01
Scaling up Agroecology:
Connecting beyond borders
To deliver an agenda that responds to the big issues we are facing, our decision-making structures need radical change.
The Guardian, 2013
Supervisor: Dr. L.W. Fransen Second reader: Dr. R.J. Pistorius Transnational Politics of
Sustainability
Master Thesis Political Science International Relations
02
Table of contents
Abbreviations
3
1. Introduction
4
2. Theoretical Framework
8
2.1 Concepts
8
2.1.1 Agroecology 8 2.1.2 Scaling up 102.2 Theoretical Discussion
13
2.2.1 Organizational and institutional structures 13
2.2.2 Agroecology and learning 17
3. Methodology
21
3.1 Method 21
3.2 Case selection, sample and operationalization 22
3.3 Validity and reliability threats 23
4. Background Chapter
25
5. Results: Meaning of scaling up agroecology
28
5.1 Varying interpretations 28
5.2 Defence from co-optation 30
5.3 Conditions for scaling up 31
6. Results: Process-oriented scaling up
33
6.1 Organizational history 33
6.2 Structures and policies 34
6.3 Collective advocacy: overcoming constraints 36
6.4 Organizational challenges 39
7. Results: Learning about agroecology
42
7.1 Social learning networks 42
7.2 Learning beyond boundaries 44
7.3 ‘Societal learning’ 46
8. Conclusion
48
8.1 Limitations 51
8.2 Directions for future research 52
8.3 Contribution 53
9. References
55
03
Abbreviations
CAP Common Agricultural Policy CFS Comity on World Food Security CSM Civil Society Mechanism CC Coordination Comity
ECVC European Coordination Via Campesina
EC European Commission
EU European Union
EFC European Farmers Coordination FAO Food and Agriculture Organization GATT General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade ICC International Coordination Comity LVC La Via Campesina
LLP Lifelong Learning Programme NAV Nederlandse Akkerbouw Vakbond NGO Non-governmental Organization
OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development SMO Social Movement Organization
TSMO Transnational Social Movement Organization UNAG Unión Nacional de Agricultores y Ganaderos
UNCTAD United Nations Conference on Trade and Development UNHRC United Nations Human Rights Council
WTO World Trade Organization
¡Alerta alerta la Vía Campesina está presente! ¡Viva la Vía Campesina!
04
1. Introduction
Current society is increasingly confronted with global problems, such as climate change, world population growth and finite natural resources. These global problems require
sustainable approaches. Much has been written on sustainability, through which the concept may be better understood if the limits of ‘unsustainability’ would be defined. Garcia (2000) describes unsustainability as the limits to the carrying capacity of the earth, as an imbalance between species, and as exhaustive production processes for which the resources are finite. The current agricultural system is exactly confronted with many of the ‘unsustainable’ problems that Garcia has identified. There are limits to the earth’s carrying capacity, given that widely applied intensive agricultural methods are associated with high greenhouse gas emissions that amplify climate change (Altieri & Manuel Toledo, 2011; Altieri & Nicholls, 2008). In addition, intensive agricultural methods rely heavily on fossil fuels and other non-renewable resources, which simultaneously is a disaster to the world’s biodiversity (ibid).
Some authors argue that rural social movements are on the rise, as a result of the agrarian system finding itself in a deep crisis on environmental, ethical, social, economic and political grounds (Desmarais, 2002; Van der Ploeg, 2012). In 2007 and 2008, a global food crisis emerged that had major political, economic and social implications in the so called South and North, such as the emergence of food riots in many developing countries. The food crisis induced stronger calls for alternatives to current food systems by rural social movements, consisting of indigenous groups, communities, smallholders and family-farmers from across the developed and the developing world (Rosset & Martínez Torrez, 2012). Their concerns were about the increasing input costs coupled to food prices, the rising power of agribusiness and its supporting institutions, the fierce competition over land, and competition over water (ibid). Rural social movements are struggling for the autonomy of all peasants, by reducing the dependencies on credit markets and other external resources, attempting to improve their conditions (Van der Ploeg, 2012). Contrastingly, some agrifood private initiatives were regarded by Fuchs et al. (2010) to apply forms of ‘window dressing’, in order to strengthen the position of incumbent strong market players, impose norms on suppliers lower in the supply chain, and to exclude and disempower smaller stakeholders within the food chain.
Rosset and Martínez-Torrez (2012) argue that the private sector which defends industry interests is primarily organized transnationally, which required rural social movements to organize themselves on such a scale as well. The dividing line between these transnational organizations could be depicted as an ongoing “battle over ideology and ideas” between
05
agribusiness characterized by a framing language of “efficiency, productivity, economies of scale, trade liberalization, free markets and the need to feed the world” on the one hand, and the response of rural social movements emphasizing “the benefits of family-based
agroecological farming in terms of feeding the world with healthy local food, providing good stewardship of the rural environment, preserving cultural heritage and the peasant or family farm way of life, and promoting resilience to climate change” on the other hand (Rosset & Martínez-Torrez, 2012: 3). An exemplary model of such a transnational rural social movement is La Via Campesina (LVC).
In 1992 the transnational social justice movement LVC was established, as a reaction to “the failure of states to effectively protect the most basic interests of small agricultural producers and the communities that rely upon them” (Menser, 2008: 28). The movement proposed an alternative model to the predominant industrialised agricultural model advocated by agribusiness and its ideological and financial support infrastructure. Critiques of LVC on the industrialised model involve its negative impacts on the environment, but also social and political impacts of centralized agriculture and mechanized forms of agriculture (ibid). LVC’s proposed alternative agricultural model is based on principles of agroecology, which
“involves various approaches to solve actual challenges of agricultural production” (Wezel et. al, 2009: 2). The term encompasses production and protection dimensions of agricultural cultivation, focusing on environmental, social, economic, ethical and developmental issues within the agrarian system. The term is increasingly being related to sustainable forms of agriculture (ibid).
One of the most striking goals of LVC is their desired complete transformation of the agricultural system to a more sustainable one, on the basis of food sovereignty and
agroecology (Holt Giménez & Shattuck, 2011). Such an ambitious goal could be attained by taking agroecology to scale, in cooperation with other movements. In this thesis, scaling up agroecology, subsequently referred to as ‘scaling up’, is understood as expanding the impacts of agroecology, especially in the political sense, but also educationally and organizationally. The cooperation between LVC and auxiliary social movements could aid in the impact expansion of agroecology, contributing to LVC’s desired agricultural transformation.
There are multiple European countries that have adopted an industrialised agricultural model, of which the Netherlands and Belgium are one of the prime examples. Therefore, two
06
cases within these countries were selected that are part of LVC. The syndicate1 the Nederlandse Akkerbouw Vakbond (NAV) is active in the Netherlands, and the European regional office of LVC, European Coordination Via Campesina (ECVC) is operative in Brussels. The NAV is more locally oriented than the ECVC, but they both seek agrarian policy changes at the European level. Their joint cooperation in the field of agroecology could aid in the expansion of this agricultural approach. The following research question derives from this: How has the scaling up process of agroecology by the ECVC evolved in cooperation with the NAV? In the
theoretical framework three sub questions will be introduced, that are aimed at providing an answer to the research question.
Scaling up for a civil society actor as LVC can be interpreted in multiple ways, which initially blurred what this concept would entail in conjunction with agroecology. Therefore, this research reflects an inductive approach combined with an abductive form of reasoning. This approach allows us to uncover the meaning and the most plausible explanation for the explaining outcome of scaling up agroecology.
This study aims to develop more insights in the scaling up process of agroecology, as well as the way in which a transnational social movement interacts with a local social movement to achieve their goals. There has been little examination in the effectiveness of environmentally oriented networks of non-state actors whose participants include both locally and globally based actors (Auer, 2000). An examination of a partnership between a transnational movement and a more locally embedded movement provides us with a closer look at the involved scalar dynamics –both bottom-up processes as well as top-down processes– among social movement organizations.
LVC is considered to be an interesting case, as it not only criticizes the agrarian system but also offers a potential alternative in the form of agroecology. This study seeks to shed more light on the struggle for system change by rural social movements, and on the potential routes towards greater democratization of the agrarian system. Scaling up could be one of those routes as well as the establishment and functioning of democratically structured
1
A syndicate may not necessarily be interpreted as a social movement. Social movements are defined as a “distinct social process, consisting of the mechanisms through which actors engage in collective action. [They] are involved in conflictual relations with clearly identified opponents; are linked by dense informal networks; share a distinct collective identity” (Della Porta & Dianni, 2006: 20) The NAV shares all of these characteristics to a certain extent, and can thus be regarded as a movement. This term will be applied throughout this thesis.
07
organizations. These routes will be connected with transition theory, which espouses a similar goal of achieving broad and sustainable system changes through processes of participation and innovation.
Initially, the concepts of scaling up, agroecology, and their connection will be examined in the theoretical framework. Subsequently, we will discuss organizational and institutional structures that determine the cooperation of social movements. McAdam & Scott (2005) have identified many similarities between organizational theory and social movement theory, that consider these structures, as well as their cultures and framing processes.
However, culture and framing fell outside the scope of this thesis. After the structures have been discussed, the mechanisms that are expected to facilitate scaling up processes will be examined. In the methodology section, the case selection will be further substantiated, the method established and there will be elaborated on the execution of the research analysis. Before the discussion of the results, a background chapter on the history of LVC and the examined social movements is aimed to provide a more thorough understanding of these movements. Thereupon, the results section with the empirical results will be reported, after which the conclusions will be given that answers the research question. The last chapter will also address research limitations and suggest recommendations for future research.
08
2. Theoretical Framework
Given that the main emphasis of this research lies on agroecology and the manner in which this would be scaled up, it is meaningful to reach an understanding of these concepts. The discussion of these concepts seeks to provide a preliminary answer to the first sub question: What is the meaning of scaling up agroecology? In the conceptual discussion, the abductive approach has not been applied, since there is ample literature on these concepts available. In the subsequent section, we will abductively elaborate on theories of political science and sociology that are concerned with social movements organizations and their interdependency with institutional structures; then we will explain scaling up with learning mechanisms.
2.1 Concepts
2.1.1 Agroecology
Agroecology has multiple meanings, but can generally be understood as a scientific discipline, a social movement, and an agricultural practice (Wezel et al., 2009). These
differences in meaning are related to the distinct historical evolution of the disciplines that are part of the agroecological philosophy.2 Agroecology might be mistaken for organic
agriculture. It differs from organic agriculture in that it does not necessarily requires the organic certification, inspection and marketing frequently associated with large costs. In fact, organic farming systems are by no means regarded to be agroecological, if they take the form of monoculture plantations relying strongly on external inputs, lowly paid labour and are financed at high risk (Altieri & Nicholls, 2008). At the same time, there are family farmers that use virtually no artificial external inputs, but do not possess the organic certification that provide a price premium.
2Brazil was the country where a significant part of the foundation of agroecology was laid by various kinds of movements in the 1970s, advocating traditional agricultural practices. Agroecology was largely understood as a social movement that struggled against the marginalization of small-scale farmers. In 2004, the Brazilian Association of Agroecology was established, which suggests that it took approximately three decades before agroecology also became generally accepted as a science in Brazil. In contrast, Germany has a
considerable long history of viewing agroecology as a scientific discipline. This started in the 1930s, and is still abloom at present. Germans rarely conceive agroecology as a movement, but considerably more as a scientific discipline and a practice. (Wezel et al, 2009: 508)
09
In other words, the global agricultural system is in many ways extremely diverse, which makes it complicated to distinguish agroecological models from other models.
However, one of the key elements of agroecology is the minimization of external inputs in the development of agro ecosystems (Altieri & Manuel Toledo, 2011). Multiple scholars have drafted schemes in which the crucial elements of agroecology are contrasted to
‘entrepreneurial’ or ‘industrialised’ agricultural models. These schemes are aimed to provide a better understanding what the concept entails, and what it does not entail (Table 1).
Table 1
Source: Altieri and Manuel Toledo (2011)
Among others conceptualizations, agroecology has been described as a transdisciplinary approach that combines the scientific disciplines environmental sciences and biology with the social sciences sociology and anthropology (Wezel et al., 2009). It also includes theories from the domains of ethics and economics. There have been remarking similarities in the
conceptualizations of agroecology between the US and France, in terms of their holistic approach, their integration of non-productive dimensions and their inclusion of social dimensions (511). Francis et al. (2003) define agroecology as “the integrative study of the ecology of the entire food system, encompassing ecological, economic and social
dimensions” (2), emphasizing its transdisciplinary nature and its interconnectedness with the food system. They argue that such an interdisciplinary approach provides a practical
010
perspective for scholars that encourages them to embrace the connectivity of systems, specifically the ecology of food systems.
Similarly, Van der Ploeg (2012) describes that there is a strong dialectical relation between theory and practice in agroecology. A theory could criticize existing ineffective practices, just as novelties developed in practices could enrich or correct a theory. This interdependency between theory and practice suggests the importance of education and learning for agroecological development.
Agroecology understood as a movement seems to place a ‘social carrier’ on the foreground necessary to transform agriculture into a sustainable practice (ibid). This ‘social carrier’ would largely come down to ‘peasants’ themselves, strengthened by consumers and other supporters interested in healthy and safe food, a cleaner environment etc. (47).
Agroecology encourages peasants to participate in the transformative process towards a new agricultural system by applying new practices, and participating in social movements. In many Latin-American countries where agroecological movements are well established, these practices are strongly connected with those movements, assisting in the struggle towards sustainable agro ecosystems (Wezel et al., 2009).
Finally, Wezel et al. describe fairly comprehensively the interrelatedness of the three notions of agroecology in that there is “often a link between a political vision (the movement), a technological application to achieve the goals (the practices), and a way to produce the knowledge (the science)” (511). Van der Ploeg (2012) acknowledges this, highlighting the unity and synergy of the three levels of agroecology. Given the focus on social movements in this thesis, agroecology will predominantly be conceived as a movement. Still, it is important to recognize that this meaning can hardly be separated from the scientific and practical conceptualizations.
2.1.3 Scaling up
There has been an ongoing debate in the literature on agroecological farming, and taking it to scale in two different ways. Rosset and Martínez-Torrez (2012) describe the process of ‘scaling up’ among rural social movements as “institutionalizing supportive policies for alternatives” which is distinguished from ‘scaling out’ that is defined as the “broad adoption over wide areas and by many farmers” (5). Interestingly, these two definitions immediately point to the various interpretations of agroecology. Scaling up would involve more political processes featured in rural social movements, whereas scaling out would involve more the championing of successful practices – experiences and techniques – among farmers. Since
011
rural social movements bring together large groups of peasants, this could significantly increase innovation rates and adoption rates. However, scaling up would fall more within the scope of this thesis, given its stronger emphasis on the political aspects of agroecology.
Scaling up, at least for nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), is traditionally understood as a matter of size, whereas a broader definition would involve ‘expanding impacts’ (Uvin, Jain & Brown, 2000). The former refers to an ‘old paradigm’ of scaling up, whereas the latter introduces a ‘new paradigm’. The key difference between the two
paradigms is that NGOs can scale up by expanding their impacts without necessarily becoming large, as a process-oriented halo effect. Expanding impacts implicitly refers to a process, which is ongoing and continuously evolving. Therefore, the research question of this thesis expounds the scaling up of agroecology as a constant.
Uvin, Jain and Brown have identified four different classifications of the new
paradigm concerning Indian NGOs expanding their impacts, by increasing their coverage and size; coming up with new activities; broadening indirect impacts; and enhancing their
organizational sustainability (Table 2). Only the first category applies to the old paradigm of becoming a larger professional organization, also coined as ‘quantitative scaling up’. The second category can be stipulated as ‘functional scaling up’, that involves the expansion in the diversity of the activities undertaken by strategies of diversification and organizational
integration. Thirdly, NGOs may achieve indirect impacts by means of training, advocacy, knowledge creation, or advice, that can be interpreted as a broader form of ‘political scaling up’3. Finally, NGOs can achieve more impact by continuously developing the organization
towards programmatic institutions on the premises of ‘organizational sustainability’. NGOs frequently pass through four stages of increasing their sustainability, ultimately constituting in long-term enduring institutions.
3 Political scaling up was two years earlier defined as “deliberately building a political
power base for furthering the goals of local communities and organizations through the political process” (Uvin & Miller, 1996: 348). For example, a grassroots organization could achieve this by means of networking with other non-governmental organizations. Another way would involve the creation of permanent federative representative structures to influence policy makers on higher scales than merely on a local level.
012 Table 2
Scaling up pathways Mechanism Keywords Quantitative Typically reaching a larger
geographical area
More funds, more staff, reaching more beneficiaries
Functional Vertical and horizontal integration of activities
Diversification, launching new activities and programs
Broadening indirect impacts (political)
Increasing indirect impacts through the actions of others; oriented towards changing behaviour
Training, advocacy, knowledge creation, advice
Organizational sustainability
Enhancing the sustainability of the organization by undertaking strategic development activities
Program institutions, ongoing strategies, long-term funding
Source: Uvin, Jain and Brown (2000)
This taxonomy is deemed relevant for this research, as it describes scaling up from multiple viewpoints, encompassing political, educational, and organizational aspects. These
perspectives relate with the previous discussion on agroecology, in which educational, political and organizational processes matter as well. These processes would occur within rural social movements, agroecological sciences and practices. In the following theoretical discussion, we will discuss organizational and institutional structures that form the
013
2.2 Theoretical discussion
2.2.1 Organizational and institutional structures
Following the abductive approach of this thesis, this section has been influenced by the empirical data of this research on participation and cooperation. The aim was to identify the relevant structures for social movements that would encourage cooperation. It was initially assumed that open and participatory structures would enhance scaling up. This assumption was inspired by transition theory of Loorbach and Rotmans (2006). They argue that
transitions towards more sustainable societal systems require a long-term vision on sustainability, while allowing for diversity in actors and opinions on the short term. The participation and interaction between varying stakeholders that are involved within such a transition would take place at varying scales and within multiple societal domains. The goal would be to change the strategic orientation of the regime –the most dominant institutional and organisational norms, interests and belief systems– towards a more sustainable system.
The aspired teleological transition towards sustainable systems by transition scholars concurs with the aims of the member organizations of LVC, who seek a transformation within the agrarian system. One of the key empirical findings was that for scaling up towards a more sustainable system, it is necessary that the institutional structures and rules of the regime change as well. Member organizations would therefore structure their own organizational structures in such a way, to pressurize the regime effectively.
In this section, we will examine the most prevalent organizational structure of LVC oriented towards participation at different scales. In addition, we will focus on political
structures that provide opportunities for member organizations, but which could also constrain them in reaching their goals. These structures would ultimately determine the effectiveness of the member organizations in scaling up. The second sub question that derives from this is: How did the cooperation of the ECVC with the NAV facilitate the scaling up process of agroecology?
There are varieties of social movement organization (SMO) models, but participatory movement organization models suit with the organizational structure of LVC the most. Participatory movement organisations combine participatory forms of democracy with a certain level of formalization of the organizational structure. Grassroots organizations have the strongest participatory democratic orientation with lower levels of formalization, as compared to mass protest organizations (Della Porta & Dianni, 2006: 149).
014
Since the latter half of the 20th century, SMOs have become much more transnational in structure. The rise of transnational social movement organizations (TSMOs) can be explained by processes of internationalization and globalization, associated with continuous reductions of the transaction costs of cross-border communications. This required political activists to develop organizational forms that “can facilitate broad cross-cultural
communication while managing diversity and coordinating joint action around a shared agenda” (Smith, 2005: 229).
The organizational structure of LVC possesses more characteristics of a coalition than of a federation. The coalition structure of TSMOs postulates less requirements for conformity by its members that a federation structure (Smith, 2005: 235). Coalitions reflect a more decentralized and informal structure, in which decision-making takes place more rapidly. The key advantage of such an organizational structure is that it both involves lower financial costs and is more participatory, given that the assignment of organizational resources can largely be determined by the affiliated organizations themselves (236). The coalition form creates more space for the inclusion of a wide range of SMOs without forcing them to abandon their own organizational goals.
A coalition structure at LVC would allow the member organizations the autonomy and space to seize opportunities within the political field in which they operate. This is in
accordance with the flexibility that the coalition structure provides that is essential in rapidly changing political environments (Smith, 2005). This organizational structure is therefore apt to respond to political opportunity structures.
Political opportunity structures are defined as “a set of formal and informal political conditions that encourage, discourage, channel, and otherwise affect [social] movement activity” (Campbell, 2005: 44). According to Tarrow (1996), this is an ongoing process that is marked by “waves of contention” between social movements and elites. The political
opportunities that arise in this struggle are followed with the initiation of new waves of contentious politics that create new opportunities for both the original insurgents and new comers, as well as for their opponents and elites. In short, the established structures of political institutions ultimately determine the way in which social movements and organizations mobilize for action, by either enabling or constraining them.
It are the political opportunity structures that strongly affect the strategy of
movements, their organizational structure and their ultimate success in achieving their goals (Campbell, 2005: 45). Social movements are motivated by unfair treatments, wrongdoings and other incentives for them and the ones they commit themselves to, that motivates them to
015
seek for political opportunities for change. Simultaneously, opportunity structures constrain the variety of possible strategic actions social movements are able to choose from. So, when SMOs are active within an open and decentralized political system, they will likely adapt their design based on similar open and decentralized institutional structures (Della Porta and
Dianni, 2006). In contrast, in case of centralized and repressive systems, SMOs are likely to form alliances with other formalized and centralized movements to be able to act as a strong countervailing power.
The empirical findings showed an important opportunity for the member organizations of LVC within the food system. Besides cooperating among each other, member organizations have the ability to seek coalitions with other organizations and SMOs as well. Holt Giménez and Shattuck (2011) have identified four institutional typologies of global food actors, that can be separated into the Neoliberal and Reformist actors that together constitute the
corporate food regime, differing mostly in their ideological differences. They both fall under the same food security paradigm. This regime is challenged by Progressive and Radical food movements. Progressive movements employ a food justice discourse that advocates the importance of local food systems, family farming, healthy food and rural-urban linkages. Radical movements are in many ways similar to progressive movements, except that they additionally advocate the “dismantling of corporate agrifoods monopolies, parity,
redistributive land reform, protection from dumping and overproduction, and community rights to water and seed” (128).
Holt Giménez and Shattuck plead that Progressive and Radical food movements should build cross alliances, within the diversity of different movements. In this way, they could act as a ‘counter-movement’ forcing the regime towards more sustainable policies. When Progressive movements would strategically ally themselves with the Reformist trend, Radical movements would almost certainly lose the upper hand in their struggle for food system change. This would mean that the corporate food regime would be strengthened, and that the differences between the Progressive and Radical movements would deepen, which will likely prevent crucial reforms from happening (133). Instead, strategic alliances across these movements could lead to a ‘convergence in diversity’ among opponents of the regime, increasing the changes of substantive change.
Following the empirical results, a significant constraint is that agrifood business and its supporting institutions can seek to avoid radical innovations or even prevent them. According to Jänicke (2008), the introduction of innovations can be strongly opposed by vested sectorial interests. The pressure for powerful sectors to become more innovative is
016
lower compared to actors with less power at their disposal (ibid). In fact, innovative
knowledge may frequently clash with the interests of incumbent ‘powerful polluters’. These polluters can be supported by the regime and its institutions, if the economic stakes are high. The Dutch intensive, industrialized dairy sector serves as an agrarian example of this line of reasoning. This sector is associated with environmental and economic drawbacks, but it is economically profitable nonetheless (Bos, Smit and Schröder, 2013).
Given the high economic stakes of the industrialized agricultural sector, LVC and its member organizations would need to cooperate effectively in their struggle towards food system change. The empirical results indicated that communications and conferences, have a positive effect on the internal cooperation within LVC. Despite of increased communication opportunities and technologies that are relatively new, there remains a need for activists from other areas of the world to meet each other personally. This would positively affect their motivations and communications (Smith, 2005: 241). One of the greatest challenges in these internal communications is to relate local concerns to global campaigns, which suggest a need to develop strong strategic connections between local interests and global processes (245). Thus, the vast array of communications possibilities force social movements to make strategic choices, how to cooperate with one another.
The participatory structure forms a flexible basis for member organizations of LVC opportunities to cooperate effectively on agrarian issues. Opportunity structures provide possibilities LVC’s members to engage in strategic coalitions with each other and supportive organizations, in order to exert pressure on institutional structures that would defend the interests of agribusiness. Furthermore, LVC’s communications and meetings would serve as the ‘glue’ that keeps all of involved actors informed and on the same line. The following figure represents the relationships among member organizations, and actors within the same political environment. A subsequent question that derives from this would be, which causal mechanisms would provide a plausible explanation to the scaling up process that is facilitated by these coalitions.
017 2.2.4 Agroecology and learning
This section on agroecology and learning also draws on the abductive research approach. As discussed earlier, agroecology is understood in most countries as an holistic approach, in which transdisciplinary knowledge is nearly indispensable. Knowledge in general, and specifically agroecological knowledge is supposed to be accessed and used, which would involve some form of learning processes.
Transition scholars connect scaling up with learning processes as well. LVC seeks to attain the goal of social transformation within a framework of sustainable development, which overlaps considerably with goal-oriented transitions that transition scholars seek to manage. Loorbach and Rotmans (2006) describe that the management of transitions requires a focus on learning, learning about a variety of options, and participation from and interaction between stakeholders (11). These elements of transition management overlap with two plausible learning mechanisms that have been identified: social learning and policy oriented learning. There are many learning mechanisms that could explain the scaling up process, but the mechanisms of social learning and policy oriented learning were deemed most relevant. In this section, the last sub question will be discussed: What are the mechanisms that explain the scaling up process?
As discussed before, agroecology can be understood as a sustainable farming method that is particularly knowledge intensive. It is based on different forms of knowledge
018
generation and extension than conventional agricultural methods. Agroecology cannot be extended by farmers and extensionalists based on the old ‘Transfer of Technology’ paradigm, which primarily rests on the continuous adoption of new technologies to increase yields (Warner, 2006). Agroecology offers an alternative paradigm in that it seeks to optimize the biological and technological components of farming systems based on ecological principles (ibid). This requires a different way of educating agroecological participants, as the paradigm relies on alternative epistemological assumptions. In the old paradigm, experts extended knowledge primarily based on knowledge generated in universities, in which farmers performed a ‘passive’ role. The agroecological paradigm requires farmers –besides extensionalists– to actively generate and exchange knowledge, which implies a reciprocal learning process. This learning process occurs in intentional and dynamic networks that bring together farmers, extensionalists and researchers to further optimize ecological relationships in farming systems. The process is referred to as social learning by Warner, which he defines as: “participation as a group in experiential research and knowledge exchange to enhance common resource protection” (85).
Social learning is based on certain networks that are characterized by joint collaboration. Pahl Wostl et al. (2007) describe that these participative networks or ‘communities of practice’ should preferably be flexible and stable, in order to provide stakeholders the ability to develop the capacity and trust they need to collaborate. These communities of practice should allow for the “active involvement and the building of sense of ownership of the overall decision-making process” that will increase the commitment of the participants to the outcome (5). This involves a process of collective learning within and among groups, based on equal relationships. Open access to participation and information would lead to the creation of social capital which is necessary for effective collaboration, in formal as well as informal relationships.
In rural social movements such participative networks already facilitate self-organized co-learning processes among farmers. The campesino-a-campesino (farmer-to-farmer)
method is a common horizontal learning method in Latin-America, in which farmers educate other farmers about agricultural practices (Rosset & Martínez-Torrez, 2012). Farmers would be more inclined to trust one of their peers than an ‘urban’ consultant with ‘expert’
knowledge. Consequently, such networks increase the rate and the adoption of innovations significantly more than conventional top-down agricultural research and its further extension does (ibid).
019
Warner (2006) has analysed agroecological voluntary partnerships in California. Farmers engage in these partnerships to reduce their costs and farm more environmentally responsible. For scientists and extensionalists these partnerships would increase the
usefulness of their contributions by evaluating practices in the field. These exchanges occur within social learning networks, in which knowledge generation is combined and evaluated with its application. A significant outcome of this Californian study was a substantial reduction of pesticide use by the participating farmers (ibid).
Besides social learning, Bennett and Howlett (1992) identified political learning, policy oriented learning, lesson drawing, government learning as various explanations of policy change. Social learning as understood by Hall in 1988, was focused mainly at achieving policy change through the influence of public officials and politicians. One year later, Hall stated that the institutionalization of relations by means of policy networks required closer examination (281). Sabatier’s (1988) theory of policy oriented learning has filled this gap with his theory on learning processes, oriented at achieving policy innovation and change within policy subsystems.
Sabatier puts forward advocacy coalitions as the main entities of altering policies, in which the belief systems of the involved participants plays a crucial role. These coalitions can consist of actors from various governmental levels, as well as journalists, researchers, and policy analysts that jointly generate and shape policy ideas. The key dynamic behind these interactions is that coalition members seek to better understand the world for the purpose of furthering their own policy objectives, which rests on a common belief system (i.e. common basic values and assumptions). Policy learning as defined by Sabatier is thus “an ongoing process of search and adaption motivated by the desire to realize core policy beliefs” (151). The deep core policy beliefs are the fundamental normative axioms of actors and coalitions, which can practically only be changed in case of sudden system changes in the external policy environment. Secondary aspects of policy beliefs systems are much more malleable, as they refer to the instrumental decisions that need to be made to implement a policy core.
Sabatier makes a vital distinction between learning within and across belief systems. Within the belief system of a policy coalition it is relatively easy to convince one another with a similar core, but “when two cores conflict, however, the tendency is for each coalition to talk past the other and thus for a ‘dialogue of the deaf’ to persist until external conditions dramatically alter the power balance within the subsystem” (155). Therefore, to attain learning processes across coalitions, the goal should be an intermediate level of conflict that would allow for a constructive debate. A frontal attack on the core belief systems of the other
020
coalition would most likely result in defensive reactions with no results. Therefore, learning across coalitions would imply learning about the secondary aspects of the policy belief systems first, that could gradually involve learning near the policy core.
The desired outcome of policy oriented learning would be a change in government policy oriented towards innovation, based on changes in beliefs of advocacy coalition members and regime actors. The following causal model (figure 2) illustrates these learning processes, and show the implications for member organizations of LVC.
Overall, this theoretical framework served to provide a preliminary discussion of the three sub questions. The following sub questions have been introduced that will be further explored in the coming chapters:
1. What is the meaning of scaling up agroecology?
2. How did the cooperation of ECVC with NAV facilitate the scaling up process? 3. What are the mechanisms that would explain the scaling up process?
This leads us towards the upcoming methodology section, that will elucidate more on the regional organization ECVC, and its local member organization, the NAV.
021
3. Methodology
This section describes the methods used for empirical data collection, as well as the case and sample selection process. Furthermore, the operationalization and the data sources will be described. Lastly, we shall reflect on the validity and reliability concerns of the chosen method and data gathering.
3.1 Method
Explaining outcome process tracing formed the starting point of this research, aimed at providing a sufficient explanation about scaling up agroecology. Sufficient means that all the important aspects of the specific outcome will be accounted for in this case centric study.
“Explaining-outcome process-tracing is an iterative research strategy that aims to trace the complex conglomerate of systematic and case-specific causal mechanisms that produced the outcome in question” (Beach & Brun Pedersen, 2013: 19).
In this way, the explanation cannot be separated from the particular case. At the same time, an explanation-outcome study would allow to make generalizations that reach beyond the single case, though the context of the case remains important.
As the specific outcome of scaling up has been little studied, an inductive path has been adopted primarily, drawing on empirical material as the basis for establishing the
mechanisms that would explain the outcome. The iterative strategy involves that the model is updated with plausible alternative explanations, until the most important mechanism can be identified and delimited as the best possible explanation.
One of the advantages of process tracing is that it stimulates researchers to
continuously reconsider alternative explanations, that would prevent them from choosing one explanatory mechanism and conforming to that entirely (Checkel, 2006). However, there are limitations in terms of ‘diving too deep’ into the mechanisms and empirical data, in that it could lead to a time shortage or that the ‘big picture’ of the research is lost (ibid).
In this research, a policy document analysis will be conducted on the publications concerning agroecology of the two SMOs. The aim is to establish what the two movements understand under agroecology, what the relating goals are, and which strategies they pursue in order to attain these goals. This will be combined with an interviewing technique to generate deeper empirical data, which is deemed an effective combination with content-analysis (George and Bennett, 2005). The interviews will be aimed at corroborating what has been established from the document analysis about the agroecological understandings of scaling up, as understood by the social movements’ members, as well as those of experts. In addition,
022
the interviews are aimed to discover in which ways the cooperation between these movements lead to scaling up, and by which mechanisms this would take place.
Two interviews with NAV members and one interview with an ECVC board member have been conducted. In addition, three experts have been approached that each concentrate their research on agroecology; rural social movements; alternative food networks and cooperatives. In the appendix, an overview of all of the six interview respondents has been included.
3.2 Case selection, sample and operationalization
The population for this research consists of SMOs that work together with LVC on agroecology in Europe. The unit of analysis consists of a Dutch and a Belgian SMO that cooperate in the field of agroecology. The ECVC –also referred to as Eurovia– is located in Brussels. The NAV is officially based in a small Dutch village called Noordhoek, which is relatively close to the Belgian border.
The case selection is focused primarily on the Dutch context, since the aim of this study is to incorporate sufficiently local and national factors, besides transnational issues. The Dutch agricultural sector is known to be one of the most intensive industries of the world (Bos, Smit, & Schröder, 2013). As appeared from the discussion of the concepts, intensive models of agriculture do not fit with agroecology. If the outcome of this study would be that agroecology is scaling up in the Netherlands, this country could eventually become an
influential example to other European countries and beyond, in transforming their agricultural model towards a more sustainable one.
The Dutch case study is considered to be a crucial case, as it is likely that in the Netherlands scaling up will proceed with more difficulties, than in countries that have a less intensive agricultural sector. This also relates to the existence of vested interests of powerful industry players in the Dutch agrarian industry (Bos, Smit, & Schröder, 2013: 70). Besides that we examine the partnership between two social movements, the ECVC will be studied more in terms of pending transnational issues and resultant strategies.
The aim was to select a second case that adheres to similar agroecological values espoused by LVC, and which collaborates actively with the ECVC. The NAV is such a SMO that does not only operate on a national scale, but also locally. The sample therefore includes the NAV and the ECVC. Specifically, the sample will include three different units of
023
NAV at the micro level. Also, attention will be paid to other organizations that have a connection with these two social movements.
In order to further operationalize the theoretical concepts, it is important to specify the way in which empirical observations can be distinguished from each other and measured. The first observations are aimed to establish the explaining outcome of scaling up by
predominantly focusing on the movements’ policies that have been published on this subject serving as secondary sources. The organizational structures of the two movements and the institutional environment in which they operate, form the second part of observations, primarily based on interviews. The learning mechanisms will constitute the last part of the observations that will be principally derived from the interview response as well.
For the analysis of the interviews and the policy documents, Atlas Ti was used. All of the documents and transcriptions were scanned on their most relevant parts, after which initial coding was conducted using Atlas Ti. Thereon, these initial codes were further categorised according to the three sub-questions, leading to the identification of three broad themes: interpretations of scaling up and agroecology; institutional and organizational structures stimulating or constraining cooperation; learning mechanisms and societal developments. This approach meant that the empirical results could be analysed systematically.
3.3 Reflection on validity and reliability threats
A qualitative document analysis has been conducted which systematically analysed the contents of written documents published by LVC, the ECVC and the NAV. Inclusion criteria were established for the documents and key areas of analysis, as this would enhance the transparency of this research. An important selection criterion was the inclusion of documents from a variety of sources and actors of LVC. These selection criteria increased the reliability of this research. In addition, the documents needed to be categorized on the basis of their purpose. The relevance of each text could then be analysed according to its relevance to the themes that are deemed important for the thesis. The documents have only been selected, if they would sufficiently cover agroecology and its relation with scaling up. This increased the validity of these sources. However, the meaning of words in policy documents are contingent on the context and purpose for which the document has been written for. The text purposes differed from the aims of this research. As a result, this decreased their validity. Interviews as a second data source helped to increase the validity, as they would allow to ask the
interviewees for more clarification about certain issues which could not be uncovered from the documents.
024
Conducting interviews permits to obtain more substantive and detailed data in comparison to the policy document analysis. In order to avoid validity constraints in the interviews, open questions can be used to avoid any bias that may result from suggesting an answer in the form of the question. However, open questions have the disadvantage that they require extensive coding and may result in redundant information. Therefore, semi-structured questions have been applied during the interviews that permit a certain flexibility to go into necessary details; they also permitted the inclusion of additional themes deemed relevant for this research.
Transparency on the range of discussion topics and the manner in which the interviews were conducted increased the reliability of this method. A potential reliability threat of
interviews is that the conditions in which they have been conducted vary, depending on the place or medium of the interview. For example, there is a substantial difference in conditions between a Skype and a face to face interview. During this research, the influence of these potential constraints were limited. The connection during the Skype interviews was in order, and all of the participants had sufficient time in answering all of the questions. The document analysis may increase the validity of these interviews, by drawing on them as an important source of information during the interviews or after the interviews for any further
clarification.
One of the respondents, Hanny van Geel (R4), has been the chairman of the NAV, after which she became a board member of ECVC. This respondent increased the validity of this research, given her relevant experiences at both of these LVC member organizations. It would have been better to conduct an interview with another board member. However, the NAV member Joop de Koeijer (R6) who had been a board member of the ECVC a couple of years before Hanny van Geel, was approached. This further enhanced the validity of this study.
On the 10th of June, an excursion to the Markthallen in Rotterdam was held by the NAV, aimed at increasing connections between farmers and consumers. Some participatory observations were conducted during this meeting, with the aim of confirming observations that were established from the document analysis and the interviews. In this way, the assumed relationships and mechanisms could have been more accurately confirmed.
In this thesis, triangulation is applied by using three methods to check the results from three different angles. Triangulation facilitates the validation of data, in this case through the verification from three sources, which would enhance the credibility and robustness of the intended qualitative analysis.
025
This methodology section described the units of analysis, methods used, and justified the choices that were made during the research. In addition, it provided a reflection on the reliability and validity threats, and the way in which some of them have been curtailed. Before we continue with the discussion of the results, a background chapter will provide general observations about the institutional context in which the social movements have been established.
026
4. Background Chapter
In this section, we briefly dive into the history of the two social movements in order to obtain a more thorough understanding about the political field they find themselves in, by focusing on their mobilizing structures. Mobilizing structures relate to the prior conditions that determine the emergence and development of social movements (McAdam & Scott, 2005).
The formation and consolidation of LVC has been comprehensively described by Desmarais (2002). She described that the main reason for the emergence of the global social movement was the persistent exclusion of farmers and peasants from political development processes of agricultural and food policies. There was no voice for smallholder and family farmers during the GATT negotiations, nor the organizational capacity to pressurize the WTO, FAO or OECD effectively. The roots of the movement emerged in 1992 during the second congress of the Unión Nacional de Agricultores y Ganaderos (UNAG) in Nicaragua, where farm leaders “vowed to strengthen ties among their organizations and to forge international links with farm organizations from around the world” (95). Only one year later, 46 farm leaders from around the world formally constituted LVC in Belgium, where later the main office of Europe ECVC was established. Besides the establishment of a research project on alternative agricultural policies, the farm leaders actively sought a struggle with existing neoliberal4 agricultural policies.
LVC has divided the world into several regions, and has established in every continent a regional office to coordinate its member organizations (Menser, 2008). This is a form of transnational regionalism in which assemblies of member organizations are organized in each region. Besides devising regional strategies and exchanging experiences during those
meetings, two delegates are appointed to attend the International Conferences that determine the overall strategies of LVC. In 2008, ECVC became the official regional European office of LVC, nascent from the existing European Farmers Coordination (EFC) which was already a LVC’s member. From a ‘regional’ perspective, ECVC puts pressure on the institutions and political parties of the EU to reform the CAP ever since its creation (Eurovia, “Common base”).
4
Neoliberal is understood as a normative term that is frequently used by critics of economic liberalization policies. These policies are characterised by privatization, deregulation, free trade and the rise in power of private corporations. It is apparent that LVC uses many of these neoliberal terms in its publications and discourses in a negative connotation, which also applies to globalization and commodification processes within the food system.
027
The advocacy organization NAV was also established in 1993 as a reaction to dissatisfaction about the representation of crop farmers’ interests within the Netherlands (NAV, “Missie & Visie”). The syndicate aims for a good income for crop farmers on both the short and long term, as well as sustainable agriculture on ecological, economic and social grounds. According to the NAV, good prices for crop farmers require a EU agricultural policy that involves European market protection and a ‘fair playing field’ for crop farmers within the European market.
028
5. Results: Scaling up agroecology
In the first part of the results section, the meaning of agroecology will be discussed and its connection with scaling up. We seek to answer the first sub question: What is the meaning of scaling up agroecology? This section relies on a combination of content analysis and
interview responses. The most policy documents have been selected from the websites of the NAV, the ECVC, and LVC, with the exception of the publications by Claes (2012) and Altieri, Nicholls and Fernando Funes (2012). These documents were selected from a different
member organisation of ECVC, called Mouvement d’Action Paysanne which has published more on agroecology as compared to the NAV. Claes reflects on the interpretation of
agroecology and on some of the barriers to its scaling up, which is relevant for the Dutch case study as well. The second section will illustrate the attempt of LVC to maintain the meaning of agroecology. In order to better understand the meaning of scaling up in relation to
agroecology, the last section of this chapter will specify its conditions.
5.1 Varying interpretations
In 2012 a conference on The Potential of Agroecology in the European Parliament was organized by the European Green Party. Claes (2012) from the organization Vredeseilanden5
attended, where it soon became clear that there exists no straightforward definition of agroecology. The interpretation by various participants lay duly apart. Claes ultimately distinguished between a narrow definition of agroecology that asserts the promotion and exchange of sustainable farming practices, and a broader one. This definition came down to:
“A set of principles that forms the basis for a vision on agriculture, food production and rural development, which translates into strategies and actions that enhance the sustainability not only of farming but also of processing, trading, retailing and consuming agricultural products” (4).
The broader definition could be interpreted as a far-reaching vision on agriculture that promotes long term thinking, and that seeks to involve a broader array of actors besides only farmers.
5
Vredeseilanden is a Belgian NGO that strives to secure a liveable income for farmers and their families by means of sustainable forms of agriculture (Vredeseilanden, “Wat we doen?”). Their aim is to create ‘new alliances’ and ‘win-win situations’ between farmers on the one hand, and governments, companies and consumers on the other hand across the developed and developing world.
029
Multiple respondents and the documents by LVC indicate that a broader interpretation of the concept is more prevalent. Professor of Plant Production Systems at the Wageningen University Pablo Tittonell explains that agroecology was in the early days indeed narrowly defined as either a science or a movement, but currently more broadly with its inclusion of entire food systems. Agroecology also has a strong social component that refers to its interpretation as a movement. Moreover, he recognizes the importance of the principles of agroecology, such as diversity, efficiency, regulation and synergy.
In 2014, ECVC published the document called Agroecology: Transforming society through food production and the peasant struggle. It listed 6 essential principles to transform society based on: feelings, diversity and biodiversity, peasant knowledge, community, peasants’ rights, struggles and social transformation. Many of these principles point to the social aspect of agroecology, emphasizing “trust and cooperation between communities, large and small, rural and urban.” Within this document, peasant autonomy, solidarity and
cooperation are some of the key words that conceptualize agroecology from a social perspective. The last principle directly refers to ECVC’s aim to transform society by
strengthening their grassroots in order to further their political agenda of Food sovereignty. For scaling up agroecology, the definition of an agroecological farm also needs to be established. Tittonell explains that organic farms are registered and certified, whereas many smallholder farmers and family farmers are unregistered. As a result, is unknown how many of them are practicing agroecology. Surveys are needed in order to uncover what the actual agroecological numbers are.
Without the availability of these statistics, practically all respondents argue that the meaning of scaling up is not about agroecological farms becoming larger. It is rather about the interpretation of scaling up as ‘expanding impacts’, that more farmers start practicing
agroecology. It would not be about a few agroecological farmers increasing their farm sizes, while the others remain unchanged. According to the NAV member Keimpe van der Heide, organic farming practices are increasing in the Netherlands, but slowly. Therefore, he argues that ‘conventional’ farmers also need to be convinced that change is needed in order to make the agricultural system more sustainable.
For expanding the impacts of agroecology, we already have made a distinction
between farmers adopting more of the associated practices (scaling out), and the scaling up of rural social movements promoting agroecology. Tittonell explained that quantitative,
functional, political and organizational scaling up of social movements does not have to exclude each other but could rather complement each other. He explains this with one of the
030
main principles of agroecology, which is the celebration of diversity. Jan Douwe van der Ploeg is a professor Rural Sociology at the Wageningen University argued that the adoption of new practices by farmers is in essence diverse. As farmers frequently adopt new practices by learning about experiences of other farmers, these practices are in many cases not regarded to be specifically agroecological, sustainable etc. These practices are rather understood as new applications for the further development of their farming methods, without having to call it agroecology per se.
5.2 Defence from co-optation
In 2015, an International Forum for Agroecology took place to come to a common understanding of agroecology through a dialogue between LVC member farmers and supporters, and to develop strategies to promote agroecology. For scaling up agroecology, LVC argued that collective self-organization and action are indispensable to build local supportive food systems, and simultaneously challenge the centralized system. This makes scaling up an inherent political endeavour for LVC members, as they attempt to “challenge and transform structures of power in society” (4).
A crucial point for LVC to attain this transformation by means of agroecology, is defending the concept from co-optation. During the International Forum the participants had noticed that a considerable number of institutions have started to recognize agroecology. However, some institutions would have tried to redefine it into concepts such as ‘climate smart agriculture,’ ‘sustainable- or ecological-intensification,’ ‘industrial monoculture production of organic food’ etc. For LVC these concepts would offer limited tools to transform the current agricultural system, since they do not challenge the status quo of agribusiness. LVC stated that they reject these concepts and that they “fight to expose and block this insidious appropriation of agroecology” (2).
Similarly, multiple respondents acknowledge that agroecology as a concept should be defined and applied appropriately. Van der Heide asserted that “everything could otherwise be called sustainable or agroecological” (R1, translated). In addition, Tittonell explained that organic farmers who practice monocultures or industrial farmers that promote a certain technology still may say “this is agroecology”. LVC is therefore ‘protecting the concept’ to ensure that agroecology maintains its meaning, as understood by them.
031 5.3 Conditions for scaling up
Claes (2012) stated that the goal of Vredeseilanden of being able to feed the world by 2050 with its support of smallholder farmers, strongly relies on an institutional environment facilitates this. In such an environment, agroecology could be the solution for the current agrarian system crisis. Claes refers to the Rio+20 Position Paper published by Altieri, Nicholls and Fernando Funes (2012) that specifies some of the conditions for scaling up agroecology. They identified multiple conditions that retained a widespread adoption of agroecology, such as a lack of information by farmers, policy distortions, market failures and infrastructural problems. Top-down strategies were proposed to overcome some of these barriers, such as improving access for farmers and consumers to local-regional markets, and increasing government support in the form of providing credits and technologies. Two other strategies were more bottom-up in nature: the promotion of capacity building of farmers, and the avocation of major reforms in policy and research agendas.
Tittonell discussed both top-down and bottom-up forms of scaling up. In Brazil, the Lula government established the Ministry of Agrarian Development to specifically support family farm agriculture that forms 70 percent of total agriculture in Brazil. This was done besides the existing agrarian ministry that primarily supported large-scale farming. Contrastingly, Tittonell argued that bottom-up scaling up would actually be carried out by rural social movements that are filling a gap which society is not fulfilling. He asserted that in an ideal world, smallholder farmers would be recognized and supported by governments, universities and by the rest of society. So, rural social movements would try to respond to an unfulfilled demand of farmers by organizing themselves from the bottom-up. They would welcome the support of the government, but they are not dependent on it.
Another example of bottom-up developments was illustrated by a specialist in ‘food transitions’ Sandra van Kampen. She argued that Frieslandcampina possesses the complete power in the dairy industry of the Netherlands. If a farmer decides not to participate in their market, he would have to arduously create its own. At the same time, Sandra remained ‘optimistic’ that the game is changing in the Netherlands. The persistent growth of food cooperatives linking farmers directly with consumers, makes market players as
Frieslandcampina and large supermarkets ‘nervous’. They are gradually forced to adopt their business models, leading to new market equilibriums.
The policy documents of LVC and the respondents were alternately linking scaling up with transformations or transitions that accumulate into system changes. According to
032
whereas transformations involve ‘major jumps’. He referred to the nuclear disaster in Japan that led to the closure of all nuclear power plants and the target deployment of 100 percent renewable energy, as an example of a transformation. “We hope that agroecology does not need such a catastrophe like that to largely change”(R2). At the same time, a sudden external event might give the incentive to scale up agroecology much more rapidly.
Sub conclusion
As the empirical data showed, we could distinguish between a narrow definition of
agroecology that is more oriented at stimulating sustainable farming practices, and a broader societal vision that is aimed at realizing synergies among actors within food systems. LVC understands agroecology from its broader interpretation, according to their principles. The organization stresses the negative implications of redefining agroecology into those concepts, that do not challenge the status quo of agribusiness. When the agrarian system would not be challenged by LVC advocating a rapid transformation, as is the case, the odds could be higher that the system would gradually change following the characteristics of a transition.
033
6. Results: Process-oriented scaling up
For tracing the process of scaling up by the ECVC and the NAV, we first consider the historical context of the social movements. This overlaps with the previous discussion in the background chapter. Subsequently, the structures and policies of the two movements will be discussed that set the conditions to scaling up. Finally, the challenges to scaling up for these movements will be identified and discussed. In doing so, we attempt to answer the second sub question: How did the cooperation of ECVC with NAV facilitate the scaling up process? The aim
was to describe the scaling up from a process oriented perspective. Therefore, the course of this section starts with ECVC’s and the NAV’s historical context, that flows into their structures and policies, and ends with the organizational challenges that they currently face.
6.1 Organizational history
The motivations and reasons for the establishments of the social movements the NAV, the ECVC and LVC are interrelated. The NAV was founded in the same year as LVC of 1993. According to ECVC board member and former chairman of the NAV Hanny van Geel, this did not happen ‘by coincidence’. Both movements have been established in response to the WTO negotiations and corresponding Free Trade Agreements. It became clear that
agricultural trade would be organized transnationally, through which farmers were committed to organize themselves on such a scale as well. Van Geel’s notion that in those years farmers wanted to remain visible on a global scale, is in line with those of Desmarais (2000), Menser (2008), and Rosset and Martínez-Torrez (2012). Correspondingly, the NAV was established to represent the interests of crop farmers, on the grounds of European market protection to ensure fair prices for farmers.
The ECVC exists since 2008, and stemmed from the EFC that was established in 1986. According to Van Geel, the EFC maintained a more stringent admission policy to new members, based on more severe political tendencies. The EFC was the only European interest group that aimed for a radically different agricultural policy, which the NAV aspired as well. However, the NAV could not become a member of EFC due to its more stringent political ideology.
