we have been conducting unions, but also to encourage women to leave home, encourage them to talk of their daily life. From there they began to participate and reflect on their situations”.

The march is also encouraging more women to organize: "Here in Solan, we've seen women's groups forming on the establishment of revolving funds of ecological stoves, and already planning exchange visits. "

The March for Women's Lives and Agroecology is organized by the Polo Association and family farming organizations of Borborema. The Polo Association is a forum that brings together organizations from 15 counties and more than five thousand families of the Borborema Dryland, with the assistance of AgriCultures Network member AS-PTA. Polo and AS-PTA believe that overcoming violence and inequalities between men and women, is one of the pillars of ecological family farming.

Further reading:

• Camponesas marcham nas Ruas de Solanea-PB por igualdade e pela Fim da Violencia Contra al Mulher
• More on AS-PTA
• March 8 2013: A reminder of the importance of women in agriculture

Adapted from original text by: Janneke Bruil

Flip Vonk of ASEED Europe, an environmental organisation in Amsterdam says: "It is just ironic that princess Máxima volunteers to pimp this conference. Being from Argentina, she is aware like no other of the damage that companies like Monsanto and Cargill can do to people and to the environment."

Endorsed by:

Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO)
Platform Aarde Boer Consument
ILEIA - Centre for learning on sustainable agriculture
Transnational Institute (TNI)
ASEED Europe
Voor Mondiale Duurzaamheid
Women's International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF)
Burgers voor gentechvrij voedsel Nijmegen
Groene Ruimte maken
Slowfood Amsterdam
Gevoel voor humus
TEAM Ecosys
Stichting OtherWise
Gifsoja.nl
Supermacht.nl

References:

[1]The Nine Billion Question: http://www.saiplatform.org/uploads/Modules/Library/Economist%20Special%2...

[2] Agenda: http://cemea.economistconferences.com/event/feeding-world-2013/ftw-europ...
Participants fee: € 1600.

[3] Speakers: http://cemea.economistconferences.com/event/feeding-world-2013/ftw-europ...

[4] Agriculture responsuble for climate change emissions: http://www.worldwatch.org/files/pdf/Livestock%20and%20Climate%20Change.pdf

[5] It is possible to do it in a different way, for example: http://independentsciencenews.org/un-sustainable-farming/how-millions-of-farmers-are-advancing-agriculture-for-themselves

[6] EEA report: http://www.eea.europa.eu/pressroom/newsreleases/the-cost-of-ignoring-the

[7] See for example the video  Growing Doubt' from Greenpeace about the experiences farmers in the US have with pesticide resistant crops: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNxhw2jiDtA

Films about living soils, produced by different organisations, were presented as background material for the children, together with different editions of LEISA India magazine. About 18 teachers and 60 students then participated in an essay competition. The students articulated surprisingly well how soils are linked intimately with ecological well being and rural livelihoods.

A few weeks later, the city of Hubli was the scene of an international development dialogue on social entrepreneurship. AME’s Director, K.V.S. Prasad was invited to speak at one of the panels, emphasising the importance of family farmers. Prasad highlighted how farmers are often neglected as a constituency, even though they make up 70 per cent of the rural population in India. The audience appreciated AME’s promotion of approaches such as Farmer Field Schools as a way to motivate the rural youth, and the notion of farmers as “shareholders” rather than “stakeholders”.

The event made clear that agro-ecological approaches are more relevant now than ever, and that the upcoming 2014 International Year of Family Farming is a key moment to advance this type of agriculture.

In the midst of the upheaval provoked by these statements, a festival took place from October 11-16 in Wageningen, entitled ‘Food4all’. It was a critical supplement to the city’s ‘Food4you’ festival, and celebrated food, farming and agro-ecology. Food4all drew hundreds of people who demonstrated a great interest in a sustainable future for agriculture. Below, we present a few highlights.

Visit our photo gallery

The festival was opened with a lecture by Claire Ameyou Quenum from Togo, who shared a story about where phosphate, a main substance of fertilizer, comes from, and how it ironically undermines the right to food in Togo. A college room full of students from many countries in the world were astonished by her presentation. Read more

In a panel debate “Feeding the world, a different logic”, on the 12th of October 2012, various experts exchanged views with a broad audience. The expert panel consisted of Jan Douwe van der Ploeg, Edith Lammerts van Bueren, Steve Sherwood and Frank Verhoeven and was moderated by journalist Sophie Derkzen. The audience, of over 130 people, most with ties to the Wageningen University, came from a wide variety of disciplines and nationalities.

The panel first explored how agro-ecology embraces diversity, unlike the blueprint models promoted by industrial agriculture. As agro-ecological practices are rooted in local territories, resources and communities, they are inherently diverse and locally adapted. Various inspiring examples around the world were mentioned. Agro-ecology also increases the autonomy and independence for farmers. It creates new lines of defence against hostile market forces and agribusiness expansion and enhances resilience for the various crises we are facing. In the second part of the evening, the audience and the panel discussed various ways to strengthen agroecology. The practice and the movement tend to flourish in informal spaces. The panel agreed that it is also important to keep in mind that the debate goes beyond Wageningen university and that in our daily lives, we can start making the change we wish for. Read more

Food4all also included a lively regional farmers market and the Dutch premiere of Marie Monique Robin’s latest film ‘Crops of the Future’, on World Food Day (October 16). It was a joint initiative of ILEIA, FIAN Netherlands, OtherWise and Boerengroep.

We cherish our memories of Anita for her clarity of purpose, thought and action in building and supporting our network. We all remember her as a person very dedicated to the cause of small-scale farmers and the environment. In our long association, there were several special moments when we experienced her unflinching spirit of justice and conflict resolution abilities. Anita stood side by side with smale-scale farmers and fought valiantly and effectively during international negotiations (such as the IAASTD process) for the issues we hold dear. Many colleagues around the world will remember her with respect and affection.

Anita has died much too young. We wish her friends and family strength and courage.

The teams of ILEIA, ETC Andes, AME Foundation, AS-PTA, IED Afrique, ALIN and CBIK, and the Board of ILEIA.

Minister Pepe Vargas (Agrarian Development) noted the need to strengthen research in organic agriculture and agroecology. The minister said it was essential that the ministries involved build public policies for marketing, production and training. Minister Izabella Teixeira (Environment) highlighted the government's effort to reconcile social and the environmental aspects. "Brazil does not need to be a champion of using pesticides to produce food for the world," she said. "We must demonstrate to Brazilian society that we can implement food production while protecting the environment".

The representative of the Landless Workers Movement (MST), Dal Chiavon Francisco, said that we must change the agricultural production model to implement agroecology. According to him, food is a matter of national security and the State has a fundamental role in building a new system that encourages organic production. Romeu Leite, part of the Thematic Chamber of Organic Agriculture, stressed that the establishment of the Commission is a historic moment, but also cited the difficulties faced organic producers, such as a lack of seeds – since on the market only transgenic seeds can be found – and a lack of training and technical assistance.

In August 2012 president Dilma Rousseff instituted the National Policy for Agroecology and Organic Production (PNAPO). It was the first step towards a comprehensive national plan and determines elements such as credit, insurance, technical assistance and research to expand the agroecological production base in Brazil.

The National Agroecology Policy was formulated with the participation of civil society. The National Articulation of Agroecology and the Brazilian Association of Agroecology organised national and regional workshops with support from the Ministry of Environment. The State Commissions on Organic Production and Thematic Chamber of Organic Agriculture also joined the process. Other participants were the Confederation of Agricultural Workers, the Movement of Landless Workers, the Movement of Dam Affected People, the Movement of Small Farmers, as well as technicians from various ministries.

The policy mainly benefits family farmers, the largest producers of organic and agroecological products in the country. The market for these products is growing in the country and the world. In Brazil, the market expands about 20% per year - above the global rate of 15%. The domestic market still has plenty of room to grow. With a better structure, family farmers can export their products. The Ministry of Agrarian Development estimates that there are more than 90 thousand agroecological farmers in the country, of which 85% are family farmers.

Source: Em pratos limpos

For more background, read 'Institutionalization of the Agroecological Approach in Brazil: Advances and Challenges' by Paulo Petersen of AS-PTA, AgriCultures Network member in Brazil, and others (Journal of Agroecology and sustainable food systems, formerly Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, December 2012)

"For several years, our country debated whether or not to allow the entry of genetically modified (GM) organisms. As a result, a moratorium law was enacted, allowing research in laboratories or confined spaces, while prohibiting GMO release into fields, growth or breeding. The import of GMO to feed animals is still permitted.

Some consider this new law a grave mistake, claiming it could prevent our advance in modern technology and exclude us from economic competitiveness in agriculture. Other countries (Switzerland, New Zealand) have adopted similar decisions.

In order to understand the moratorium, we must also understand various important aspects of the Peruvian context:

1. Peru has 10.000 years of experience in biotechnology, resulting in the domestication of 182 species of plants and 5 species of animals. Moreover, the properties and uses of at least 4.500 native plants for 49 different purposes are also known. This makes Peru a genetic bank of global importance regarding potatoes, corn, pumpkins and squash, Andean grains, roots and tuber crops, tomatoes, beans, camelids, guinea pigs and Muscovy ducks. This offers a huge opportunity to investigate and obtain new varieties and breeds with a view to competing with original, high quality products.
2. Peru’s agricultural exports reached US $ 4.700 million in 2011, and natural and organic products accounted for more than half of these exports. There are 45.000 small farmers with organic certification on about 250.000 hectares in the country, who export products to very competitive markets, including coffee, cocoa, bananas, onions, avocado, garlic, tara, cochineal, etc. This line could grow exponentially and become a priority for the agricultural sector if there was more support. It should be noted that organic and natural is not compatible with transgenic.
3. One of the reasons given for introducing and growing GMOs is that we depend on imported hard yellow corn (about 2 mm/t) and soybean meal for animal feed. The supply problem regarding yellow corn is that we produce about 4.5 t/ha but if we improve our cropping technology, we could produce 10 t/ha, which would keep us supplied. The INIA (National Institute for Agricultural Innovation) has introduced corn hybrids that can produce up to 14 t/ha to the market.
4. If we have 2.321 varieties of potatoes, we must direct our research to them, rather than trying to import GM potatoes. This is a vast field for research.
5. All GMOs (seeds and genetic material)are patented and owned by companies. Our thousands of native crop producers would have to ignore the diversity of our genetic resources and buy GMO seeds when they now freely exchange the native ones. GMOs would not improve our farmers’ productivity.

My bet, and that of many Peruvians, is on organic, natural, native, of good quality and diversity. That is the Peru we want and that is the 21st century Peru that will compete in the international markets, as we are already doing."

- written by Antonio Brack Egg, former Minister of Environment

Read more about:

• AgriCultures Network member ETC Andes
• Eurasia Review: Transgenics Moratorium Goes Into Effect
• Andean Air Mail & Peruvian Times - Ten Year Ban on Genetically Modified Seeds and Foods Takes Force Thursday

However, new scientific data on the adverse effects of this maize was published in September 2012 by the science journal Food and Chemical Toxicology. Researchers from Caen University in France found evidence of metabolic alterations caused by the consumption of GM maize, whether or not combined with the use of the Roundup herbicide.

Disturbing health impacts

The study is considered unique because of its inclusion of more than 100 parameters over a 2-year period using 200 laboratory rats. The results revealed a higher and more frequent mortality rate when both these products were consumed, as well as non-linear hormonal effects related to sex. Females developed numerous large mammary tumours, as well as hypophyseal and kidney problems. Most of the males died from chronic hepatorenal deficiencies.

The study’s authors suggested that the genetically modified organisms concerned be evaluated carefully through long-term studies that would measure potential toxic effects. In their letter, civil society requests that the use of this maize will be suspended until independent research confirms its dietary and nutritional safety.

There is judicial space for this in Brazil. The country’s National Biosafety Law allows reassessment of technical decisions based on new scientific facts or knowledge relevant to biosafety. In addition, the National Biosafety Council (CBNS), composed by 11 ministers, can also ban the use of particular products based on the national interest.

Calling for an independent assessment

Civil society argues that, as is common practice with commercial releases of GMOs in Brazil, the research on which the 2008 authorisation of the maize’s use was based, involved short-term studies made by the applying company itself. The organisations argue that it is unacceptable for research with a bearing on the population’s health to be conducted only by the companies who are also applying for commercial release of GMOs.

They too are therefore calling for studies by independent researchers unconnected to the economic interests of these companies. In their letter they also demand that IBAMA and ANVISA, state agencies responsible for registration and control in the area, make a formal request for the technical reports for NK603 maize to be reassessed and for the ministers to adopt a clear stance on the issue.

The signatories of the letter emphasize the urgent need to reassess commercial releases linked to NK603 maize and argue that, in the meantime, any authorisations based on these technical reports should be suspended. Ultimately, they propose to ban the planting, use and sale of this kind of seed, given the risk posed by these crops to Brazil’s population.

Source: http://aspta.org.br/campanha/ngos-demand-re-evaluation-of-gm-maize-questioned-in-recent-french-study/

The letter is signed by:

• AS-PTA Agricultura Familiar e Agroecologia
• Articulação Nacional de Agroecologia – ANA
• Articulação do Semiárido Brasileiro – ASA Brasil
• Associação Brasileira de Agroecologia – ABA
• Associação Biodinâmica – ABD
• Associação Brasileira dos Membros do Ministério Público de Meio Ambiente – ABRAMPA
• Associação dos Professores de Direito Ambiental do Brasil – APRODAB
• Associação Nacional dos Procuradores da República – ANPR
• Campanha Permanente Contra os Agrotóxicos e Pela Vida
• Centro de Agricultura Alternativa – Norte de Minas
• Comissão de Bioética e Biodireito da Ordem dos Advogados do Brasil no Rio de Janeiro – OAB/RJ
• Comissão Pastoral da Terra Regional Rio Grande do Sul - CPT/RSConselho Indigenista Missionário – CIMI
• Conselho Federal de Nutricionistas – CFN
• Cooperativa dos Agricultores Familiares e Agroextrativistas Grande Sertão – CGS
• Coordenação Nacional das Comunidades Negras Rurais Quilombola – CONAQ
• Fórum Nacional das Entidades Civis de Defesa do Consumidor – FNECDC
• Grupo de Estudos em Agrobiodiversidade – GEA
• Instituto de Estudos de Direito e Cidadania – IEDC
• Instituto Nacional de Defesa do Consumidor – IDEC
• Instituto "O Direito por um Planeta Verde" – IDPV
• Movimento Ciência Cidadã
• Movimento das Mulheres Camponesas – MMC
• Movimento dos Pequenos Agricultores – MPA
• Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra – MST
• Núcleo de Cultura e Extensão - PTECA da Escola Superior de Agricultura da
• Universidade de São Paulo - ESALQ/USP (NACE-PTECA/ESALQ/USP)
• Núcleo de Saúde Coletiva da Universidade Federal do Paraná – UFPR
• Plataforma de Direitos Humanos Econômicos, Sociais, Culturais e Ambientais -
• Plataforma Dhesca Brasil
• Rede Puxirão dos Povos e Comunidades Tradicionais
• Relatoria do Direito Humano à Terra, Território e Alimentação da Plataforma
• Dhesca Brasil
• Terra de Direitos
• Via Campesina Brasil

This is the composition of the Executive Board of ILEIA, the Center for Learning on Sustainable Agriculture:

• Bram Huijsman, chair, Director of the Centre for Sustainable Development and Food Security at Wageningen UR
• Melanie Peters, Director Studium Generale, Universiteit Utrecht
• Janice Jiggins, Visiting Professor Wageningen UR
• Moussa Badji, Senior Analyst International Relations & Development Cooperation, Federal Public Service Foreign Affairs, Belgium
• Alide Roerink, Co-chair Earth Charter International and Worldconnector

Paulo Petersen of the Brazilian partner in the AgriCultures Network (AS-PTA), will be one of the committee members. He represents the Brazilian Agroecology Association, of which his organisation is a part.

Petersen: “Participating in this committee is a unique opportunity to establish an open debate with the government about the concept of agro-ecology. The government tends to formulate policies for niche markets, while we are talking about a structural change in rural development. Between these two visions, there is much to negotiate. We hope that structural programmes will be implemented rather quickly. Two elements are key for us: the preservation of native seeds, and the reduction of the use of agrochemicals”.

Denis Monteiro, executive secretary of the civil society coalition, agrees: "It is not possible for things to continue the way they are. We are the largest consumers of pesticides in the world. Because the current situation is inconsistent with the concept of agro-ecology, progress must be made to promote agriculture without poisons and to monitor large companies," he proposed.

According to Minister Gilberto Carvalho, the government aims to enhance the participation of social movements in developing the new policy. About 20 representatives of rural social movements attended the meeting. Eugenio Ferrari is spokesperson for the civil society coalition. He stated that the participants realise that the current economic environment is not in their favour, because of the tendency of the government to strengthen industrial agriculture and agribusiness.

At the same time, emphasises Carvalho, it is important that various programmes were put in place that have contributed to the uptake of the agro-ecological perspective, such as the Food Acquisition Programme and the National School Nutrition Programme. “The new agro-ecology policy must consolidate and expand these mechanisms”, he said.

A surprise

The organisations were surprised with the launch of the decree during the Unitary Meeting of Field, Water and Forestry peoples and workers, held in Brasilia in August 2012. According to Rosângela Lamb, the Movement of Rural Women, more than 30 organizations were present in a workshop about agro-ecology where the decree was suddenly presented.

"We are very concerned with the new policy, because agro-ecology is very dear to our peasant life, autonomy and food sovereignty. It is crucial that our rights to land and territory are strongly present in the agro-ecology policy. We are willing to help in the elaboration of this policy, but what has to be at the forefront of the policy is the defense of our common goods”, said Lamb. She stressed: “Peasant agriculture sustains this country, it produces 70% of our food."

Carvalho also has critical observations: "It is clear that an agro-ecology policy should be geared at the needs of family farmers, peoples and traditional communities. With this in mind, we participated in the process until the end of May 2012. However, what this decree says, surprises us. We are dissatisfied with the lack of reference to the social function of land, which is the fundamental element and the physical basis of agro-ecology. We equally unhappy that the decree makes no reference to universal access to water as a public good. Finally, the participation of social movements in the development of the policy looks to be rather limited."

However, according to the movements, the inclusion of the importance of saving native seeds is an advancement in this dialogue. They also have proposals to strengthen other aspects of the policy.

"The policy should be geared to stimulate the local markets. The local markets begin to lose ground in favour of large companies and big supermarkets. We must encourage them. It is therefore important to review the credit policy, " observed Francis dal Chiavon, the Movement of Landless Rural Workers (MST).

The president of the National Food and Nutritional Security Council (Consea), Maria Emilia Pacheco, noted that there is no nutrition and food sovereignty without security of land. According to her, this issue requires boldness on the part of the government, because since 1988 there is no framework that guarantees the territories of traditional peoples and communities.

"It is not only about expanding protected areas, which is a breakthrough (and we can give examples), but also about land reform and new trade agreements. Finally, programs need to recognize the role of women in leadership agro-ecological processes", she said.

Stay tuned for further updates from Brazil!

Read more (in Portuguese): An interview with Paulo Petersen of AgriCultures member AS-PTA

Based on ‘Movimentos sociais debatem política de agroecologia com governo federal’

Since 2008, an intense debate rages about how the growing world population can be fed, and by whom. Not the least of researchers and institutions, including the World Bank and a number of special rapporteurs of the United Nations, come to very different conclusions than Mr Dijkhuizen. Based on extensive research, they advocate for the global strengthening of small multifunctional agriculture. That agriculture is knowledge intensive, tailored to local conditions, produces primarily food for local and regional markets and generates rural jobs. Production per hectare is in many cases higher than those of modern intensive agriculture, especially in ecologically fragile areas. The farmers involved contribute to the conservation of biodiversity and landscape, and are more resilient to climate change.

If Mr Dijkhuizen listens carefully to farmer organisations and consumers, he will learn that the solution he has to offer does not reflect the demand of millions of family farmers, as well as a growing number of consumers who prefer locally produced food to industrially bred chicken from the Netherlands. Who are these farmers? We are talking about 400 million small family farmers. These farmers (m/f) show that it is nonsense to think that only highly specialized intensive farming can feed the world.

Wageningen University has a reputation to lose in the field of innovative approaches to strengthen food and agriculture worldwide. Mr Dijkhuizen does not seem to value these ideas. That is regrettable. Food, land and water are the battle field of the future. Universities would do well to avoid the propagation of simplistic approaches. The world needs more nuanced views.

Learn more:

• Read the speech by Mr Dijkhuizen [PDF]
• Watch a video of the speech by Mr Dijkhuizen
• Read ‘Should Dijkhuizen be allowed to take a stand?’ (Resource, Sept 5 2012)
• Read the response by a group of scientists from Wageningen University (in Dutch)
• Student protest denouncing Dijkhuizen’s statements

Text: Edith van Walsum