Reference Document FAMILY FARMING AND ACCESS TO RESOURCES (LAND, WATER)

8/3/2019 Reference Document FAMILY FARMING AND ACCESS TO RESOURCES (LAND, WATER)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/reference-document-family-farming-and-access-to-resources-land-water 1/21

1

Reference Document:FAMILY FARMING AND ACCESS TO

RESOURCES

Co-ordinator: GONZALO GALILEO RIVAS PLATERO / Agroforestry Research

Program and Sustainable Agriculture • ISABEL ADRIANA GUTIÉRREZ MONTES /Mesoamerican Agroenvironmental Program

INDEX

1. - Conceptualisation ................................................................................................................... 1

2. - The productive system and access to resources.................................................................... 43. - Some questions .................................................................................................................... 14

4. - Concrete demands and proposals........................................................................................ 17

5. - References ........................................................................................................................... 18

1.- Conceptualisation of Family Farming and access to resources

Family Farming is much more than a model of agricultural economics: it is the foundation of sustainable food production in order to advance towards food security and sovereignty,

environmental management of the rural and marine territory, and its biodiversity, a source of important cultural dimensions for each town and, in short, a fundamental mainstay of the

integral development of nations (World Rural Forum 2010).

Echenique (2009) indicates that there are four factors that differentiate FF from agriculturalcompanies:

a) The predominant use of the strength of family work.

b) Limited access to land, water and capital resources.

c) The use of multiple strategies and strategies for income generation.

d) Its marked heterogeneity, particularly as regards its articulation in factors and products

markets.



2

These indicators, allow Family Farming to be grouped into three different types:

a) Subsistence Family Farming. This first category is characterised for being more

focused on self-supply, it has a productive structure requiring very low capital andtechnology which does not allow it to generate sufficient income to guarantee family

welfare. Therefore, it must sell labour services elsewhere to obtain more income. If restricted access to capital and technology is maintained, the continuance in the market

is at risk.

b) Family Farming in transition. This type has a higher level of capitalization and better land resources that allow production for own consumption and sale of surplus on the

market. Although it does not generate sufficient economic surpluses to profit from thefarm and achieve greater productive development. The situation of this type of FF is

unstable as regards production and has greater dependence on public support toconserve the situation. It needs access to credit, technological innovations and better

coordination with the market in order to develop.

c) Consolidated Family Farming. Unlike the previous type, it has better access to themain factors of production like land, capital and technology. In addition, it has managed

to introduce itself in the market in such a way that it generates surpluses for capitalization and growth.

The reduction of the available agricultural area, the exhaustion of water resources, both made

worse by the effects of climate change, the reduction in performance based on losses in soilfertility and land grabbing will mark agricultural development worldwide.

The usable and/or available agricultural area is no longer solely dependent on food production,

but rather, it is increasingly becoming the substrate on which important non-food cropproduction is developed.

Meanwhile, the agricultural sector must continue attending to the food demands of a globalpopulation in constant growth, guaranteeing the production of healthy food and preserving,insofar as is possible, the natural resources it uses.

In this context, the development of research and public-private investment requires our full

attention in order to tackle the new global agricultural scene.

In reference to the Family Farming model that concerns us, we can state that family farmers inall regions of the world are especially subjected to pressures and risks directly related to access

to resources (natural, productive, etc.).



3

We must start from a key reality, and the truth is that a vicious circle exists between the lack of access to resources by family farmers, and more specifically by young people and women, and

the persistence of poverty and hunger in the world.

Consequently, this document will aim to decipher the special situation of this group of familyfarmers in reference to the subject of access to land and water resources, identified as the most

basic, in order to propose specific measures to aim to break the “vicious circle”.

In future documents we will have to take a closer look at access to other natural (biodiversity,

seeds, climate), financial (saving, loans and credit), technological, physical (infrastructure),human (training) and social resources (organisation, community).

The Latin American Example:

Family Farming (FF) on the Latin American continent represents the type of farming with thehighest number of farms. In accordance with a joint report from the Inter-American Development

Bank (IADB) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (Soto et al. 2007) approximatelytwo out of every three farmers from this region correspond to Family Farming. This type of

farming is characterised for having a highly fragmented productive structure where labour productivity is very low. As a result, it generates low income for the family unit. However,

despite these restrictions, FF has great importance in Latin America in the supply of food for thenational market as well as for export. In Brazil this stratum of farmers generates 87% of the

supply of beans, 84% of tapioca, 49% of corn and 52% of milk. In Ecuador, FF produces 64% of the supply of potatoes, 85% of the production of onions, 70% of corn, and 83% of the

production of lamb and mutton. A similar situation can be observed in all the other countries inthe region. Table 1 indicates the main characteristics of FF in various countries in the region. As

we can see, regarding the share in the value of sectoral production and the share in the totalnumber of farms there is a similarity between Paraguay and the other countries. Despite the fact

that Brazil and Mexico are among the 10 largest economies in the world, they still maintain astrong productive base in Family Farming (Gattini 2011).



4

Table 1. Main features of Family Farming in Latin America.

Characteristics Paraguay Brazil Chile Ecuador Mexico Nicaragua

Sectorial importance

Share of sectoral productionvalue (%)

32(*) 38 27 45 39 67

Share of sectoral employment

(%)

… 77 57 … 70 …

Number of farms

Total number of agriculturalfarms (in thousands)

289,6(**) 4.139 285 740 4.834 287

Share of total of farms (%) 84 85 87 88 78 98

Surface of farms

Medium surface of farm unitsassociated to Family Farming

(Ha)

5.5 26 23 7 6 16

Medium surface of unities not

associated to Family Farming(Ha)

624 433 1.090 71 … 343

Source: Information from Paraguay, own research based on Agricultural Census 2008

All other information: Technical Cooperation Project FAO-IADB (2007) “Policies for family

farming in Latin America and the Caribbean”

(*) Own estimates based on information on gross value of agricultural production of the BCP for

2008

(**) The farm area up to 20 ha is taken as a parameter.

Source: Gattini 2011

2.- The productive system and access to resources

In a global sense, around 90% of the farms worldwide have less than two hectares of land; they

provide jobs to 1,300 million people and they are the predominant form of farming in developingcountries. This type of farming is multifunctional, as it provides most of the rural employment,

food production and ecosystemic services, contributing to the preservation of natural resources,the custody of territory and biological diversity in rural areas. This type of farming is a mainstay

of the economy and significantly contributes to Food Security, not only in developing countries

(in many African countries it represents the main activity of the private sector), but also in



5

various industrialised countries of Asia and Europe. Not only does it feed families, but it alsogenerates employment and favours the growth of rural businesses, particularly in the micro and

small company sector. In turn, it is also important in urban areas, particularly in Asia but it is onthe increase in Africa and Latin America and the industrialised world. Urban and fringe farming

increases the quantity and quality of food available for the population living in the cities, which isalready over 50% of the world’s population. Almost one million people in the world practice

urban farming and produce approximately 15% of the world’s food (IFOAM 2010).

Furthermore, many of these farmers develop their farms on marginal and degraded soil, or they

often use unsustainable production systems that erode the soil and diminish biodiversity.Poverty is also a cause of erosion and over-exploitation of natural resources, leaving the mostvulnerable communities to food insecurity, climate change and natural disasters. Therefore,

many millions do not manage to generate sufficient income to reach an acceptable standard of living, and many poor rural people do not have access to land and other resources they require

for their own food. At present, sufficient support is not given to small farmers and ruralcommunities: only 4% of official international aid for development is allocated to agriculture, and

many national governments give priority to investments for the development of large-scaleagriculture. This situation is seriously affecting efforts to achieve the Millennium Development

Goals (ibid.).

In order to view access to resources of the family production systems (FPS), we can consider the diagram proposed in Figure 1 and from this, we can project and bear in mind that FPS

demand a series of resources according to the determining factors highlighted in the diagram.The diagram shows the interrelations of these determining factors of the farm systems and,

therefore, of the agricultural production systems. Some of these factors are inherent in theproduction system, whilst others are external. The main exogenous (external) factors that

influence the development of the agricultural production systems - policies, institutions, publicassets, markets and information - are indicated on the left of the Figure and are outside of the

dotted area that marks the limits of the system.

The availability of markets and supply prices has a direct influence on the farmers’ decisionsregarding their companies’ standard, in relation to the purchase of inputs and in the production’s

sales schedule. The availability of economic and social infrastructure in rural areas determinestransport costs and availability of services to which family farming has access –particularly as

regards human and animal health. Similarly, information and education services affect thestrategies and decisions of farming family. The technologies that determine the nature of the

production and processing and use of the natural resources are mainly endogenous (internal)factors, which is why they are represented inside the limits of the agricultural production system.

In general terms, the biophysical factors tend to define the set of possible agricultural productionsystems, whilst the socioeconomic factors determine the real characteristics of the agricultural

production system which can be analysed in a given time (FAO 2001).



6

Fig. 1 Diagram of an agricultural production system

(Taken from: FAO 2001)

In another way, we can consider that the farm systems are the product of three general

strengths: the characteristics of the physical-biologic environment, the characteristics of thesocioeconomic environment and the farmer’s goals and skills. Likewise, as ecological systems,

the farms cannot act outside of the limits set by the physiological processes that arise withintheir biological components: these are limited by the competition with other non-agricultural

biological processes and those characteristics of the physical environment. We also have tobear in mind the fact that the farms’ behaviour as socioeconomic systems is limited by the

extent of the farmers’ decision-making capacity allowed by the social system, by the value thatthe economic system assigns to the resources and products of the farm, by the availability of

land, labour and capital, as well as by the availability of technology and information and thecapacity of combining the farm’s components in the productive activity (Malagón and Praguer

2001).

Land (healthy soil) and water are the main limiting factors for agricultural production. Access tothese resources is very important, given that they can only invest in improving production and

caring for resources when a certain level of security exists. At regulatory level, the Right to Food

establishes that people or groups have the right to physically or economically access food or the



7

means to produce it. This last option involves measures to improve access to land (agriculturalreforms) and other natural resources with special emphasis on the poorest population.

Indigenous people, small farmers, shepherds, and stockbreeders, as well as fishermen andwomen are particularly vulnerable in the face of the violation of their Right to Food (FAO 2009,

IIASTD 2009, UN 2010).

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005a) states that the physical and/or functional

availability of natural resources is being reduced. Shortage will be an important factor in the

future. Soil degradation, water shortage and loss of biodiversity are the result of a system of

food production with high environmental impact, the greater use of fertilizers, pesticides andsingle-crop farming. In combination with the effects of climate change, which will include moreextreme climate phenomena, agricultural production is in danger. Therefore, any proposal to

improve access to natural resources must take into account their sustainable use. This lastpoint is decisive in order to assure a base for sustainable life, that is, to maintain the productive

capacity of the ecosystem. Therefore, we can highlight that agriculture can have as manynegative as positive effects on soil, water and air (IAASTD 2009).

Access to natural resources: Land

Land is a fundamental productive asset in the livelihood of the rural population. Access to land

is defined as the process via which people or groups gain rights and opportunities to occupyand use land temporarily or permanently. It is carried out via the formal or informal market,

social networks or ties of kinship, inheritance or awarding by the State or other institutions thatcontrol lands. Land rights are necessary to provide refuge, access to services, social and

political participation, source of income etc. In addition, it creates an incentive for investment aswork, money and time in order to maintain their productivity and increase their value (Quan

2006).

On the continents, the situation regarding access to land is very diverse. However, there aremany common problems, such as the concentration of land in the hands of a small few,

discrimination against women, indigenous people and farmers with few resources and other groups, national legislations that do not allow land to be registered in a simple and transparent

way, etc.

The average size of land of Southern farmers is between half a hectare and twelve hectareswhilst most of the land is in the hands of a few large landowners. In Peru, as in other countries,

the recent concentration of land has been detrimental to the redistributive effect of theagricultural reform of the 1970’s. Particularly in Africa – less so in Latin America – instead of

land-owning systems, methods of community organisation are predominant. In total, it is



8

estimated that over 500 million people do not have the rights to the land they work. (Burneo2011, European Parliament 2011).

In India, the size of the land owned has reduced considerably: in 1960 the average was 2.6

hectares and in 2000 it was 1.4 hectares. For Bangladesh, the Philippines and Thailand thefigures are similar. In Cambodia, land tenure is at approximately 30% and in East and South

Africa, arable land per capita has decreased by 50%. Despite the fact that is usually assumedthat Africa has large extensions of land available, only one quarter of the arable land can be

used due to the abandoning of farming, the lack of public investment, crop rotation, soil

degradation, irregular rainfall and water shortage. Furthermore, the use of land for theproduction of non-food crops and land grabbing contribute to the low availability of land for foodcrops. In some countries, the average amount of cultivated land is less than 0.3 Ha per capita

(FIDA 2008, Friends of the Earth Europe 2010).

In Thailand, a study revealed that men and women farmers who did not own land had access to

less credit. In Burkina Faso, on the other hand, land deeds do not stimulate investment. This isdue to the informal systems of land rights which do not require official deeds, guaranteeing the

de facto rights of use. In many cases, the costs of the formal procedure are too high for people.Therefore, we can highlight that the cultural and social context, as well as the different models

of land rights play a very important role (European Parliament 2011).

Other Asian countries like Pakistan and Bangladesh show that in this context, land tenure,however small, reduces the levels of poverty. In Cambodia, an interesting system of land

ownership establishes that the lands belong to the indigenous communities, however, anindividual can separate a part if there is no objection by the community (Quan 2006, UN 2010).

In India, various states have promoted subsidised land purchase programmes. Facilitating thepurchase is a great help for poor farmers. In other regions of the world, such as West Africa,

there are many different forms of land tenure and management. The land market compensatesfor limited access via inheritance and the intra-community system, particularly when dealing

with very small plots which can no longer feed their owners (Quan 2006).

In Europe, various different forms of land tenure are also present. There are family farmers withlittle land and others with very large extensions of land. Some countries have established laws

which do not allow land fragmentation (like Germany). In general, they have better conditions asownership is more affordable, although it can be difficult for them due to environmental

problems, soil degradation, low profitability of small farms etc. In the European Union efforts arebeing made to unify the relevant legal frameworks (USAID 2007, Comby 2010).

In short, access to land is a basic need for the welfare of rural homes, in order to stimulate

economic growth in the agricultural sector and for the reduction of poverty in rural areas.

Nevertheless, the lack of access to land and its very unfair distribution affects large sectors of



9

the rural population. In particular, access by women and indigenous people is very restricted.For that reason, access to land, fairer land distribution and security in land tenure rights are

central issues on the agenda and in debates on agricultural policy, Food Security and ruraldevelopment. Despite the land distribution and ownership rights regularisation programmes

undertaken over the last few decades, the demand for land and insecurity in land tenurecontinue to be obstacles to encourage investment and economic growth in the rural sector in

most countries. In that sense, the agricultural reform (as a land distribution measure) cancontribute directly to those objectives (FAO 2002, FIDA 2009, CEPES 2010).

In this delicate but necessary process, decentralisation is an important factor to assure theredistribution of land. In any case, irrespective of the State’s administrative organisation, thelocal communities and governments must have a say in the management of their lands. We can

highlight that the adaptation of laws and procedures is not sufficient to guarantee the equality of access, respect for the environment, resolution of conflicts related to land tenure and competing

uses (food production vs. biofuel production, mining, natural parks, etc.). It is very common for people and companies who already have land rights to have greater power, particularly as

regards their political representation and access to other resources such as credit, training etc.(FAO 2003).

Although security through ownership is very important, there are various models with which toachieve it. Not only can it be obtained via land rights markets, but rather by strengthening

customary systems and reviewing national ownership laws. These last measures would better protect the rights of the land users. We can point out that the redistribution of the lands is

necessary in order to reduce poverty and achieve a higher level of social justice, avoiding landconcentrations (UN 2010).

In the same way, it is recognised that access to land is a major condition, but not the only one,

in tackling the problem of rural poverty and Food Security. It is necessary to have anenvironment which allows the effective and optimum use of land and its resources, in the

production and generation of income. This environment includes credit markets, support system

for production (access to technology, infrastructure, training) and access to markets. In thisrespect, in order for the agricultural reform (or other land distribution mechanisms) to beeffective as a means of alleviating poverty and increasing food security, it must entail (besides

access to land) measures which contribute to creating the aforementioned environment (FAO2002, CEPES 2010).

In the technological environment, the lack of capital and inputs limits Family Farming, when

technologies are required which involve more inputs, capital, mechanisation or high levels of education, these requirements are a disadvantage for small farmers and make it “practically

unviable” for the appropriate technological innovations for family farming systems to bestandardised. This situation has generated “a very restrictive innovation framework” and a



10

general lack of adequate technologies for Family Farming in most countries of Latin America;this outlook can be taken to other regions of the world.

This very characteristic situation of Family Farming is joined by other factors, such as the

progressive marginalisation that it has experienced since the 1980’s, and the reduction in publicresources for research, particularly in matters regarding Family Farming, sustainability and

natural resources (Echenique 2009). According to this author, in the past, the transfer of technology depended on the national research institutes, the public extension services, the

universities and certain suppliers of inputs. Nowadays, knowledge is obtained from the agro-

industries and the market, the direct observation of avant-garde farmers and horizontal diffusionbetween farmers. This situation makes it even more difficult for small farmers to accesstechnology. In the light of this perspective, it is necessary to intensify regional and cooperation

efforts between countries for the promotion and development of innovations aimed at FamilyFarming, which are low cost and low risk, such as those implemented in the Trifinio region

(Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras) with vegetable farmers, who decided to leave theconventional system of production for the implementation of agro-ecological practices and

technologies (CATIE 2010).

As regards the effects of climate change, the change in climate regions, the increase in sea

levels and the greater prevalence of extreme climate events will lead to migrations and will forcepeople to adapt to the new conditions. These factors can have a negative influence on land

access systems. In conflict zones or areas affected by natural disasters, the difficulties of accessing land will be considerable. For instance, displaced people will lose their de facto

access (FAO 2008).

Access to water

Access to water and sanitation is a human right recognised in almost all countries’ constitutions

and in various international treaties, and it is constituted as one of the transversal axes of rural

development. The vital liquid plays a predominant role in agricultural production and in thequality of health of inhabitants, as it is the means that enables hygiene and it is the physicalcarrier of numerous diseases. Those in the sectors with the least resources encounter the most

health vulnerabilities, that is, the rural and indigenous people, who have the most restrictedaccess to drinking water compared to other sectors of society. Half of the undernourished

people in the world are farmers with little land and who depend on the access to water for foodproduction, health, income and employment (IAASTD 2009).

Limited access to the water resource for the various different activities carried out by small

farmers conditions the volume of production, defines the dynamics of the handling of theterritory and elevates the fragility of the productive systems. In particular, this last point

fundamentally affects the growth possibilities and the decisions the farmers take in relation to



11

the risks they take on attempting to incorporate new handling technologies. In this sense, weobserve the need to develop “water” technologies appropriate to the reality of Family Farming

and generate accessibility opportunities for them.

Until 2050, 800 million people will live in countries or regions with water shortages. Thesecountries are in the Middle East, North Africa, Mexico, Pakistan, South Africa, and a large part

of China and India. In these last two there are areas with many water resources and areas withvery few. In other very dry countries, the rivers are used to meet their water needs (Egypt,

Mauritania, Turkmenistan etc.). In these conditions, the irrigation of farming areas is fed from

underground water, which causes a high risk of exhaustion. In total, it is estimated that 70% of the water consumed is used for agriculture, in some Southern countries this figure even reaches95%. Therefore, the irrigation systems, and the selection of the types of crop and their

processing are important for the future of agriculture and require certain investment andinnovation to increase the efficiency of their use (FAO 2007).

The access to water limitations presented by farmers in the world lead to other consequences in

the territory, such as important displacements of the family group and domestic animals insearch of water and pasturelands, which increases the erosive processes and desertification of

soils, the scarce natural coverage is lost, the mortality of the stock increases and above all, it ispresented as a detriment to the welfare and quality of life of small farmers.

The access they have at present is what is offered by nature without practically any type of

technological intervention in the water resource other than ancestral knowledge, depending onmost of the cases of the randomness of the precipitations. Water shortage is not the only water

problem. The lack of appropriate technologies for handling water surplus causes losses in theproductive systems and affectation of the scarce communications channels in the communities.

We must highlight the need to strengthen the communities’ capacities for the management of risks related to water (drought, torrential rain, landslides, floods, etc.).

The water problem is complex and is displayed in multiple facets: women and children travelling

large distances on a daily basis to collect water from a source; contamination of drinking water from agro-chemicals, sewage filtrations, parasites and other waste; shortage of water for

irrigation due to capturing problems or due to excessive infiltration in the distribution system;concentration of the water by business sectors, always affecting the most vulnerable; problems

of excessive salinity or presence of minerals incompatible with human health, such as arsenic(present in some areas of Chile); obsolete irrigation systems that have come to a standstill due

to lack of public investment in infrastructure, delivered in these conditions to the consortiumswhich cannot undertake the improvements due to lack of resources; irrigation shifts that are too

far apart, and with insufficient flows to maintain the crops in optimum conditions. And the listgoes on and on.



12

In the watersheds, different players set out different strategies for access to water, configuring aheterogeneous mosaic of interests and power relationships. Such is the case of small farmers,

stockbreeders, mining industries and agro-industrial undertakings.

The pressure exerted by certain sectors with high economic power and political influence onquality aspects and availability of the water resource, does not allow a fair distribution of water,

generating strong competition over its use and propitiating the appearance of socio-environmental conflicts.

We can highlight that artisanal fishermen and women also have the right to access water resources and their products. For them, water contamination and overfishing represent seriousproblems that threaten their survival.

Climate change and land grabbing

It is expected that climate change, partly caused by agriculture, will increase soil degradationand water shortages in many areas of the worlds over the coming years and decades. Around

the year 2050, 200 million people may be displaced every year due to famine, environmental

degradation and the loss of land (OSRC 2008). The melting of glaciers and loss of snow on themountains due to climate change will increase the risk of flooding during the rainy season, andduring the dry season the water supplies of a sixth of the world’s population will be threatened

(Stern 2006). By the year 2050, it is believed that climate change will have reduced theavailability of water by 10-30 percent in dry regions (IPCC 2007). In short, this will force people

to share a “smaller and poorer pie”. The search for a new balance is already causing armedconflicts, environmental refugees and the externalisation of food production in some regions of

the world.

It is forecast that the new global climate system, which is still being designed in differentmultilateral processes, will increase the possible uses of these resources and will divert them

from their traditional food-related functions. Crop production in developing countries to respondto the global demand for biofuel promoted by law and the investments related to the carbon

market (purchase of carbon credits in agriculture or forests in developing countries) are just twoof the examples of a reality which is already knocking at the door of many developing countries

(Rosegrant et al. 2006).

We can mention the recent land grabbing in Southern countries, particularly in Africa and LatinAmerica. Although land purchases already existed, since 2008 there has been a dramatic

increase in them –between October 2008 and August 2009, 46.6 million hectares of arable landwere purchased, 32 million hectares of these in Sub-Saharan Africa- with the aim of producing

food for the population of other countries or other agricultural products. Land grabbing is a

threat to Food Security and Sovereignty, as the production is not aimed at the local or national



13

population, but rather, it is exclusively for export. In many cases, crop growing has not evenstarted on these lands. As regards water, the purchase of land brings with it a “hidden”

appropriation of the water present, which reduces its availability for the local population and cancause serious problems (European Parliament 2011, Pérez, Gistelinck and Karbala 2011).

High demographic growth, combined with the increase in urbanisation rates and the expansion

of unsustainable diet patterns, is among the factors that lead to the increase in the globaldemand for land and water, mainly due to the increase in the need for food. It is forecast that by

2030, global production of cereals and meat must be50 and 85 percent higher, respectively,

than the levels for the year 2000 in order to be able to respond to the expected global demand.The middle classes of many developing countries are adopting western eating habits (meatconsumption, to be precise). These habits are based on unsustainable stockbreeding models

and consumption patterns which are exhausting the natural resources and damaging theecosystems of the world10. With around 70 percent of the world’s population living in cities or

urban areas in 2050, compared to the current 49 percent, the demand for water and landaround cities will increase, together with the percentage of the world’s population that will

depend on the purchase of food.

The virtuous circle

Based on the approach of sustainable livelihoods and community capitals (Flora et al. 2004,

Emery et al. 2006, Gutiérrez y Siles 2009, Gutierrez- Montes et al. 2009) Family Farming canbe strengthened through a territory management perspective; where a sustainable and

balanced development of rural territories and the recovery of Family Farming is encouraged.This way, we can create spaces for proactive and articulated participation of all players with the

public and private institutions, with the aim of favouring a better quality of life for rural families(Andean Community 2011, MAG 2011, Sepúlveda 2008). Therefore, as we strengthen

community capitals in the territorial environment, opportunities will arise which allow farmersimmersed in FF to develop their productive systems in a competitive, sustainable, and

environmentally friendly way with better economic profits (Figure 2).



14

Fig. 2 Virtuous Circle towards Sustainable and Balanced Development of Rural Territories

and the Recovery of Family Farming (adapted from Soares et al. 2011)

The FAO is drawing up a proposal for Voluntary Guidelines on Responsible Governance of

Tenure of Land and other Natural Resources. Still to be published (European Parliament 2011).

3.- Some questions

How can we achieve competitive FF to tackle the challenges posed by production and

the market?

The competitiveness of Family Farming will be determined by the degree to which the farmershave the ability to innovate and increase their productivity on the level of the farms they own, by

moving forward to give the production greater added value, and due to the presence of efficientmarkets for goods and services that are outside of the farm: availability of all-weather roads,

infrastructure for commercialisation, financial services in line with the terms of production andfinally a stable macroeconomic and legal environment, which facilitates a fluid exchange of

goods and services, whilst minimising transaction costs. Consequently, the finalcompetitiveness of FF will be subject to the correct performance of each of the above-

mentioned levels, at farm level, regional territorial level and national level. In the nationalenvironment, for example, the country’s health status is a necessary condition for the

competitiveness of FF. The absence of this prevents the commercialisation of the agriculturalproducts in international markets.



15

In order to achieve the above, FF needs appropriate technology adapted to its environment,here technological innovation will play a predominant role as will participative research

processes that allow the adaptation of suitable technologies, machinery and equipment to their culture and their type of production. Likewise, the recovery of local knowledge will be of interest

in order to adjust the technological processes to the territories.

Can FF base its principles on a change of paradigm aimed at Agro-Ecology and with this

improve the situation of access to resources?

An example for a change of paradigm could be the groups of farmers in South America whohave started processes aimed at the development of Agro-Ecological Family Farming (AEFF).This type of farming can transform farms like few other agricultural systems towards better

productivity due to better soil fertility and stability, optimization of the water resource,diversification of crops and incomes, adaptation to climate change, better performances in

adverse conditions (water stress, hillside soils and top soils) and the creation of new markets.AEFF contributes to re-establishing, recovering, maintaining and enriching the biodiversity from

a respect for the natural capacity of the soil, plants, animals and the ecosystem. In the sameway, AEFF maintains the biodiversity of the agricultural landscape and therefore maintains

plague organism regulation processes via natural methods. From the point of view of theprotection of natural resources, this agricultural model bases its use on locally adapted varieties

and on participative plant and animal improvement programmes; this way the seed and breedvarieties are maintained at local level for future needs and continually adapt to the

environmental pressures caused by climate change. AEFF also makes a special contribution tofood security (Spieldoch and Murphy 2010, ANDEAN COMMUNITY 2011). The adoption of

agro-ecological systems can have an important impact as regards human, social and culturalcapital (for more details, see Rivas Platero 2007).

How does FF favour women’s participation regarding access to resources?

The knowledge of the situation and the contribution of rural women in the framework of Family

Farming must be viewed as an approach obtained from the population data available, as thosewhich refer directly to the agricultural sector (mainly the censuses) strongly underestimate their

participation.In order to achieve the empowerment of rural woman in the area of access to resources, gender

equality mechanisms must be encouraged, where opportunities for women are the same as for men. In the same way, opportunities must be created to allow women to access technical

training, education and market management services; which could be the step to ensure womenfarmers take on the role they deserve in society. Likewise, the circumstances must be right to

allow organisation in trade unions and therefore achieve community leadership.Some experiences which back the gender approach in Family Farming are those developed by

the National Council for Ecological Production (CNAPE) in Bolivia; which has started a Joint

Programme called “Integration of indigenous Andean ecological farmers to new national and



16

global value chains”. This programme aims to promote gender equality through the training of ecological promoters (2500 women and 2500 men) who strengthen their capacities regarding

agro-ecological production and access to markets. In the same way, in Colombia we have thecase of Agrosolidaria, an association which brings together men and women farmers from

different agricultural areas. In the situation of quinoa farmers, this activity is basically carried outby women, as they are the ones who maintain and make the decisions regarding this crop

(Higuera Mora et ál. 2011).

How to strengthen men and women farmers as regards knowledge management

resources?

As we have highlighted, it is important to establish a training system for family farmers in

primary production techniques and in rural micro-industries, leadership, rural development andmerchandising. This way, it would encourage the forward integration of farmers in such a way

that it would give added value to their production and it would minimise the loss of productionwhich normally occurs in the period of abundant harvest. The industrialisation of the production

will allow food to be conserved for longer periods, avoiding spending on food from which theresources could be allocated to the capitalisation of the farm. On the other hand, the application

of constructivist methods mediated by Field Schools will be of great help in developing thecommunities’ capacities in the territories (Figure 2).

In this process, the diffusion and socialisation of the information will be necessary; for this

purpose it will be imperative to develop educational support materials for the production andcommercialisation of the production. At present, the potential for the use of multimedia

technology (videos, photos and audio), has not been developed, when it could be a support toolfor the development of Family Farming. The use of Communications and Information

Technologies (CIT) and multimedia resources on the crop handling techniques can bedeveloped for the different areas and crops in a territory and they can be made available to the

population via Agricultural Extension Services, Municipalities, Governments and NGO’s whichwork with farmers. In the same way, database information centres on prices and

commercialisation volumes and their respective analysis in the country’s main markets can beplaced on internet platforms in such a way that the advisors or the actual farmers use the

information to plan their farms based on market demand.

How to empower the commercialisation approach of FF to capture more financial

resources?

At present, there is a general awareness among the population about the need to establish and

improve the living conditions of family farmers. This is due to the problems generated by internalmigration from the country to the city and the frequent conflicts that exist between peasants and

owners of farms or intensive capital and technology agricultural productions. The large trade

unions of farmers permanently insist on the need for the development and consolidation of



17

family farmers. This level of general awareness, coupled with a campaign to promote FamilyFarming products can act as a base for what would be the consumers’ demand towards a

“Family Farming” brand, in the knowledge that buying a product with this brand generates workin Family Farming. Parallel to this, the State must incorporate within its purchases, at least in a

certain percentage, the supply of food and other products from this sector. It will also beimportant to develop a technical assistance system aimed at improving the commercialisation,

where the farmers establish production strategies aimed at capturing the best marketopportunities, that is, allowing them to access processes for the identification of customers in

the home and foreign markets, with the aim of positioning supply and demand products, taking

into account the productivity, quality and competitiveness factors. Among these we can mentionthe supply of niche markets: “gourmet”, “market windows”, “Fair Trade”, “organic farming”“preserved identity” and other types of product differentiation. Linked to this approach, the

value of association should be encouraged, which will give farmers greater negotiating power with their suppliers and customers, a situation which leads to lower purchase prices and higher

sales prices.

4.- Concrete demands and proposals

To the Governments:

‐ They must regulate, through laws and regulations, the different forms of ownership anduse of land as well as the access and handling of natural resources. They must favour the poor, women, indigenous people, shepherds, young people and in general people

who cultivate these lands, taking into account the environment with special emphasis ontraditional and ecologically vulnerable areas.

‐ With this aim, they will create or formalise in a participative way the property registerswhich give a legal base and protection to the tenure of the land. They must be simple,transparent and accessible procedures for all the interested groups which prevent

greater land concentration.‐ In addition, they must take into account customary regulations and promote communal

ownership systems, by establishing collective rights.

‐ They will also develop, in a participative way, strategies for handling natural resourcesin favour of the poor based on traditional innovations and select and appropriateexternal interventions. They will focus on the respectful use of the natural resources

(efficiency, conservation, recycling, ecological methodologies etc.).

‐ It is crucial to strengthen local institutional capacities and improve the farmers’ accessto the training services, technology, market advice etc. This requires cooperation

between governments, international agencies, NGOs, the committed private sector,research people and organised groups.



18

‐ Develop participatory public policies to ensure universal access to safe drinking water and water for irrigation. Moreover, ensure universal access to basic sanitation.

‐ Moratoriums will be established on large purchase or renting of land to governments or foreign or national companies, with the aim of strengthening Family Farming and priority

access of the land and water resources for the production of food for domesticconsumption.

To Researchers and other External Agents

‐ They will need to translate the general ecological principles and the concepts on

handling natural resources into practical recommendations that respond directly to theneeds of the poor, and have an impact on the situation of small owners.

‐ The new technological approaches must incorporate agro-ecological perspectives or combine knowledge and skills of the farmers with those from external agents in such away that appropriate farming techniques can be developed and/or adapted. Emphasis

must be placed on participative processes that involve the farmers in order tostrengthen local research and the population’s capacity to resolve their problems.

‐ Research into the sustainable use of natural resources.

‐

Creation of platforms for the exchange of experiences, empowerment.

5.- References

Friends of the Earth Europe 2010. África: El acaparamiento de tierras. Un estudio sobre el

alcance y el impacto de los acaparamientos de tierras para agrocombustibles.Friends of the Earth Europe. Brussels. 36p.

Bernabe, M. D./Penunia, E. 2009. Gender links in agriculture and climate change. IsisInternational. Manila.

Braun, J. v.; Meinzen-Dick, R. 2009. Land grabbing by Foreign Investors in developingcountries. Risks and opportunities. IFPRI Policy Brief 13, April 2009. 9p.

Burneo, Z. 2011. El proceso de concentración de la tierra en el Perú. International LandCoalition, CEPES, Cirad.

CATIE 2010. Familias. El Boletín de las familias innovadoras del Trifinio. No.1. CATIE. CostaRica.

CEPES 2010. Legislación sobre la tierra agrícola. CEPES. Lima, Peru. 60p.Comby, J. 2010. Overlapping of land rights in Europe. Pedagogic Factsheet. Agence

Francçaise de Développement. Paris. 3p.COMUNIDAD ANDINA 2011. Agricultura Familiar Agroecológica Campesina en la Comunidad

Andina. Lima, Peru. 93p.



19

Echenique, M. 2009. Innovaciones institucionales y tecnológicas para sistemas productivosbasados en agricultura familiar. IICA. Costa Rica. 50 p.

Emery, M; Fey, S; Flora, CB. 2006. Using community capitals to build assets for positivecommunity change. Kansas, US, Community Development Society. 19 p.

European Parliament 2011. An assessment of land ownership and land grab on development –with a particular focus on small-holdings and rural areas. European Parliament.

Brussels. 32p.FAO 2001. Sistemas de Producción Agropecuaria y Pobreza. ¿ Cómo mejorar los medios de

subsistencia de los pequeños agricultores en un mundo de subsistencia?. FAO-

BM. Washington, USA. 40p.FAO 2002. Arrendamiento de tierras en América Latina: una alternativa de acceso para los

pobres rurales. FAO. Santiago de Chile. 35p.

FAO 2003. FAO Estudios sobre la tenencia de la tierra 3. Tenencia de la tierra y desarrollorural. FAO. Rome. 62p.

FAO 2008. Land tenure support sustainable development. FAO. Rome. 2p.FAO 2009. The right to food and access to natural resources. Using Human Rights arguments

and mechanisms to improve resource access for the rural poor. FAO. Rome. 70p.FAO; UNWATER 2007. Coping with water scarcity. Challenge of the twenty-first century. World

Water Day 2007.FIDA 2008. Improving access to land and tenure security. FIDA. Rome. 44p.

FIDA 2009. The growing demand for land. Risks and opportunities for smallholder farmers.Discussion Paper for Round Table 2, Governing Council 18-19 February 2009.

FIDA. Rome. 19p.Flora, CB; Flora, JL; Fey, S. 2004. Rural communities: legacy and change. US, Westview

Press. 352 p.World Rural Forum 2010. Documento conceptual de la campaña en favor de un año

internacional de la agricultura familiar-AIAF. Spain. 14p.Gattini, J. 2011. Competitividad de la Agricultura Familiar en Paraguay. CADEP/CINVE/IDRC.

Paraguay. 29p.GROOTS/UNDP. 2011. Leading resilient development. Grassroots women’s priorities, practices

and innovations. GROOTS/UNDP. Nueva York.Gutiérrez, I; Siles, J. 2009. Diágnostico de medios de vida y capitales de la comunidad de

humedales de medio queso. Los Chiles, Costa Rica. San José, Costa Rica. 138 p.Gutierrez-Montes, I., Emery, M. and Fernandez-Baca, E. 2009. Guest Editors Introduction: The

Sustainable Livelihoods Approach and the Community Capitals Framework: TheImportance of System-level Approaches to Community Change Efforts. Community

Development, 40 (2): 106- 113.Gutiérrez-Montes, I; Emery, M; Fernández-Baca, E. 2011. Why Gender Matters to Ecological

Management and Poverty Reduction, En: Ingram, J.C., F.A.J. DeClerck, and C.Rumbaitis del Rio (eds), Integrating Ecology and Poverty Alleviation and

International Development Efforts: opportunities and solutions. Vol. 2. Springer.

New York.



20

Higuera Mora, N.C.; Rivas Platero, G.G.; Gutiérrez Montes, I.A.; Sánchez Castro, A.; CárdenasChacón, J.M.; Cárdenas Bejarano, G.; García González, D. 2011. La quinua: una

alternativa para la seguridad alimentaria y medios de vida de pequeñas familiasproductoras. Consideraciones para políticas de fomento en Colombia. Síntesis

para decisores. June 2011. IICA/AGROSOLIDARIA/PBA/CATIE. Costa Rica.IAASTD 2009. Agriculture at a crossroads. Global report. International Assessment of

Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development. WashingtonD.C.

IFOAM 2010. El Rol de los Pequeños Agricultores en la Producción Orgánica. IFOAM.

Argentina. 4 p.IPCC 2007. WGII Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007: Climate Change Impacts,

Adaptation and Vulnerability. Chapter 3: Kundzewicz Z. y Mata JL. Freshwater

Resources and their Management.MAG. 2011. Política de Estado para el Sector Agroalimentario y el Desarrollo Rural

Costarricense 2010-2021. Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock. San José, CostaRica. 86p.

Malagón M. R ; Praguer Mosquera, M. 2001. El enfoque de sistemas: Una opción para elanálisis de las unidades de producción. National University of Colombia. Palmira

Site. Colombia, 190p.Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005a. Ecosystems and human well-being. Abstract. Island

Press. Washington D.C.Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005b. Ecosystems and human well-being. Vol. 1. Current

state and trends. Island Press. Washington D.C.NNUU 2010. El derecho a la alimentación. Informe del Relator Especial sobre el derecho a la

alimentación. UN. New York. 25p.Oxford Refugee Studies Centre. 2008. Climate Change and Displacement, en: Forced Migration

Review. Edition 31st October 2008. Oxford. Oxford University.Pérez, J.; Gistelinck, M.; Karbala, D. 2011. Sleeping lions. Tratados internacionales de

inversión, conflictos Estado-inversor y acceso a alimentos, tierra y agua. OXFAM.Oxford.

Quan, J. 2006. Land access in the 21

st

century. Issues, trends, linkages and policy options. LSPWorking Paper 24. FAO LSP. Rome. 87p.

Rivas Platero, G.G,. 2007. Hacia una nueva concepción del manejo de plagas: el enfoqueagroecológico. In: R.H. Lira-Saldívar, Editor. Bioplaguicidas y Control biológico.

p.203-212. Saltillo, Mexico.Rosegrant, M. W.; Siwa, M.; Sulser, T.; Ringler, C. 2006. Future Scenarios for Agriculture:

Plausible Futures to 2030 and Key Trends in Agricultural Growth. World BankWorld Development Report 2008.

Sepúlveda, S. 2008. Gestión de Desarrollo Sostenible en Territorios Rurales. Métodos para laPlanificación. IICA. Costa Rica. 416p.

Seshia, S.; Scoones, I. 2003. Understanding access to seeds and plant genetic resources.

What can a livelihood perspective offer? LSP Working Paper 6. FAO. Rome. 50p.



Spieldoch, A.; Murphy, S. 2010. Agricultural land acquisitions: implications for food security andpoverty alleviation. In: Land Grab. Woodrow Wilson International Center for

Scholars. Asia Program. p. 39-54.Soares, D.; Gutiérrez Montes, I.A.; Romero Pérez,R.; López Mera, R.V. ; Rivas Platero, G.G.;

Pinto Decelis, G. 2011. Capitales de la comunidad, medios de vida y vulnerabilidadsocial ante huracanes en la costa yucateca. Serie Técnica Informe Técnico

No.385. CATIE. Costa Rica. 54p.Stern, N. 2006. The economics of climate change: the Stern review. Cambridge. Cambridge

University Press.

USAID 2007. Land tenure and property rights regional report. Vol. 2.9: Eastern Europe. USAID.Washington D.C.

Documents

Reference Document FAMILY FARMING AND ACCESS TO RESOURCES (LAND, WATER)