Self-Organization and the Bypass: Re-Imagining Institutions for More Sustainable Development in Agriculture and Food

Abstract

Abstract:In exploring the social dynamics of agrofood movements in Ecuador as examples of self-organization (i.e., locally distributed and resolved development), this article departs from a preoccupation with innovation by means of design and the use of scaling as a metaphor for describing research contributions in agriculture and food. The case material highlights that much development is contingent, unpredictable, and unmanageable as well as unbound to fixed spaces or places. In their study of people's daily practice, the authors do not find clear boundaries between dichotomies of internal-external, lay-expert, traditional-modern, or local-global organization, but heterogeneous blends of each. For the purposes of sustainable development, this highlights the need for attention to be paid to relationships (social, material, and biological), adaptation (the capacity to innovate), and responsibility (adherence to norms of sustainability). Far from romanticizing self-organization, the authors acknowledge that people and their institutions share varying degrees of complicity for the goods as well as the bads of their economic activity, such as mass soil degradation, agrobiodiversity loss, and poisoning by pesticides. Nevertheless, even under highly difficult conditions, certain actors effectively bypass the limitations of formal institutions in forging a socio-technical course of action (i.e., policy) for relatively healthy living and being. As such, the authors have come to appreciate self-organization as a neglected, if paradoxical, resource for policy transition towards more sustainable agriculture and food.

Transforming land use governance: Global targets without equity miss the mark

“…Such a rethink would involve a greater focus on the means of deciding on and delivering land-use interventions in specific contexts rather than on global targets. This would require a greater shift in research attention to local and horizontally networked land users as sources of valid knowledge and alternative models of sustainability (Sherwood et al, 2016). Fortunately, a vibrant body of theory and practice already exists from which practitioners, researchers, policy makers, and activists can draw to seek inspiration for alternative paths.…”

Sustainable Agri-Food Economies: Re-Territorialising Farming Practices, Markets, Supply Chains, and Policies

“…The food movement is "political", in the sense that it is aimed and resulted in having relevant influence in policy making. Sherwood et al [29], who explored the social dynamics of agro-food movements in Ecuador, stressed that as the contradictions of conventional agri-food economies in Ecuador became manifest, many different self-organized components of the food movement (i.e., farmer, agroecology, and consumer food movements) have risen outside of the formalized spaces of institutions to contest and challenge the existing order. As stated by the authors, over the last decades, these social movements have grown and started to influence the political realm to the point where they have begun to inform and shape public policy.…”

Community-Based Livestock Breeding: Coordinated Action or Relational Process?

“…Instead, the analyzed CBBPs seem to be constantly evolving, and discontinuation is not an unlikely scenario. The main commonality we found across the cases was the impulse of an “intentional and purposeful activity” ( 42 )—driven by researchers who shared the belief in improving livelihoods locally, in a fair and participatory manner. At the same time, the different CBBPs remained fragmented, as unequal power relations prevailed with researchers and extension officers being in the position of the key mediators.…”

“…The process-relational perspective does not resonate well with our wish for clear causalities and stability—it does, however, provide openings for new conceptualizations of how CBBPs could be seen and promoted: as a practice that the initiators coherently integrate into their work and lives ( 42 ). When community-based breeding becomes part of their own continuous engagement as members of the community, social change may be more likely to emerge from a sense of responsibility and accountability.…”