Bridging Anti-mafia & Agroecology: Practices for Sustainable Change

(1)

Universiteit Van Amsterdam MSc International Development Studies

Master Thesis

Bridging Anti-mafia &

Agroecology: Practices for

Sustainable Change

A STUDY OF THE ANTI-MAFIA AND AGROECOLOGY MOVEMENTS IN SICILY

Giulia Gouet Student number: 12745480 Supervisor: Carolina Maurity Frossard

Second Reader: Hebe Verrest August, 17th₂₀₂₀

(2)

ABSTRACT

Increasing amounts of evidence show that the current path taken by the global agri-food system since the ‘green revolution’, following the rules of market liberalization, international value chains, and industrialization, is becoming unsustainable environmentally, economically, and socially. These factors are visible in agriculture-dependent territories, like in Sicily, where the defects of the food system are exploited and worsened by the infamous mafia. Amid the growing inequalities and low quality of life, in the last decades social groups like anti-mafia activists and farmers adopting sustainable ways of farming have been mobilizing themselves to attempt to bring positive change in the region. The aim of this research is to analyze how the existence of certain agroecology and anti-mafia practices challenges the functioning of Sicily’s current agri-food system. More particularly, it focuses on a practice-based approach with the hope to explore diverse instances of counter-hegemony and non-established transformational forces within food systems, as well as the possible worth of unconventional alliances in building the path to change. Through to the use of documents and qualitative semi-structured interviews with key informants and actors (farmers and activists), the results attained show how there are different typologies of practices, each playing a certain role in the process of contrasting the hegemonic food system. Even if they are small, at an early stage, or do not follow a particular canon, their existence promotes virtuous values and allows people to enact their social power. They also pave the way to generating a more equitable food system. As both agroecology and anti-mafia serve to make the agricultural sector – a central asset to Sicily’s development – economically and socially sustainable, an increased collaboration of efforts between the actors is desirable. With an underlying commitment to social justice, this thesis seeks to outline opportunities for transformation of food systems, as well as the challenges that come along, not only in order to promote the development of rural areas but to make all populations more conscious of the hand that feeds them.

Keywords: agroecology, agri-food systems, civil society, anti-mafia movements, practice, values, counter-hegemony discourse, rural development, Sicily.

(3)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research is first and foremost the outcome of my appreciation of the culture I had the chance to grew up in. I thank my grandparents for making me value the beauty of the Sicilian territory and the tastiness of its food, especially my grandmother for supporting me while I was working on this thesis. My gratitude also goes to my parents for always encouraging me to pursue my endeavors for social justice, even when they look like daydreams.

I sincerely thank Giovanni R. for accompanying me through the fieldwork and helping me meet interesting and determined people. I extend this thankfulness to all respondents who kindly shared with me their stories, as sensitive as they may be. Without them this research would not be the same.

Finally, I am especially grateful to my thesis supervisor Carolina Maurity-Frossard, for her constant support during the entire writing process. Her guidance and encouragements were greatly appreciated, through my struggle with research topics to the trying times caused by a global pandemic. Thank you!

(4)

TABLE OF FIGURES

Figure 1. A typical farmer’s market in Vittoria, Ragusa Province ... 25 Figure 2. Common Sicilian greenhouse - Interviewee #1’s farm. ... 49 Figure 3 and 4. Burned agricultural waste and other garbage on the side of a road ... 54

(7)

ACRONYMS

AE AM CAP CSOs GAS Istat LVC PSR SDGs Agroecology Anti-mafia

Common Agricultural Policy (EU) Civil Society Organizations Gruppi di Acquisto Solidale Istituto Nazionale Di Statistica La Vía Campesina

Programma di Sviluppo Rurale 2014-2020 Sustainable Development Goals

(8)

1. INTRODUCTION

Increasing amounts of research show that the current path taken by the global agri-food system since the ‘green revolution’, following the rules of market liberalization, international value chains, and industrialization, is becoming unsustainable environmentally, economically, and socially. Discontent among inhabitants from rural areas, more particularly from agrarian populations, has been more and more obvious in the last decades. It has taken the form of civil disobedience, for example with the recent Dutch farmers protests (boerenprotesten); and can also be seen as one of the causes of the rise of populist and nationalist waves, that vow to ameliorate the sovereign economic situations first, explaining for instance why the United Kingdom’s rural population overwhelmingly voted for Brexit – and against the continuation of the European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) (Mamonova & Franquesa, 2019). It is also translated, in a more discreet way, by the continuous emigration from the countryside to cities, due to the increasing economic insecurity. While each of these cases has its own contextual implications, altogether they highlight the existence of structural issues that are increasingly weighing on the most marginalized and vulnerable. Within the context of agriculture more specifically, neoliberal policies have made production contextualized and de-linked from the specificities of local ecosystems and social relations (see for example van der Ploeg, 2018; González de Molina 2013), exacerbating the tendency of urban populations to distance themselves from problems that relate to agriculture, hence making the problems of the agri-food system even more invisible (Mann, 2018).

Many of the issues faced by farmers today can be analyzed as an effect of post-World War II agricultural policies that promoted the so-called ‘green revolution’ (De Schutter, 2019). At the time, hunger and malnourishment was largely understood as being due to a lack of production and therefore the value of traditional agricultural activity was placed second – if not considered obsolete – to favor the development of

(9)

agribusiness1, understood as the ultimate solution to feed the growing population (ibid.). Along with the ideals of productivity and efficiency, the quest for competitive economic growth was put forward, and since then the global agri-food system has evolved along the lines of market liberalization, technology and global trade. However, nowadays the most basic premise of food systems is still far from being resolved: at least 821 million people lack regular access to food that meets their most basic caloric needs (United Nations, 2020; Anderson et al., 2019). These numbers have decisively been increasing as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic (United Nations, 2020). Not only is the crisis threatening food security, as prove the infinite queues in front of food banks – even in countries of the Global North where hunger is normally less frequent (Anderson et al., 2019) – the pandemic is also hurting the food supply chain. Harvests are being delayed, products cannot be delivered, workers are being laid-off and great amounts of food are being wasted (United Nations, 2020).

Malnourishment and hunger are persistent through history, but neoliberal policies also created a number of economic issues such as an unfair distribution of risks and profits, price volatility and the methods implicated in today’s conventional agriculture have been proven to cause environmental damage: from pollution, to waste and biodiversity loss (Mann, 2018; Rosset & Martinez-Torres, 2012). All these factors play at the disadvantage of small-scale farmers. The peasant class that was predicted to become extinct, is depopulated and impoverished, however still accounts for a major part of the food supply and the subsistence of many communities, particularly in the Global South but also in the Global North (De Schutter, 2019; van der Ploeg, 2018; Rosset & Martinez-Torres, 2012). This is the case for the Italian region of Sicily, which also can be paralleled to other Southern European regions,

1_{For clarity and length purposes, this thesis does not cover in detail the specificities about} scientific and technical methods used in the various types of farming, but rather draws a dialectic between small-scale farming (also paralleled to peasant agriculture and traditional farming) and agribusiness (conventional agriculture, industrial farming, corporate farming) in order to delve into the social, political and economic effects of the two contraposing realms.

(10)

where most of the agricultural enterprises are small to medium-sized (Migliorini et al., 2018). In Sicily, where the following research study is located, the critical economic situation of the island causes it to have the worst rates of depopulation of the country, especially of youth exodus, thus further worsening the socio-economic conditions of rural livelihood also in the long term. As it did historically, among the economic resources of the Region, the prominent role belongs to agriculture (Istat, 2016). Sicilian lands are full of natural riches, but at the same time the region is among the poorest of Italy: Caltanissetta, one of its provinces, has the lowest quality of life in the country, according to a recent ranking by the newspaper Il Sole 24 Ore (Casadei & Finizio, 2019). The example of Sicily is also particularly revealing because the defects of the food system are exploited and worsened by the infamous mafia, only further highlighting the failures of a system that can be manipulated in favor of the interests of the hegemony.

1.1. Research aim and relevance

This thesis aims to provide an overview of the current situation of agriculture in Sicily, more specifically focusing on counter-hegemonic practices, with the hope of highlighting how they establish alternatives and enable change towards equitable and sustainable food systems. A central argument of this thesis is that conventional agriculture, once praised for its market-oriented solutions, behind frames of productivity, efficiency and necessity to feed the world, is failing to guarantee equitable value, exacerbating inequalities and accelerating the commodification of nature (Mamonova & Franquesa, 2019; De Schutter, 2019). With all the facts pointing to the unsustainability of the current food system, the role and interests of the actors in control of its institutions and policies needs to be questioned. This task has been taken on by scholars in the field of political economy, who have been placing at the heart of their analysis the power dynamics at play in our societies and in the context of this thesis, within food systems (Anderson et al., 2019). This field contrasts

(11)

itself from traditional discourses about food systems, which can be outlined as those study the biotechnical and agronomic aspects of agriculture, and those that stem from classical economic approaches, relying on the models centered around demand and supply (De Schutter, 2019). According to Olivier De Schutter (2019, p.14), United Nations Special Rapporteur on the right to food from 2008 to 2014:

“These classic approaches to food systems are silent about the question of agency. They portray systems without actors; they see food chains without power; and they take the institutional framework as given, rather than as constructed and as the result of particular path dependencies or conflicts.”

This is important because it implies extending the understanding of food systems beyond a simple trade of material goods and outcomes (Duncan et al., 2019). Another essential aspect of the political economy approach is that in order to analyze the power dynamics responsible for the problems of food systems, it starts by looking at the causes rather than the impacts. As such it offers a useful critical lens to expose how power plays into the reproduction of injustices as well as the lock-ins that keep current unsatisfactory systems in place (ibidem).

However, recognizing that critique alone is insufficient to change current food systems, newer works in the field call for increased attention to alternative solutions, in favor of the system’s relatively powerless actors. Such a task should not only be done by envisioning how transformational power shifts can occur, but also by assessing the sustainability of the alternatives themselves (Anderson et al., 2019). In this point lies an aspect of the academic relevance of this thesis: it acknowledges denunciations about political economy being predominantly critical by looking at potential solutions in the practices that challenge the dominant systems.

Another contribution to literature comes from analyzing bottom-up initiatives, namely anti-mafia (AM) and agroecology (AE) practices, pursued by marginalized food system actors, that thrive for the same purpose, but that do not belong to a

(12)

canonical group and are not formally recognized as collaborators either. In fact, this thesis builds onto literature about agroecology primarily through its role as a movement that can enable change and oppose itself to the conventional farming system, albeit knowing that the movement is non-alienable from its practical and scientific aspects. Furthermore, while there is a considerable amount of research that analyzes rural social movements, agroecology and the peasant struggle in the Global South, there are much fewer studies that attempt to understand these concepts in the dimensions of the Global North, and those that exist mostly focus on how they can be adapted into policy (Calvarìo, 2017). Regarding the anti-mafia sociale, understood as civil society’s anti-mafia (that is not institutionalized), the body of literature providing analyses not pertaining to criminology or judicial studies is particularly limited. There have been efforts to trace the AM movement to the class and land struggle (see for example Santino, 2009)2_{, as well as studies outlining the} movement’s role in creating spaces that are “free” from the presence of criminal organizations (for example Doezema, 2012; Rakopoulos, 2018). Nonetheless, the literature hardly delves into more socio-ecologic approaches and their role in constructing alternatives, namely in the food system, which are inherent to agroecology and to the following study. In fact, the novelty of this research lies in the interdisciplinary connections of agroecology with anti-mafia movements and how their alignment could create socially, environmentally and economically sound advancements in Sicily. By paralleling the two movements, the following study touches upon the non-established transformational forces within food systems as well as the possible worth of untraditional alliances towards the path to change. With an underlying commitment to social justice, this thesis seeks to outline opportunities and challenges for sustainable change, not only in order to promote the development of rural areas but to make all populations more conscious of the hand that feeds them.

2_{The most notable reading on the subject is the book “Storia del Movimento Antimafia: Dalla lotta di}

classe all’impegno civile” (History of the Antimafia Movement: From class struggle to civic duty) by

(13)

1.2. Research question and sub questions

How do agroecology and anti-mafia practices challenge the functioning of Sicily’s current agri-food system?

1. What agroecological and anti-mafia practices can be identified on the field?

2. How do these practices relate to each other under a unique counter-hegemony?

3. How can agroecological and anti-mafia practices be considered enablers of change in the ways they contrast the hegemony of food systems?

1.3. Thesis outline

The following thesis comprises eight chapters. The first chapter introduces the research topic and the problematic that motivates this thesis, as well as the academic debates and gaps in literature. It also presents the driving research questions. Chapter 2 establishes the theoretical framework this thesis unfolds itself in; it explains the various theories and concepts that ground the research. It also includes a conceptual scheme, which helps to visualize the relation between the components of the framework. The third chapter serves the purpose of describing the methodological steps that were followed throughout the research, from the collection of data on the field to its analysis. In that chapter are also tackled the ethical issues pertaining to the research and a reflection upon the quality and limitation of the thesis. Chapter 4 presents the context where the research focuses itself and goes from a basic description of the Sicilian territory, to the socio-cultural background of the region and the relevance of agriculture. It also outlines certain aspects of the struggle against the mafia and the hardships faced by the Sicilian population. Chapter 5 delves into a description of the AM and AE practices found on the field. Subsequently, Chapter 6 builds on the typologies of practices mentioned in the previous chapter to draw convergences between the AM and AE movement, which sets the scenario to discuss

(14)

the existence of a counter-hegemony. Having outlined the situation within the counter-hegemony, the chapter ends by analyzing the extent to which the practices can be considered enablers of change in Sicily. Finally, Chapter 7 ties the various results of the research altogether: it first offers a discussion related to the arguments analyzed in the previous chapters and then concludes with a summary of findings and recommendations for future research.

2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

The following chapter outlines the main theoretical debates and concepts that inform the analysis of the data and therefore the response to the research questions. This thesis unfolds itself within Gramscian perspectives of hegemony and counter-hegemonic contestations, which encourage looking at the social values constructed in civil society and the practices that derive from them. This allows to find a starting point to analyze agroecology alongside the anti-mafia civil movement. It is important to note that AE and AM can be recognized as effectively counter-hegemonic when they incorporate discourses of large-scale transformation, meaning that the political aspect of the concept is integrated within the practice. While these discourses are usually analyzed as being part of individual agency, this thesis opts for a less-recognized approach by looking at the importance of practices. Doing so means conceiving practices as enablers of change, whether or not the individuals behind them are involved in social movements and traditional activism. Practice can carry transformational discourses through the values they are embedded in and the social justice aspects they are driven by.

(15)

2.1. Counter-Hegemonic Contestation

To look into the forces and actions that contrast the dominant narrative, which in the context of this thesis is conventional agriculture, one first has to define the various actors and the power dynamics at play within the system. In order to do, this thesis draws on the dialectics of hegemony and counter-hegemony that were put forward by Antonio Gramsci. Situated in Marxist literature, Gramsci contributed to political economics and structural approaches with his own interpretations of hegemony and revolution. In fact, between Gramsci’s most significant contributions is the theory that hegemony is more than dominance, and persistence of social and political order cannot rely on coercion alone, but rather on a combination of coercion and consent (Karriem, 2008; Diefendorf, 2011). Despite privileging the ruling elite – the minority, dominant narratives are able to establish themselves through alliance building and incorporating interests of subaltern classes in their own leadership. In doing so, the hegemony acquires legitimacy and persuades the masses to consent to its narratives (Karriem, 2008). For this reason, civil society occupies an important role in Gramsci’s theory: according to him, it was the “hegemonic apparatus of the ruling group” (Gramsci, 1975 cited in Diefendorf, 2011), and for that reason change starts by the overturning of generally accepted social values and understandings, resulting then in revolutionary transformation.

In the setting of food systems, the dominant narratives, and hence the hegemonic forces, are held predominately by the actors who employ a ‘productionist’ perspective (McNeill, 2019). As briefly outlined in the Introduction, this perspective relies on the policies that encourage large-scale, high input farming and places emphasis on increasing the productivity of farming through, for example, greater use of fertilizers and pesticides. Promoters of this approach are most evidently agricultural industries, as well as retailers and supermarkets, but also a wide array of players that support the use of such agricultural methods: researchers, food security scholars, public administrators, donor agencies, and private foundations (De

(16)

Schutter, 2019). All these actors shape governmental and intergovernmental policies related to the agri-food sector, and the main interest that can be traced is economic profit, albeit the fluxes of power depend on complex relations and therefore claiming that it is the sole interest would be in fact, too reductionist (McNeill, 2019). What is more concrete however is the increasing number of examples and case studies that shows the causal links between industrial agriculture and multiple of the food system’s problematics, that go from environmental degradation to unhealthy dietary habits (ibid.).

‘Productionist’ narratives and practices are the more powerful, or as leading rural development scholar van der Ploeg would describe, they make the food “Empire” (2018). This domination is succumbed by the peasantry, a power dynamic that would be defined as the peasant struggle. As previously mentioned, despite the fact that neoliberal policies are squeezing-out the peasantry (see for example van der Ploeg, 2018; Anderson et al., 2019), this class has shown great resilience, and demonstrated that peasantry plays a necessary role in the agri-food system. Their existence contrasts in-and-of itself with conventional ways of farming. Other realities that detach themselves from the dominant agri-food system are those put forward under the umbrella term “Alternative Food Networks” (AFNs) (Sacchi et al., 2018). In fact, the past two decades have seen a rapid increase in alternative ways of organizing food supply from farm-to-fork that diverge from the industrial food system (Kallio, 2020). While many types of agricultural production and distribution can be englobed in this categorization, a general definition would describe such alternatives as being based on local, decentralized approaches to production and processing, regarding quality and health, and short supply-chains for products with strong local identities (Sacchi et al., 2018). Some examples include community supported agriculture, farmers’ markets, social farming and co-operatives of small-scale producers. In recent food systems scholarship, many researchers have questioned to the viability of AFNs as actual alternatives to conventional agriculture and food

(17)

supply. In fact, because the range of alternative systems is relatively large, some experiences that may be described as ‘alternative’ may still be embedded in corporate mechanisms or relying on conventional food systems to exist (ibid.). From this perspective, while the existence of AFNs proposes another option than agribusiness, it can be argued that they are not subversive enough to oppose the dominance of the food Empire, and more particularly, to oppose the injustices that it perpetuates. Counter-hegemony, with its political-economic power variable and civil society implication, goes beyond the traditional dialectic of “alternative” production versus industrial production, which can fall-short by simply stating the existence of alternatives without engaging in the optic of large-scale transformation. Conversely, some scholars of food systems argue that fair production practices must be promoted by civil society and especially by organized social movements, with the goal to actively oppose food systems (see for example Rosset & Martínez-Torres, 2012). Such an analysis is also in line with Gramscian theories that emphasize the importance of building counter-hegemonic contestation within society in order to reject the narratives of the hegemony that subjugate society.

2.1.1. Political agroecology

Agroecology is a concept that is gaining popularity as a substitute method to redress the ecological, social, economic and political imbalances in the current agri-food system. Originally promoted as a scientific study concerned with ecological implications of agriculture, like soil preservation and biodiversity, the concept has evolved in an interdisciplinary manner: since the 1970s it started gaining attention as a set of sustainable agricultural methods and practices, consequently engendering a transdisciplinary movement that promotes the preservation of indigenous knowledge and the transition to just and sovereign food systems (Wezel et al., 2009). According to the most fervent actors of agroecology, its three dimensions, namely science, the practice and the social movement, are a package deal: they assert that its transformative role depends on their mutual integration (Gliessman et al., 2019;

(18)

González de Molina 2013; Bellamy and Ioris, 2017). Agroecology is increasingly being discussed in the debates surrounding food system transformation, even by actors that are traditionally considered to belong to the hegemonic sphere. In fact, some governments, like those of Brazil and France, have already implemented certain policies that consider the technical aspects of agroecology. However, many of its scholars and supporters do not see the adoption of agroecology into top-down discourses as a positive sign (see for example, González de Molina, 2013). In fact, the relatively easy separation of agroecological techniques from value ideals of the movement put them at risk of being co-opted by the current agri-food hegemony, at the expense of the its more critical and political dimensions, that are the core of agroecological change (Anderson et al., 2019; Mann, 2018; González de Molina, 2013).

Following the approach already suggested by prominent agroecology scholars (Bellamy and Ioris, 2017; González De Molina, 2013), this research distinguishes the political from the scientific pillars of agroecology, in order to focus on the social and transformational aspects it puts forward. Political agroecology is aligned with the ideals proposed by the concept of food sovereignty, which advocates for the democratization of agro-food systems. As described by Suárez (2013, p.239):

“Food sovereignty is the right of peoples to healthy and culturally appropriate food produced through ecologically sound and sustainable methods, and their right to define their own food and agriculture systems. Food sovereignty promotes transparent trade that guarantees just incomes to all peoples as well as the rights of consumers to control their food and nutrition. It ensures that the rights to use and manage lands, territories, waters, seeds, livestock and biodiversity are in the hands of those of us who produce food” (Suárez, 2013, p.239)

(19)

Built around the emergence of centralizing peasants in the agricultural sector, the concept calls for re-peasantization3: the revival of the peasant class, currently being

marginalized and disregarded, despite constituting a large proportion of producers - but also of impoverished populations (Gliessman et al., 2019; De Schutter, 2019). As formalized by the transnational network of farmer-led organizations La Vía Campesina (LVC)4, food sovereignty needs to be achieved by putting “those who produce, distribute and consume food at the heart of food systems and policies rather than the demands of markets and corporations” (Nyéléni, 2007). Recognizing the value of their occupation would not only strengthen their position in food chains and help the reduction of rural poverty, but it would also sustain the crucial role they have in protecting the ecosystem and cultural traditions (Gliessman et al., 2019). Consequently, a central aspect of the food sovereignty movement is the promotion of the human right to food, which ought to be guaranteed through agroecological practices, localization and the de-commodification of resources (Calvário, 2017). Food sovereignty envisioned as a human rights issue is not new, but only in 2018 did the United Nations Human Rights Council adopt the Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas. Supporting the ideals of food sovereignty, agroecology can be considered the tool to apply social justice.

Comparable to Gramsci’s ideas, in food sovereignty and hence in political agroecology, the role of the civil society is instrumental. Considering the approach of political agroecology therefore means analyzing bottom-up initiatives and how they translate food sovereignty into every-day practices; looking at how those contribute

3_{A concept introduced by rural sociologist Jan Douwe van der Ploeg to designate a mode of} agriculture that reminds peasant-like agriculture, but not in an idyllic or bucolic manner, rather based on innovation and knowledge of farming that promotes subsistence, biodiversity and food sovereignty (van der Ploeg, 2018).

4_{Literally ‘The Peasant Way’, La Vía Campesina emerged around the 1980s. It is a transnational} social movement that was originally composed of peasant organization from Latin America and that has expanded itself to the rest of the world. As a movement, they spread awareness about the problems faced by today’s peasantry and create an international peasant discourse and identity in tune with the times. LVC presses for food sovereignty, agroecology, women’s rights, and struggles for the control of seeds, biodiversity and knowledge (Rosset & Martinez-Torres, 2012)

(20)

to raise critical thought, forge a conception of the world around the counter-/hegemony dialectic, and politicize and mobilize the subaltern (Calvário, 2017). Acknowledging that agroecology is not a ‘one-size-fits-all’ concept, instead of attempting to understand the Sicilian context by applying a universal definition of food sovereignty, this research looks at how food sovereignty can be identified through its different forms within specific cultural practices, narratives and values.

2.2. Practice-based approach

In this thesis, I mobilize a practice-based approach aligned with transformative food system theories in order to highlight the efforts of the community to remake local food systems considering greater equity, inclusion, and ecological resilience. More particularly, this thesis focuses on the practices led by non-governmental actors by studying initiatives that identify as agroecology or anti-mafia, but also going beyond normative categorization and looking at informal methods of resistance that through practice attempt to transform the current unjust and unsustainable foodscapes. In fact, this lens allows to analyze the power and incentives of (informal) practices, in terms of corruption but also in terms of counter-hegemonic contestation. Looking at practices also includes investigating which cultural norms influence actors’ interests and how they may consequently interfere or on the contrary, support collective action. A focus on practice affords more scope for action by citizens and societal power, in the optic of enabling emancipatory change, whatever the direction (Scoones et al., 2020).

2.2.1. Theory of practice

When Bourdieu and Giddens initially put forward their theories of practice, the main emphasis was on overcoming the agency-structure dualism that existed in the field of sociology (Spaargaren, 2011), which drove analyses either towards micro-approaches that focused on individual agents or on the other hand, macro-micro-approaches that looked at structural factors shaping system’s dynamics. Similar criticism can also

(21)

be directed to literature about food systems, as by focusing on these dichotomies, it possibly inflates the importance of mainstream dynamics while overlooking drivers of change situated in other frameworks (e.g. diverse economies, feminist theories) (Duncan et al., 2019). Theories of practice therefore attempt to bridge the micro- and macro-approaches.

In such theories, practices, instead of individuals, become the units of analysis that matter most (Spaargaren, 2011). Still, the conception of practice itself is not unique: practices take many shapes and forms. In an attempt to blend various understandings of practice into a definition, Gherardi proposes that “Practices are not only recurrent patterns of action (level of production) but also recurrent patterns of socially sustained action (production and reproduction)” (Gherardi, 2009, p.536). Reproduction of practices contributes to the production of social order (ibid.), by producing ‘shared behavioral routines’ they inform individuals and their values, knowledge and capabilities (Spaargaren, 2011). With the same logic, a multitude of practices aimed towards a common goal or ideal presumably hold greater power, even simply by amplifying awareness about the cause. In the context of agroecology more particularly, practices related to ecological forms of agriculture differ from country to country (Gliessman et al., 2019; Wezel et al., 2009). There exist therefore “multiple agroecologies” (Anderson, Maughan & Pimbert, 2019), that are each individually crafted to combine the local constraints and assets, nonetheless they can all adhere to shared principles (Anderson & Leach, 2019).

2.2.2. Value(s) and practice

In order to help identifying the purpose and worth of the practices analyzed in this thesis, as well as the extent to which they can be considered counter-hegemonic, the concept of value or values, needs to be theorized. Because it takes various meanings depending the discipline it is used in or what it is applied to, Graeber (2001) outlines three operationalizations of value: originally it was meant in its economic sense and related to the material quantitative worth, then it was employed

(22)

in the social sciences. In its linguistic sense “value” is understood as “meaningful difference”, and in sociology it is used in its plural as conceptions of what is ultimately good, proper, or desirable in human life (Graeber, 2001). The definition that most significantly pertains to this study is the latter, but it is still rather open to interpretation. To exemplify the ways in which value(s) exist and serve as a challenge to food systems through practice, I will follow the next two conceptions:

1. Value as an attribute of practice, meaning qualities and characteristics attached to the practices (for example: local food production)

2. Value as being contingent on values, such as cultural frames, norms and discourses that motivate action (for example: ethical labor)

These instances are not mutually exclusive, especially in the case of agroecology that inspires from socio-ecologic notions, where the agricultural practices are shown to have a direct link with human well-being. Exploring value from a practice-based approach, then, involves examining what informs practice (inputs) and how the practice itself serves a purpose (output).

2.2.3. Framing and narrative practice

As previously mentioned, Gramsci’s key insight was that a certain political-economic power dynamic could be perpetrated for only as long as the subaltern classes believed in its capacity to be their best option as well as to be incorporating their own interests. However, once that belief is de-constructed, a period of hegemonic instability ensues, and transformative change becomes possible (though by no means inevitable) (Rose & Lourival, 2019). This is where the work of counter-hegemonic social and political movements, underpinned by their capacity to build alter-hegemonic narratives, will truly be put to the test.

It is in this optic that the concept of framing matters. As applied to the literature on social movements, “framing” draws attention to the significant and often influential ‘‘meaning work’’ (symbolism, rhetoric, value ideals) performed by activists in constructing and deploying their own interpretations of reality (Benford and Snow,

(23)

2000). In this research, framing is used primarily as a conceptual grounding rather than through the methods of frame analysis because it is applied it to practice rather than individuals. In other words, the focus is on the act of framing, which is also extended to the practice of building certain narratives and imaginaries around anti-mafia or agroecology or both, and the effects of doing so.

Looking at framing and narration are also necessary when talking about civil society actions because of the above-mentioned problematic of co-optation. If once again subjugated to the hegemony of the neoliberal system, branches of the alternative narratives may be re-commodified and therefore lose their effectiveness as transformational forces and guarantors of social justice. Avoiding co-optation, especially in terms of agroecological methods, can be done by anchoring actions in a certain dialectic and empowering civil society with counter-hegemonic narratives (Moragues-Faus & Marsden, 2017).

A counter-hegemonic narrative that is sufficiently strong, is a narrative that is sparse and held by a variety of actors, which brings a final analytical strength of approaching narrative and frames as practice: the possibility of identifying shared interests among actors, which if expressed into a common agenda can facilitate change (ibid.).

2.2.4. Transformative theories

Because they incorporate a political dimension, agroecology and anti-mafia are action-oriented concepts that aim for transformative change and their significance towards building sustainable practices can be analyzed through transformative food system theories. Such theories seek pathways that promote change by considering the actions of governments and civil society more than marketplace drivers; and draw from governance literature to better understand the networks of actors that challenge conventional food systems (Anderson et al., 2019). More particularly, this research relies on the conceptualizations of transformation, defined by Scoones et al. as ‘structural’,

(24)

‘systemic’ and ‘enabling’ approaches, and how they engender different understandings of call-to-actions (Scoones et al., 2020). The approaches are not mutually exclusive, and in fact inform each other (ibid.), however the aims of this thesis are most adequately understood and reached via the ‘enabling’ approach which I will henceforth outline.

The main aspect of enabling approaches is to place particular importance on how diverse forms of agency – understood as the deliberate exercise of will – shape directions and goals to bring about transformative change (Scoones et al., 2020). While they draw from structural and system approaches to locate their analysis in particular discourses, the central concern of enabling approaches is how smaller actions, even by minorities and marginalized people can be considered opportunity for transformation towards sustainability (ibid.). This comes from the understanding that “plural forms of power may be exercised in diverse spaces, including through individual and collective action” (Anderson and Leach, 2019, p.138).

Attempting to follow what can be described as an enabling approach in the context of food systems, applied more particularly to agroecology and anti-mafia, therefore means observing how transformation can happen ‘from below’. It means taking an activist stance, and discerning sources of change through the vision and values of the agents themselves (Scoones et al., 2020). Because the underlying desire of these approaches is to comprehend how change is understood and materialized at the grassroot level, possibly in unexpected forms, they are also concerned with what conditions can be created to support alliances, social networks and movement organization. In that sense, they analyze transformation through lenses of emancipation and empowerment (Scoones et al., 2020). Nonetheless, the shortcoming of focusing analysis on local and community efforts happens when their role and effect in causing transformation is idealized, which may in turn underplay relevant structural and systemic limitations. For this reason, enabling approaches must be pursued critically and with a conscious outlook of the bigger picture.

(25)

3. METHODOLOGY

3.1. Unit of Analysis & Sampling Strategy

The overall aim of this study was to explore the work of anti-mafia and agroecology movements in the region and highlight possible crossovers between the two. The units of analysis of this study were the types practices conducted by “agroecological” small-scale farmers and anti-mafia actors (whether they fought for both concepts, or only one) in order to analyze how they challenge Sicily’s current food system.

Purposive sampling was the method used to select the units of observation: the criteria employed to choose the

participants are ones that are informed by the research question. The participants were therefore chosen strategically in order to have a variety of experiences in the resulting sample (Bryman, 2012). I was already able to identify anti-mafia NGOs while conducting preliminary research on the topic, but agroecology initiatives were much harder to find before arriving to the field. To find small-scale farmers that could be of my interest I went to local farmer’s markets (Figure 1) and talked with the different

vendors, first approaching them about their products and methods of production and then explaining the subject of my thesis and seeing if they would be interested in participating. Facebook and especially groups like ‘Permacultura Sicilia’, were another way to reach potential respondents.

As I conducted interviews with the initially selected participants, I asked them if they could point me to other individuals/entities/organizations that would help me Figure 1. A typical farmer’s market in Vittoria,

(26)

further my study, therefore snowball sampling was also involved. For instance, I attended a conference regarding the topic and that contributed greatly to my research for respondents, as I was able to contact people who participated to it.

3.2. Data collection methods

In order to answer the research question, a set of qualitative methods were selected for the study to address the complexities of the variety of understandings regarding the concepts under study and the many forms to which they apply. Keeping in mind the critiques of qualitative research as outlined by Bryman (2012), which include its subjective nature, the difficulty of replicating the study, problems of generalization, and a lack of transparency, which will be discussed in a later section; the following methods were selected as the most relevant in accordance with the research question. It is relevant to note that qualitative methods allowed to gain insight onto how different actors understand, practice and promote both agroecology and anti-mafia values, based on their experiences and views of their reality.

3.2.1. Semi-structured Interviews

The main research tool was semi-structured interviews, which were selected because they permitted a level of foreseeability for the development of the discussion, all while allowing spontaneous diversions that would provide more in-depth information about each participant’s experience.

Because my interviewees were chosen for their different typologies of practices, in order to have a broad understanding of the topic, each interview was somewhat unique. Although certain questions kept the same idea but adapted to the role of the respondent, other questions were crafted based on what topics were found to be most relevant or from new topics that emerged from other interviews, or topics that required further elaboration. Follow-up questions which allowed for greater elaboration or explanation of unclear or significant responses (Bryman, 2012).

(27)

Semi-structured interviews appeared to be an adequate method for this study because in a first place it contributed to creating a bond between the researcher and the interviewee which from what I perceived it also helped the participants to feel more at ease and ready to share about taboo topics, namely the presence of criminal activity. Secondly, because one part of the topic attempts to reveal an “unbuilt” bridge between two areas that are not traditionally combined, it was interesting to leave interviews open to see what the actors on the field thought of the pairing, plus it was also a way for me to discover new aspects that I had not considered.

Unfortunately, the timing of the fieldwork was disturbed by the Covid-19 Crisis, which stroke Italy at the end of February. For that reason, many interviews had to be canceled and the final number of interviews used for research analysis amounts to five: four farmers and a member of Libera Terra, an anti-mafia organization.

3.2.2. Observations

Throughout the fieldtrip I kept hand-written record of visual evidence, discussion snippets and reflections that during the few weeks and that would be relevant to the study. These helped me complete the data I had from interviews as well as make connections between various concepts that I came across.

Some observations simply related to the environment that surrounded me, whether it was about the type of products on the markets, the country roads from which I could see agricultural work and its effects, or descriptions of the farms I went to visit when interviewing my respondents. These unstructured, non-participatory observations resulted in a rich account of data that made me realize that there are also aspects in everyday life that can become sources of knowledge.

Other observations were gathered from meetings and conferences that I assisted to and pertained to my research topic. I attended a couple of weekly meetings of a consortium of producers that adhere to agroecological principles, and a meeting of an NGO that works to promote agroecological values in the territory. During these

(28)

members talked about their outcomes and upcoming project and general day-to-day matters. It was interesting for me because it gave me an insight to how they operate but also allowed me to understand what type of projects they instituted and the goals they targeted. The conference was organized by a national anti-mafia NGO, Libera, and tackled the presence of mafia in agriculture (entitled “Agricultura e Zero Mafie”) so it directly concerned my topic and provided me with a broad overview of the situation and the actors involved.

Finally, some observations were also concluded from personal experience gained from my own knowledge of the culture as my mother’s side of the family is from Sicily. This accounts for only a limited amount of data, which relies on commonly accepted facts or behaviors that are confirmed by the social environments. Evidence of these can be found in popular culture and social interactions.

3.2.3. Analysis of relevant documents and secondary sources

The data collected was triangulated with qualitative analysis of secondary sources such as books from other researchers on the topic, documentaries and historical documents. This also includes websites and documents of the NGOs and cooperatives that I collaborated with. Some documents were found online, and others were sent to me by the actors themselves. These documents served as a valuable tool to build a more comprehensive overview, by offering background stories about the actors that I address and create a general perspective of the different concepts I touch upon in this thesis.

Due to the limitation experienced during my fieldwork that cut my research short, I also draw from academic literature for empirical examples. From my own personal knowledge and from my time spent on the field, I am familiar with these examples; however, I did not have the chance to collect the evidence first-hand. I analyze them under a new light, thinking of them in terms of a practice that is found on the field, within the conception of Gramscian perspectives of hegemony and counter-hegemonic contestations.

(29)

3.3. Data analysis

The various forms of data collected in the field were transcribed digitally. To analyze the various transcripts, I undertook a process of codification of relevant patterns. The coding exercise consisted of two phases, as described by Bryman (2012): the first focused on inductive and open coding and the second on selective coding. During the former the ambition was to code the variety of concepts that emerged from the data, including topics related to the literature as well as new concepts and patterns that may be pertinent to the study, even if remotely, but still as an attempt to not miss any potential information. After this open coding exercise, I attempted to highlight the codes that emerged the most frequently (Bryman, 2012). This latter step was more difficult due to the fact that the sample size was relatively small. A lot of interesting concepts surfaced but were often only mentioned by only one interviewee, showing a lack of internal validity that hinders from drawing high quality results. Nonetheless, there is a sense of cohesion between the interviews, and the multiplicity of concepts that were discussed seem relevant to be talked about.

3.4. Quality assessment

The following section is an assessment of the quality of the data used in this research project. Because it is based on qualitative research design, and acknowledging the multiplicity of social realities that exist, the data will be judged by Guba and Lincoln’s four trustworthiness quality assessment criteria (Bryman, 2012): credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability. Subsequently, I will discuss the criteria of authenticity as outlined by Bryman (2012).

Before diving into the assessment, it is important to note that the data collection was affected by the Covid-19 crisis, as Italy went into full lockdown halfway through the fieldwork period (early March 2020), and interviews had been canceled even before that. Aside from the obvious and unfortunate hardships that came with the crisis; it also limited the amount of data I was able to collect. The lack of

(30)

interviews, which were planned to be my main data source, is an issue that I take into consideration when answering the research questions and determining the strength of my arguments. However, all data that was indeed collected are both valid and reliable, as I will assess in detail below.

Starting with the first criterion, multiple factors can be used to measure the credibility of the data. Firstly, there is the closeness of the researcher to the locality and its culture, as well as the inexistence of a language barrier. Originating partially from that place, I was familiar with its reality, and even if the research pushed me to investigate certain aspects I did not consider before, my roots also helped me build a relationship with the interviewees. In fact, it led to a creation of trust between the researcher and respondents, which is another enhancer of credibility. The length of the interviews gave me the chance to build up a good rapport, and also allowed me to delve into more taboo topics. Additionally, to increase credibility, a certain degree of triangulation was employed. In-depth, semi-structured interview was the main data collection method. These statements were triangulated with field observations and documents sent by certain groups (NGOs and cooperatives) that agreed to share their data. The main set back in terms of credibility relates to the low number of interviews, which fail in reflecting a wide variety of opinions.

The second criterion, transferability, concerns the possibility to carry out the research in other environments, which can be difficult because qualitative studies often reflect the subjective conditions of a group of people in a specific setting. In this research project, there are a few elements that need to be noted when assessing transferability. Purposive and snowball sampling was used, making sample selection bias inevitable, and the limited number of respondents makes it less transferable. Furthermore, to a certain extent, the topic pertains to a particularly mafia-affected social reality, where the presence of criminal organizations is much more visible. However, the stereotype that mafie5 only exist in Sicily, or in Italy, should not dissuade

(31)

from reproducing the topic elsewhere; the corruption exerted by the mafie is actually translatable to many environments and takes many shapes and forms. This argument, and the more general context and peculiarities of the study are more elaborated in the Chapter 4. By providing so-called “thick description” (Bryman, 2012) and a thorough theoretical framework, I hope to increase transferability and encourage follow-up research.

To comply with the criteria of dependability and conformability, I attempted to be as transparent as possible in my procedure and analysis, but also in my subjectivity. For the dependability aspect, records of the steps taken in the data collection are kept and a so-called ‘Transparency Document’ was submitted to my supervisor at the University of Amsterdam, outlining the various interviews. A version of the document can also be found in this thesis under Appendix 2. Other than having access to documents, my supervisor also helped me frame my ideas and interpretations, ensuring that they were in accordance with the standards of good practice. Another type of auditing is done through a process of peer review with fellow researchers. While I always tried to conduct the research in good faith, having auditors decreased the chances of being overly subjective and increased my reflectivity on the topic. For a more precise review of my positionality and its impact, please refer to the Ethics section of the thesis.

The final assessment point concerns authenticity, or the wider potential impact of the study (Bryman, 2012). The aim of my research is to highlight an issue and a possible solution to it. In so, I believe that valorizing practices, whatever kind they may be, is one of the main take-aways of the thesis, and more engaged research on the transformational value of practices is desirable. The novelty of bringing together anti-mafia and agroecology is also a path to develop and I encourage future researchers to use my preliminary findings to elaborate more on the topic, or to take on the idea of looking at practices of movements that are not traditional allies.

(32)

Unfortunately, time constraints and lack of data made generating high-quality results challenging, and the overall authority of this thesis has to be confirmed with more evidence. With hindsight, I believe that associating with an NGO rather than going into the field as an independent researcher would have been more beneficial to monitor a subsequent impact of the research, and to engage in action the members of the study. Nonetheless, in an attempt to increase the awareness on the field about the topic, the thesis and potentially a version of the ‘Communication Product’ translated in Italian will be sent to the actors with which I interacted on the field.

3.5. Ethical considerations

Assuming the responsibilities that come with the role of a researcher, I made sure to follow a set of ethical standards during my weeks in the field and the writing of the thesis, as prescribed the Personal declaration of responsibility of the Master’s in International Development Studies of the University of Amsterdam.

During the phase of data collection, the first step was finding voluntary participants and explaining to them the topic of the interview and its academic purpose in an explicit manner. After consent, interviews were then organized according to the place and time most convenient for the respondent. At the beginning of the exchange, the respondents were reminded that they had the right to answer and decline questions at their discretion.

The subject of the thesis, and hence of the interviews, deals with sensitive matters, especially when undertaking topics like criminal behavior. Because of this, it was necessary to stress to the participants that the interviews remained anonymous, with no possibility of traceability to the respondents. Guaranteeing confidentiality was important to ensure the safety of the respondent and of the researcher. This matter was also taken into consideration when it came to recording interviews. During my first interviews, the respondents expressed that they did not want to be recorded, a decision which I respected. Realizing that this was intimidating

(33)

for respondents, I decided to directly proceed with the rest of the interviews by taking handwritten notes, with their approval, feeling like this would make them feel more at ease from the beginning. In the case of informal discussions outside of the interview setting, respondents were made aware of the purpose of my research, and notes were taken afterward. Respondents were always asked if they had questions or curiosities about my work.

Building trust was a crucial aspect for me because I wanted them to know that they could tell me their opinions about the environment they operate in and what they believed were the issues and the successes. As mentioned in the Quality Assessment above, I was able to conduct all the interviews in Italian directly, and I think that my Sicilian roots contributed to establishing a good relationship.

In general, my personal connection to the place, its language, and its customs was quite helpful because I was able to adapt my questions and my attitude to the environment. However, it was still essential for me to reflect on my positionality because knowing that as a researcher, I was implicated in the construction of knowledge, I had to make sure that my previous perception of the place did not bias my analysis. I did not want that my closeness to the place blinded me from seeing the reality of the place as someone that is not familiar with it would therefore I always tried to be professional and conscious of how my views and ideas were influencing the direction of the research: I was there to learn and not answer with my preconditioned beliefs.

(34)

4. CONTEXTUAL BACKGROUND

4.1. Socio-cultural background

Belonging to Italy, Sicily is the largest island of the Mediterranean Sea, and the region with the largest territory of the country. The region is known for its rich history: before the unification of Italy in 1861, Sicily’s position at the center of the Mediterranean basin was a crossroads for various ethnic groups and civilizations – among the most notable are the Greeks, Romans, Arabs, Normans and Bourbons (Encyclopædia Britannica, 2020). Each population left their mark on the territory, offering Sicily a unique heritage and culture that can still be perceived in the dialect, the monuments, and the culinary traditions. Regarding its administration, it is since 1947 one of the five Italian regions with statuto speciale (special status), meaning it has its own government and parliament, which govern over nine provinces (ibid.).

Still today, Sicily’s position has strong geopolitical relevance, in part due to its proximity with the African continent and the Middle East. It is in fact a major entry point into Europe for political and economic migrants, consequently making issues around migration a hotly debated argument for Sicilians. This is true not only in terms of people arriving in the island, but also in relation to the ever-increasing amounts of emigration, especially among the Sicilian youth. According to the National Statistics Institute (Istituto Nazionale Di Statistica (Istat)), in 2018 the population of Sicily amounted to 4.999.891 people (8,3% of Italy’s total). Since 2011, following Italy’s general trend, the natural population growth has been continuously dropping, meaning that there are less births than deaths (Istat, 2019).

4.1.1. Between agriculture and culture of food

As briefly mentioned in the Introduction, Sicily’s agricultural sector has always had a prominent role in the socio-economic development of the region and even with urban expansion it has kept its agricultural roots. Its fertile soils and Mediterranean climate allow for great variety and quality of production all year round. In the latest

(35)

census conducted by Istat (2012)6, they counted 219.677 agricultural enterprises, which represents about 13,6% of the national total. Most notable is the production of cereals, including wheat, especially in the most valuable variety of durum wheat - essential for the production of pasta - which already made Sicily fundamental for the Romans (the island was in fact called the “granary of Rome”). The production of olives is also quite large, which ensures excellent oil production which are exported to all of Italy and beyond. The island is also reliant on its cultivation of citrus fruits: lemons, oranges, mandarins and more. Finally come the production of wine, vegetables - most notably tomatoes, denominated “oro rosso” (red gold) - and meat. In Sicily, farms with less than 5 hectares of Utilized Agricultural Area (UAA) make up 76% of the regional total. Large farms (>50 hectares), on the other hand, amount to just over 2% (Istat, 2012).

What needs to be highlighted is that aside from the technical aspects, the economic benefit, and natural reliance of Sicilians on their lands, agriculture is an inextricable membrane of the society. Most probably because its peasant roots, many traditions are built around the peasant lifestyle and eating is more than a necessity, it’s a passion, a joy to share with family and friends (Migliorini et al., 2019). Understanding the importance of conviviality around cooking and eating is necessary to conceive the relationship that Sicilians have with the land. Not only are food traditions a central part of the culture, and Sicilian recipes renowned in the culinary world, but they also carry great amounts of agricultural, peasant knowledge, that has been passed through and enriched with each generation (Migliorini et al., 2019).

Nevertheless, while in the past Sicily thrived thanks to its agricultural sector, today it only barely lives of it. The ‘green revolution’ caused the region to lose the advantage gained thanks to its natural resources, as many products became cultivable in other – cheaper – places, with the help of greenhouses, pesticides, and other technology. Furthermore, the industrial development of agriculture increased the

(36)

scale of farms and factories, who were able to sell to the large distribution at more competitive prices compared to the small holders. Sicily fell behind, and in many aspects, it still has not fully committed to the entrepreneurial style of farming. In fact, as previously mentioned, a big majority of the agri-food enterprises are micro or small, a characteristic that makes them vulnerable in the market (Migliorini et al., 2019; Istat, 2012).

4.1.2. Today’s scenario

It is difficult to determine the factors can be attributed to be the cause of Sicily’s socio-economic stagnation, if not decline. The issues faced by Sicily’s agricultural sector are caused on one hand by global trends, namely the agri-food crisis, and on the other by local phenomena, such as the lack of application of the legal system accompanied by the perennial existence of corruption and the infamous presence of the mafia (as will be discussed in the following section). Sicilian’s perceptions of themselves or Sicilianità, has also often been seen as a factor holding-back change. This mindset is particularly well represented by the quote “if we want things to stay as they are, things will have to change" (“se vogliamo che tutto rimanga com'e' bisogna che tutti cambi ”), meaning that even if situations appear to change, the substance and structure do not. Taken from Lampedusa’s book "The Leopard" (Il Gattopardo) about the unification of the Sicilian reign with Italy, it has been interpreted as fatalism and apathy towards transformation, pushing forward the idea that it is not worth putting effort in change (Milan Martin & Russo, 2016). Whether the sicilianità of the population is the cause of the latency that the region suffers of is greatly debatable, nonetheless, because many have internalized it as such, and used it as a stereotype, the idea has become more dangerous than it ought to be.

Despite this common interpretation that people have about Sicily’s situation, in reality there exist policies that have been put in place for its revival, whether by the Italian government, or by European institutions, and there are examples of plans

Bridging Anti-mafia &amp; Agroecology: Practices for Sustainable Change