Sustainable agricultural transitions. Developing systems of agroecological communities in Argentina by leticiapascual3

35°05’21’’S 62°39’48’’W

SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURAL TRANSITIONS

Developing systems of agroecological communities in Argentina

Politecnico di Milano Leticia Pascual

926305

Supervisor: Arian Heidari Afshari Academic Year 2020/2021 Master of Science degree Architecture and urban design 1

Politecnico di Milano Leticia Pascual

926305

Supervisor: Arian Heidari Afshari Academic Year 2020/2021 Master of Science degree Architecture and urban design

CONTENTS

Acknowledgements

Abstract

THE FOODSCAPE

THE AGROSCAPE

102

Looking for alternatives: AGRO ECOLOGICAL DESIGNS

108

PERMACULTURE

118

VISIONS

130

CONCLUSIONS

139

Bibliography

140

VOLUME I

INTRODUCTION

The faces of the countryside

DEFINITIONS

1.1. Countryside 1.2. Sustainability 1.3. Biodiversity 1.4. Agriculture 1.4.1. Industrial Agriculture 1.4.2. Agroecology

OPERATIONAL LANDSCAPES. Countryside and city, fuzzy boundaries

CONTEXTUAL IMPACTS

2.1. Planetary urbanization 2.2. Rural, urban and suburban population 2.3. The lost culture 2.4 Countryside tissues

3.1. Farming the planet. The environmental cost of industrial production 3.2. SOCIO-SPATIAL PROCESSES. Social inequality , exclusion and vulnerability 3.3. Food security, food sovereignty and environmental justice 3.4. Resilience 3.5. COVID-19 and the crisis of food systems

4.1. What we eat? What we produce? 4.2. Global land use for food production 4.3. Industrial Food chains 4.4. Alternative food chains and circular economy

5.1. Spatial configurations of production spaces. Countryside elements 5.2. The residential image 5.3. Changing scales. Towards the robotization of spaces

6.1. Agroecological principles for the creation of self-sustainable systems 7.1. Concept 7.2. Elements 7.3. Community strategies 8.1. Frank Lloyd Wright. Broadacre city 8.2. Kisho Kurokawa. Agricultural city 8.3. Archizoom. Non-stop city 8.4. Andrea Branzi. Agronica 8.5. Andrea Branzi. The weak metropolis 8.6. MDRDV. Almere Oosterworld 8.7. Archizoom. Agriculture and architecture. Taking the country’s side 8.8. OMA, Rem Koolhas. Countryside the future

VOLUME II

147

INTRODUCTION

149

ARGENTINA

151

The site and the hope of change

9.1. Argentina. History of a territorial transformation in the countryside 9.2. The pampean region 9.2.1. Weather 9.2.2. Wind 9.2.3. Topography 9.2.4. Vegetation. Native plants

Operational landscapes in Argentina

12.1. The Importance of developing policies towards a sustainable transition 12.2. IDEOLOGICAL CONFLICTS. Agribusiness sector against agroecology 12.3. INDUSTRIAL PIG FARMS in ARGENTINA 12.4. Progress and obstacles in the development of sustainable agriculture policies in Argentina

CONCLUSIONS

244

Bibliography

246

VOLUME III

251

INTRODUCTION

204

THE SELECTED AREA

254

“El Plato” countryside. Buenos Aires province, Argentina

14.1. Location 14.2. The industrial system 14.3. Operation of industrial chains on site 14.4. The time of industrial agriculture 14.5. The time of industrial feed-lots

210

11.1. Culture and civilization 11.2. The rise and the fall of the avant garde 11.3. Critical regionalism and World culture 11.4. The resistance of the place-form 11.5. Culture versus Nature: Topography, context, climate, light and tectonic form 11.6. The visual versus the tactile

A possible sustainable agriculture in Argentina

13.1. Designing the strategy 13.2. Stages in the transition 13.3. Social aspect 13.4. Real experiences

Proposal for an agroecological transition

10.1. Agriculture and livestock 10.2. National census of agriculture 10.2.1. Agricultural holdings 10.2.2. Agriculture in numbers 10.2.3. Surfaces treated with fertilizers and agrochemicals in Argentina

CRITICAL REGIONALISM

LAND RECOVERING. Process of agroecological transition 225

FLOODS

286

Interviews

298

The strategy

316

214

15.1. Footprints on the territory through time 15.2. Lack of public works 15.3. Flood interpretation maps

16.1. TOMAS MACKINLAY, Agricultural engineer 16.2. EVELINA FOGLIATTO, Salesperson of external inputs for agricultural production 16.3. MARÍA CAPPONI, small farm producer 16..4. HORACIO DANIEL PASCUAL, Member of the Deliberative Council of the municipality of General Villegas

Acknowledgements

I am very happy to have reached here and to conclude this stage. I am deeply grateful for the opportunity that the city of Milan and the Politecnico gave me in these two years. It was not easy for me to start the journey, coming alone from Argentina, the language and the adaptation. For me, this experience was not only academic but a very great growth in life. Today I feel that the university made me grow a lot as a student and as a person, challenging me day by day in my abilities and in my emotions. I feel that the course gave me many perspectives and visions for the future of what I want to do as an architect and I continue to discover it day by day. It is a reality that a large and growing percentage of young people in my country travel abroad in search of an opportunity to project and progress, things that at this moment Argentina cannot offer. The economic situation is very difficult there and the dreams of many are truncated everyday. This is why my thesis work is born from a concern of the world in which we live and specifically the environmental crisis generated by humans. The situation that I lived in the place where I was born is that of the destruction of nature generated by intensive industrial agriculture. My expectations are based on being able to contribute my grain of sand from architecture to a change in society and the way we live today.

in the development of the research. I also thank his family, who gave me access to do field research in “El Plato” coutryside, a space that was fundamental for the development of the project and the understanding of the specific management of agriculture and livestock in the northwestern area of Buenos Aires province. I also want to extend my thanks to the local people who agreed to carry out an interview on the subject and were of great help to have a realistic vision of the possibility of developing a new perspective for the territory. Thank you Evelina, Tomás, María and Horacio. Finally, my infinite thanks to Sofi who was like my sister and she was always there to help me since I started the master, and of course thanks to the entire group of Argentines and Colombians who were my family, friends and unconditional support in Milan. I think I came to this city as one person and ended my studies as another. In Argentina I finished my studies as an architect and had various work experiences before i came. Today, thinking ahead, this thesis research made me propose other perspectives of my objectives as an architect, and I would like to gain practical experience on what I learned, be able to return later to my country and put my head in the real development of these ideas.

Milan gave me a home for two years where I learned a lot. First of all I want to thank my thesis tutor Arian, who was my professor in the first Master’s Laboratory and from day one he trusted me, he gave me his constant support and help, and whom I respect and admire. These years would definitely not have been possible without my family, who, physically far away, are with me every day accompanying me from strength and heart. Thank you for never leaving me alone and believing in my projects: mom, dad, Lucre, Guille and Juli. A special thanks to Tomi, my life partner, who accompanies me in everything and also gave me technical help from his knowledge as an agronomist 8

ABSTRACT

The desire of people not to live in crowded cities and return to contact with nature is increasingly recurring. The world population is growing rapidly and therefore, what will the new vision of urbanizations be like? At the same time, there is a topic that is beginning to resonate more and more, directly linked to the ways of doing agriculture in terms of food production. Scientific evidence confirms that we are approaching a turning point in climate change, with feedback on processes that will accelerate deterioration on a global scale. Urban food systems not only contribute significantly to climate change, they are also very vulnerable to it.

understand the political and social obstacles towards a sustainable transition and what are the initiatives that are emerging in relation to this. Finally, Volume III proposes the development of a conceptual project in order to implement a sustainable transition in a real site in the Province of Buenos Aires, where intensive production activities are currently being developed following the guidelines of the industrial model.

The aim of the thesis arises from a global problem of social and environmental impacts generated by the intensive growth of industrial agriculture. The exploration focuses on understanding these effects on a global scale and in Argentina, particularly in the central region, where the country’s maximum intensive monoculture production is currently being developed. At the same time, the objective consists in analyzing the incentives of change in the area, taking into account that in other parts of the world there are already agro ecological transitions and alternatives for agricultural production on the part of farmers and entities that do not decide to turn a deaf ear to these negative and global consequences. At the same time, it is necessary to understand what are the political and social obstacles that hinder the change towards these transitions in the country. Because the challenges of rapid urbanization and limited global resources have become much more pressing, there is a need to find alternative design approaches that will enable us to consider the large scale differently than we have done in the past. The thesis consists of three volumes. The first develops in depth theory and definitions of the topics that comprise industrial agriculture and

Social distance is a popular term in the current context of COVID-2019. How does it translate to the future of architecture in the countryside?

the possible alternatives for change, from a global and generalized scale. The second volume aims to internalize the characteristics of Argentina,

Is the need for social distancing going to make the desire to leave the city and reconnect with nature grow even faster?

analyzing the current conditions of biodiversity and impacts generated by the industrialization of agriculture. At the same time, it seeks to 10

ABSTRACT

Il desiderio delle persone di non vivere in città affollate e di tornare a contatto con la natura è sempre più ricorrente. La popolazione mondiale sta crescendo rapidamente e, quindi, come verrà vista questa urbanizzazione? Allo stesso tempo, c’è un tema che comincia a risuonare sempre di più e che è strettamente e direttamente legato ai modi di fare agricoltura in termini di produzione alimentare. Le prove scientifiche confermano che ci stiamo avvicinando a un punto di svolta del cambiamento climatico, con feedback sui processi che accelereranno il deterioramento su scala globale. I sistemi alimentari urbani non solo contribuiscono in modo significativo al cambiamento climatico, ma sono anche molto vulnerabili.

comprendere gli ostacoli politici e sociali verso una transizione sostenibile e quali sono le iniziative che stanno emergendo in relazione a questa. Infine, il terzo Volume propone lo sviluppo di un progetto concettuale al fine di attuare una transizione sostenibile in un’area localizzata nella provincia di Buenos Aires, dove sono attualmente in corso attività di produzione intensiva seguendo le linee guida del modello industriale.

Lo scopo della tesi nasce dal problema globale degli impatti sociali e ambientali generati dalla crescita intensiva dell’agricoltura industriale. La ricerca si concentra sulla comprensione di questi effetti su scala globale e in Argentina, in particolare nella regione centrale, dove si sta attualmente sviluppando la massima produzione di monocoltura intensiva del paese. Allo stesso tempo, l’obiettivo consiste nell’analizzare gli incentivi al cambiamento del territorio, tenendo conto che in altre parti del mondo esistono già transizioni agroecologiche e alternative alla produzione agricola da parte di agricoltori ed enti che non decidono fare orecchie da mercante a queste conseguenze negative e globali. Allo stesso tempo, è necessario capire quali sono gli ostacoli politici e sociali che ostacolano il cambiamento verso queste transizioni nel Paese. Poiché le sfide della rapida urbanizzazione e delle limitate risorse globali sono diventate molto più pressanti, è necessario trovare approcci di progettazione alternativi che ci consentano di considerare la grande scala in modo diverso rispetto a quanto abbiamo fatto in passato. La tesi si compone di tre volumi. Il primo sviluppa in profondità teoria e definizioni dei temi che compongono l’agricoltura industriale e le possibili alternative di cambiamento, su scala globale e generalizzata. Il secondo volume si propone di interiorizzare le caratteristiche dell’Argentina, analizzando le attuali condizioni di biodiversità e gli impatti generati dall’industrializzazione dell’agricoltura. Allo stesso tempo, cerca di 12

La distanza sociale è un termine popolare nell’attuale contesto di COVID-2019. Come si traduce nel futuro dell’architettura in campagna? Il bisogno di allontanamento sociale farà crescere ancora più velocemente il desiderio di lasciare la città e riconnettersi con la natura? 13

RIA L A G RI C

ial

so c

T US N

lt u

re d

e si g n s T R A NS

ES O

er m

The faces of the countryside

ES OF SHAR E

n v ir

N IT I

o n m ental an d

VOLUME I

E C O LO G Y

i n g b i o d iv e r si t y

ver

iq u e s

Countryside

th o dologies

chn

ITIO

N 14

t ic

LI MI T

rac

c pa

g oo d p

S US

S CE

I T IO N

NS RA

INTRODUCTION

Volume I attempts to analyze the path and transformations generated by the introduction of industrial agriculture, worldwide and in parallel on the Argentine scale, where volume II will study in more depth. Key concepts for understanding the process are defined, product chains and flows, population dynamics, and the components of an industrial agriculture landscape are studied. In addition, the theory of sustainable production alternatives are proposed, which could generate diverse future scenarios in the face of the current threat of limited natural resources. In these alternatives, the concepts and approaches are analyzed from the design point of view, taking into account elements that will be useful in the development of the final project. Finally, various visions are exposed and manifested, made by professional architecture studios, at different times in history to the present, through criticisms of the homogenization of the landscape, highlighting views towards the rigid structures that define the countryside until reaching very current exhibitions that keep the countryside as a starting point for design and architecture and as a worrying unknown in the face of environmental problems.

industrialization of agriculture

the idea becomes more global

GLOBALIZATION

paradigm shift

PLANETARY URBANISATION

1972

SUSTAINABILITY RESILIENCE 1974 1978

food security

permaculture

1985

BIODIVERSITY

1990

Conference on environmental issues. It marked a turning point in the development of international environmental politics.

2016 PARIS AGREEMENT

GREEN REVOLUTION

Stockholm Conference UNCHE

1968

ECOLOGY

Clarification note: the Volume I develops topics that unfold globally and when they are analyzed from the local perspective (Argentina), the texts are written in green.

Agreement on climate change mitigation, adaptation, and finance. The aim is to keep the increase in global average temperature to well below 2 °C

1935

1850

AGROECOLOGY

Global warming

1928

1869

Roadmap of terminologies

1996 FOOD

SOVEREIGNTY

2020 19

DEFINITIONS

1.3 1.1

Countryside

“Land not in towns, cities, or industrial areas, that is either used for farming or left in its natural condition.” Cambridge dictionary We could say that the countryside is everything that is not the city. 1.2

Sustainability

“Today humanity uses the equivalent of 1.6 planets to provide the resources we use and absorb our waste. This means it now takes the Earth one year and eight months to regenerate what we use in a year.“ (Global footprint network)

“A sustainable development is the development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” United Nations, 1987. “A Sustainable Agriculture is one that maintains over time the flow of goods and services that satisfy the nutritional, socioeconomic and cultural needs of the population, within the biophysical limits established by the correct functioning of the natural systems (agroecosystems) that support it ”(Sarandón, 2006). In order to meet sustainability and meet the needs of current and future generations, the style of agriculture must be able to be maintained over time. For this, a series of requirements must be met. The lack of compliance with them calls into question, in the short or long term, sustainability. This agriculture should be: 1) Sufficiently productive (depending on the level of analysis). 2) Economically viable (long-term and accounting for all costs). 3) Ecologically sound (preserving the natural resource base and that preserves the integrity of the environment at the local, regional level and global). 4) Culturally and socially acceptable. It is clear, therefore, that sustainability is a complex multidimensional concept because it includes the simultaneous fulfillment of several objectives or dimensions: productive, ecological, temporal, economic and sociocultural. These objectives are equally important, of simultaneous fulfillment, and are not replaceable with each other. 20

Biodiversity

Biodiversity or biological diversity is defined as “(...)the variability between living organisms of all types or origins, including, among others, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part. This includes diversity within species (genetics), between species (specific) and ecosystems” (UNEP, 1994). The Convention on Biological Diversity explicitly recognizes “the intrinsic value of biodiversity and of ecological, genetic, economic, social, scientific, educational, recreational, cultural and aesthetic aspects of biological diversity and its components ”.

Biodiversity in agroecosystems

Biodiversity (BD) is the basis of life on the planet and of the sustainability of agroecosystems. In addition to being a source of genes, it provides a variety of ecological services that, among other things, make it possible to reduce the use of external inputs. However, BD is not always properly considered or valued from the conventional agriculture approach. The industrial agriculture model is based on simplifying the agroecosystem until it is reduced to a few biological components of high economic value. The result of this is an artificial system that requires constant human intervention by means of inputs, in order to control its operation. For a long time, the production model of Argentine Pampean region (and also of the Southeast Region of the Province of Buenos Aires) was characterized by the alternation between agriculture and livestock. The producer planted winter crops such as wheat, oats, and barley, and summer crops such as sunflower and corn. Bovine farming was a complement to agriculture whose functions (in addition to generating a product) were to take advantage of stubble and reduce weeds, among others. A supposed higher profitability provided a marked agricultural development in the region. Livestock activities were replaced by agricultural activities highly dependent on inputs (due to the increasing fragility of the productive system) and with increasing levels of toxicity both for man, for the agroecosystem and for the environment. It is essential to identify those key components of biodiversity in agricultural production systems, responsible for maintaining natural processes and cycles, and to monitor and evaluate the effects of different agricultural practices and technologies on those components. 21

1.4

Agriculture

Agriculture has existed since immemorial time and it could be said that it will exist forever. However, for most of its history on the planet, the human species did not practice agriculture: it adapted to nature, living on hunting and gathering. Agricultural systems represent between 50 to 70% of the terrestrial ecosystems in most countries. Agriculture consists of modifying ecosystems to achieve the production of few or of an “economically profitable” species.

Any type of agriculture implies a simplification of the system and a significant reduction in biodiversity.

1.4.1

Industrial agriculture

World agriculture, and particularly that of Argentina, has faced important techno-productive transformations in the last twenty years. The so-called industrial agriculture and its bio-mass production model has lost the significant focus that it should have had on food and its access as the main north. New technologies designed to respond to financial and technological gigantism are facilitating an expansive process that demands basic natural resources (land, water, biodiversity) and systematically needs fewer working people and families in the rural sector. Modern agriculture, based on the massive application of agrochemicals and the use of cultivars with high yield potential, had a high growth in the last decades. This technification of agriculture has increased the production of food in the world, but this has been based on the use of massive doses of expensive and/ or scarce inputs: fossil fuels, pesticides, fertilizers, hybrid seeds, machinery, water for irrigation, etc. In turn, this model of agriculture has also failed to solve the problem of hunger in the world population.

The green revolution The term “Green Revolution” was coined in 1968 by William Gaud, (administrator of the United States Agency for International DevelopmentUSAID), to refer to the surprising and sudden increase in grain production that occurred in several developing countries to mid-1960s. This increase was the

product, among other things, of the diffusion of varieties of wheat and rice with high yield potential developed after the Second World War, with the aim of solving the problem of hunger in the world. This movement considered that the problem of hunger in some regions of

the planet, was due to the low productivity of the crops and this to the inadequate choice of the genotypes that were used, since they did not support high doses of fertilizer. The Green Revolution developed rice and wheat that could withstand high doses of fertilizers without tipping over. In our country, these materials, especially wheat, came from one of the most famous of the International Centers created by the Green Revolution: CIMMYT, based in Mexico. This meant a substantial change in the agricultural paradigm prevailing so far: the availability and use of numerous varieties adapted to the natural variability of agroecosystems, was replaced by a few varieties with high yield potential, which offered a theoretical promise of high productivity per unit area, as long as the environment adapts to the requirements. This attempt to provide the appropriate environment for the new varieties implied that, gradually, fertilizers, agrochemicals for the control of pests, diseases and weeds, machinery, fuels and irrigation were massively incorporated. It was no longer necessary to have and know a large number of varieties adapted to different conditions: a few and well performing were all that was needed, as long as they were given the necessary conditions to express their potential. The Green Revolution introduced and generalized the idea of modifying the environment to allow the high yield potential of few varieties to be expressed instead of conserving high genetic variability to adapt to the great diversity of environments that make up agroecosystems. It cannot be denied that this model achieved an increase significant agricultural production and productivity. The problem with this approach is the high environmental cost it generates. In Argentina, since the mid-nineteenth century, the entire country has been closely related to economic development directly linked to the exploitation of natural resources and in particular to agricultural production. Before the green revolution, the mentioned activity was characterized by a large percentage of extensive livestock, mixed with rotating crops, thus maintaining the fertility of the soils, achieving an economic and sustainable productive cycle. The native pastures of the Pampean region needed to be improved with more nutritious alfalfa for breeding, therefore agriculture in the area began based on livestock. The turning point with the Green Revolution, brought its direct effects to Argentina since the 1980s. Because the management of agricultural systems highly technified is based on: the inefficient use of energy, coming mainly from non-renewable sources (fossil fuels), intensive land use practices (with deterioration of their productive properties), depletion of a vital resource such as water, the increasing application of dangerous and less efficient pesticides and the use of a limited number of improved crop varieties (whose genetic base is running out), this agriculture cannot be considered sustainable for long. 23

mi ca ls na gro ch e nc eo de

pe n

UEN CES ing

SEQ

Gr ow

CO N

MONOCULTIVES

ils

o ss o L

v cti

ro fp

cit

a cap

so of

Types of agriculture produced in the world

t los

rien Nut

Contamination of food, water, soil and people by pesticides and products derived from the use of synthetic fertilizers

Loss o s Ha

f biod

sol ved

ty, sim

ani

att

tion o

f hab

itats

los

lob

rob

ing

wa of et

lan

Source: made by the author

plifica

p the

g to er ion ay rty ut e l ove rib on al p nt oz rur Co the of of lem

t no

org

iversi

a re

1400 U$S millions

1200 1000 800 600 400

Industrialized agriculture

Plantation agriculture

Intensive traditional agriculture

Shifting cultivation

Nomadic herding

No agriculture

200

herbicides

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995

1994

insecticides

Evolution of the consumption of agrochemicals in Argentina in the period 1994-2008 Source: made by the author based on Sarandón, 2014. 24

Source: made by the author based on “Food Production. How is food produced? Industrial Agriculture Traditional Agriculture.” www.slideplayer.com/slide/9948604/ 25

1.4.2

Agroecology

The concept of agroecology started to gain importance in the 1980s, where the effects of the green revolution became visible and a search for an alternative of rural sustainability began. ‘Agroecology is explained in different ways as the science that studies and attempts to explain the functioning of agroecosystems, and that deals primarily with biological, biophysical, ecological, social, cultural, economic and political mechanisms, functions, relationships and design; as a set of practices that allow cultivating in a more sustainable way without using dangerous chemicals; as a movement that tries to make agriculture more ecologically sustainable and more socially just’ (Wezel, Bellon in Rosset and Altieri, 2018). Agroecology is not the use of techniques or practices, but rather a series of principles, both ecological and social, that are translated into production systems and technologies, depending on environmental, social, economic, and cultural conditions. There has to be a participatory process, where the peasants are the fundamental actors. Agroecology goes beyond organic agriculture, they are systems capable of self-subsidizing their operation, designing ecological systems, with flowers, intercropping, among others. The system uses this complexity, to diversify production by combining plants, with different trees, animals in order to reconstitute at the field level the interaction between these different elements of nature. It is important to realize that agroecology is highly dependent on the local context, the local resources, the quality of the soils, the type of tree that you can grow, the type of combination of different plants and therefore it is not very easy to present agroecology as one single recipe that should be applied everywhere. Some attributes or properties that may be interesting to be evaluated in agroecosystems are: productivity, efficiency, resilience and stability. Productivity refers to the production of total biomass (forage) or any particular organ (grain, tuber) per unit area in a given period of time. Process efficiency is the relationship between inputs that enter and those that go out. This can refer to energy, nutrients, or water, among others. A system can be highly productive but not very efficient because this productivity requires a high quantity of some input, as in the case of some modern food production systems. Stability is an important attribute of the system, and refers to the resistance to change. It is also related to another attribute, resilience, which is the ability to recover after suffering a disturbance. A system can be highly 26

productive but very unstable or fragile. The resilience capacity of Agroecosystems has acquired fundamental importance in recent years due to the awareness of climate change and variation and the vulnerability that this implies for many agroecosystems (see ch. 3.4). The importance of agroecology as an alternative resides on a basis of social, cultural and political change. This alternative seeks to generate awareness regarding the global damage that is being generated to ecosystems, and it is not only born of a change in agricultural producers, but also that social movements are playing a fundamental role in the struggles in search of public policies that defend sustainable methods of production, as well as environmental and social justice and access to food for all, especially in developing countries. Around the world, initiatives towards agroecology are beginning to emerge and this is born mainly from scholars who begin to share, communicate and technically disseminate the issue, groups made up of small producers who go out to protest in search of beginning to be recognized as a strong entity and the initiative of farmers who begin to apply theories in their territories is essential, spreading experiences and reinforcing the ideology that an agro ecological transition is possible in terms of economic and environmental performance, in addition to having a deeper objective of shortening food chains and achieve food sovereignty.

PLOT

Polyculture; plants and animals

NUTRIENTS

FIELD

Insectary strips

WATER

Crop rotation/ cover crop

LANDSCAPE

Crop Border/ Buffer strips

SOILS

Biological corridors

PEST CONTROL

Nature reserves

POLLINATION

Representation of the networks between ecosystem elements created by agroecology, obtaining a great diversity of landscape, improvement in soils, water, among others. Source: made by the author based on Altieri M A., 2010.

OPERATIONAL LANDSCAPES Countryside and city, fuzzy boundaries

2.1

Planetary urbanization

“The capitalist form of urbanization continues to produce contextually specific patterns of agglomeration, but it also relentlessly transforms non-city spaces into zones of high-intensity, large-scale industrial infrastructure–operational landscapes”. (Brenner, 2016)

geographies made up of operational landscapes must be seen in conjunction with the urban as an integral terrain of the urbanization process as a whole. Geographies of extended urbanization have been essential to the consolidation, growth and restructuring of urban centers. The authors also make an analytical distinction between concentrated and extended forms of urbanization. The first denomination corresponds to densely settled zones (cities, metropolitan regions, megacity regions, and so forth), whereas the second one refers to infrastructures for energy, tourism, telecommunications and transportations, as well as resource extraction sites, agro-industrial production and waste management. According to Lefebvre, the process through which the uneven spatialities of the urban fabric are produced is contradictory, it falls into a schema of “homogeneity-fragmentation-hierarchy. The tendency towards homogenization is represented when capitalism produces a space that is a reflection of the world of business on the national and international level” (Lefebvre in Arboleda, 2016). But then there is a fragmentation given by social inequality (resource extraction requires vast amounts of investments in fixed capital in the form of machinery and infrastructure) and a dominant hierarchy on the part of the upper classes.

Metropolitan agglomerations are shown in red and the planet’s ‘used area’ is shown in black and grey. Agglomeration zones constitute only a miniscule percentage of the planet’s operationalised landscapes, which are mostly devoted to primary commodity production (agricultural cultivation, grazing, forestry), resource extraction, logistics and waste disposal. Data sources: European Commission Joint Research Center in Brenner Neil and Katsikis Nikos, 2020. Operational landscapes, Hinterlands of the Capitalocene.

To understand the impact of industrial agriculture as a global phenomenon that intensively modified territories, it is appropriate to place the theoretical framework of Planetary Urbanization. This theory was initially treated by Henri Lefebvre in 1970 in the book “The Urban revolution”. For him the population concentration that economic growth and industrialization demands was corroding the borders of a traditionally selfcontained urban form, making urbanization a boundless phenomenon (Lefebvre in Arboleda, 2016). He described Capitalist globalization as an “explosion of spaces” and at the same time a process of homogenization and fragmentation of territories. Later, the idea of Planetary Urbanization will be appropriated by Brenner and Schmid, who state that it is based on the creation of new urbanization scales, highlighting that urbanization processes are being regionalized and reterritorialized. There is no marked division between the urban and the rural, but rather the territories called hinterlands, operational landscapes or extended urbanization, are territories for the supporting of population centers and these 28

In Argentina, the operational landscapes are directly linked to the extraction territories affected by intensive industrial agriculture and feed lots for fattening animals. These territories, specifically for 30 years, have been changing the quality of the soils, the environment and also the urban centers, which receive the negative effects due to their proximity to the resource extraction lands, but in turn are interconnected through services, transportation of seeds, supplies, machinery and even the producers themselves, who no longer have the relationship with the land of ancestral times, where the country house existed and the family lived next to the production. Rather, the producer lives in the city, and these lands that do not require too many employees, are only the extractive natural resource. It is important to highlight that the issue of operational landscapes, which today is seen as secondary compared to the urbanization of cities and important agglomerations, must take a main role to be studied and understood as a contemporary problem, especially the link between the two territories. The scholars that study the issue, highlight that the topic of hinterland areas has remained as “black-boxes”, there are some flows in and out, but no one questions what happens inside the box. The reality is that these territories occupy the majority of the planet’s land use (this vast planetary hinterland covers near 70 percent of the earth’s terrestrial surface), therefore the impact of what happens in them is very high, both on the environment and in all the cities of the world. 29

1.4

Land cover

Rural, urban and suburban population World tendencies

2018

Agriculture

Source: Global Forest watch. 2015

rural

Forest Shrubland Sparse vegetation

% 40

Wetland Settlement

39 38

world

rural

fewer than 500.000

500.000 to 1 million

1 to 5 million

5 to 10 million

10 million or more

100

2015

2010

2005

2000

1995

1990

1985

1980

1975

1970

35 1965

urban

Bare Permanent ice

Forest area

% 32 31.6

31.2

30.8

2018

2030

2018

2030

2018

2030

world

Africa

Source:World Bank data. 2016

2015

2010

2005

1995

2000

30.4

1990

suburban

Grassland

Agrigultural land

2030

Asia

Europe

2018

2030

Latin America and the Caribbean

2018

2030

Northern America

2018

2030

Oceania

Source: United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2018). The World’s Cities in 2018—Data Booklet 31

Urban and rural population projected

In the last 20 years, there has been a marked process of migration of the rural population to the city, in part due to the changes that have occurred in the productive structure and technology. Hand in hand with economic growth, a social phenomenon of great relevance took place: 2006 was the first year in which the urban population surpassed the rural one. Cities occupy just 3% of the planet’s surface, but they represent between 60% and 80% of energy consumption and 75% of carbon emissions. Rapid urbanization is putting pressure on freshwater supplies, wastewater disposal, livelihoods, and public health. Source:UN (2012)

Share of the population which live in urban versus rural area (majority indicates more than 50%) majority rural

majority urban

1960

1990

2020

2050

According to the 2010 National Census, 40,117,096 people live in Argentina. In the last 10 years (2001-2010 census) the country increased its population by 10.6%. The Pampean region is the most populous and has 26,573,593 inhabitants, which represents 66.2% of the total population of the country. On the other hand, the foreign population grew, locating mainly in the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires (13%), with the majority of the population coming from neighboring countries (207,889 inhabitants) and from nonbordering America (89,436 inhabitants). In the Argentine Republic, as in the continent, the urbanization process is growing. From 1947 to 2010, the urban population grew uninterruptedly, both in absolute and relative terms (World Bank 2015). By contrast, the rural population experienced a continuous process of decline. In the first census studied (1947), the urban population represented 62.5% of the total population of the country; for the year 2010, 92%. In the Province of Buenos Aires, this percentage rises to 97.2%, the highest value among the 23 provinces. Although a decline in the rural population was also observed in subsequent periods, this occurred to a lesser extent. Likewise, there are different factors, inherent to the rural world, that help explain the continuity of the decrease. Among them, we can mention the agriculturalization process promoted by technological factors and changes in land ownership.

Source:OWID based on UNworld Urbanization prospects (2018). Our world in data. 32

2.3

The lost culture

Industrial agriculture has not only generated ecological impacts; but also a cultural impact of invaluable consequences: the destruction of the knowledge accumulated during more than 10,000 years of interaction between human society and nature. Indeed, industrialized agriculture has expanded in much of the world by “ignoring” and “despising” local knowledge, which was viewed as backward, archaic, primitive, or useless. However, the disregard and ignorance of traditional cultivation techniques, and their ecological and cultural bases, caused them to be displaced and replaced for a long time by a “more efficient modern technology”. Likewise, it is recognized that the maintenance of cultural diversity is essential for the maintenance of biological diversity, since what is not known cannot be cultivated. From the cultural point of view, Agroecology understands that the intervention on agroecosystems must consider the local values and knowledge of rural populations and that they should be the starting point for generating rural development proposals. One of the most outstanding aspects of Agroecology is the force with which it introduces and highlights this sociocultural component. This is so because it understands that it is the farmer who decides to modify natural ecosystems to transform them into agroecosystems. There is a coevolution between agroecosystems and farmers that determines the distribution and design in space and time of the system components. The type and distribution of crops, animals and spontaneous plants, depend on the values, beliefs and objectives of the farmer. The style of agriculture that each producer chooses is related to their socioeconomic, cultural environment, their knowledge, interests, their relationship with the community, etc. The persistence of millions of hectares under traditional agriculture in the form of raised fields, terraces, polycultures, agroforestry systems, etc., document a successful indigenous agricultural adaptation strategy to difficult environments and comprises a tribute to the «creativity» of peasants throughout the developing world (Altieri, 1999). Undoubtedly, the ensemble of traditional crop management practices used by many resource-poor farmers throughout the developing world represent a rich resource for ecologists interested in understanding the mechanisms at work in complex agroecosystems, such as the interactions between biodiversity and ecosystem function or the use of natural succession as templates for 34

agroecosystem design. Traditional agroecosystems are the result of a complex coevolutionary process between natural and social systems, which resulted in ingenious strategies of ecosystem appropriation. Most traditional agriculture is place specific, evolving in time in a particular habitat and culture, and this is where and why it tends to be successful. Transfers of specific technologies to other places and contexts may fail, if soils, tools and social organization are different. This is why agroecologists do not focus on specific technologies, but rather in the principles used by traditional agriculturalists to meet the environmental requirements of their food-producing systems. In traditional agroecosystems the prevalence of complex and diversified cropping systems is of key importance to peasants, as interactions between crops, animals and trees result in beneficial synergisms that usually allow agroecosystems to sponsor their own soil fertility, pest control and productivity (Altieri, 2005). By studying these systems ecologists can learn more about the dynamics of complex systems, especially the links between biodiversity and ecosystem function (Altieri, 2005), thus enriching ecological theory, as well as deriving principles for practical application in the design of more sustainable farming systems. The strategy requires a detailed description of a natural ecosystem in a specific environment and the botanical characterization of all potential crop components. When this information is available, the first step is to find crop plants that are structurally and functionally similar to the plants of the natural ecosystem. The mechanisms that result in higher productivity in diverse agroecosystems are embedded in the process of facilitation. Facilitation occurs when one crop modifies the environment in a way that benefits a second crop. In some cases one crop may be planted as a diversionary host, protecting other more susceptible or more economically valuable crops from serious damage. Ecological studies suggest that more diverse plant communities are more resistant to disturbance and more resilient to environmental perturbations like drought. The challenge for ecologists is to assist resource-poor farmers in translating such principles into a variety of practical techniques and strategies to enhance production, stability and resiliency, depending on the local opportunities, resource constraints and the market. Understanding the ecological mechanisms underlying the sustainability of traditional farming systems and then translating them into principles that take various locally available and appropriate technological forms applicable to a massive number of farmers will be a key task.

2.4

Quick world views on cuntryside

Arable land (% of land area)

Arable land (hectares per person)

Cereal yield (kg per hectare)

4.12

10.5

0.5

2.65

1.18

Employment in agriculturere, female (% 1995-2020) 44

Employment in agriculture, male (% 1995-2020)

Fertilizer consumption (kg per hectare of arable land)

144

124

104

Crop production index (2004-2006)

Agricultural machinery, tractors per sq.km of arable land 204

756

150

634

512

Livestock production index (2004-2006)

The diversity of landscapes in the countryside around the world is almost immeasurable. The human being was anthropizing all the natural territory in each country in a different way, to exploit it with the best results and yields in production, and the methodologies vary according to the geographical position, the climate, the quality of the soils, the needs of the inhabitants, culture and politics of each place. But in almost all the cases, the industrial exploitation of resources can be observed. The purpose in this subchapter is to analyze just a range of completely different scenarios, taking cases from opposite parts of the world, understanding why they physically have specific characteristics in relation to the methods of land production and realizing the political and social context of the country.

Land under cereal production (hectares)

132

Food production index (2004-2006)

Countryside tissues

Permanent cropland (% of land area)

132

120

Source: World Bank Data 36

1. Shounguang, China

2. Hengjingzhen, China

3. Caolincun, China

10. Warrego Highway, Oakey QLD, Australia

11. Rottnest, Australia

12. Dandaragan, Australia

4. Duijvestijnstraat, The Hague, Netherlands

5. Brandwijk, Netherlands

6. Okkenbroek, Netherlands

13. Khanoda, India

14. Ganula, India

15. Dubacherla, India

7. Knud, Denmark

8. Luneborg, Denmark

9. Syke, Denmark

16. El Beheira, Egypt

17. Giza, Egypt

18. Az Zawiyah, Lybia 39

context

China

19. Wayside, Texas, USA

20. Moorpark, California, USA

21. Raritan, Illinois, USA

22. Santa Cruz, Bolivia

23. Hormiguerote, Bolivia

24. Guapamó, Bolivia

25. Neuquén, Argentina

26. Entre Ríos, Argentina

27. San Luis, Argentina

1. Shounguang, China

Density: 148 pers/km2 GDP p/capita region: USD 11,549 GDP p/capita Country: USD 10,839

Agriculture: China is the world’s largest producer and consumer of agricultural products. The country produces rice and is among the principal sources of wheat, corn, tobacco, soybeans, potatoes, sorghum, peanuts, tea, millet, barley, oilseed, pork, and fish. Major non-food crops, including cotton, other fibers, and oilseeds, furnish China with a small proportion of its foreign trade revenue. Agricultural exports, such as vegetables and fruits, fish and shellfish, grain and meat products, are exported to Hong Kong. Yields are high because of intensive cultivation. Animal husbandry constitutes the second most important component of agricultural production. China is the world’s leading producer of pigs, chickens, and eggs, and it also has sizable herds of sheep and cattle. The city of Shoungang, the biggest vegetable-producing area in Shandong Province, exports some 500 kinds of vegetables to the United States, Japan, Israel, Holland and over 30 other countries around the world. Besides being exported overseas, these vegetables have been sold to more than 200 cities throughout China. Vegetable products planted in all of the province has been developed to about 53333 hectares, with annual vegetable production reaching 4 billion kilograms. If we compare the production with a normal yield in one hectare of soy or corn, the annual production is 3500kg and 8000 kg per year respectively. In this case from Shonguang the yield is 74,000 kg per hectare.

100m

context

China

2. Hengjingzhen, Jiangsu, China

context

Density: 148 pers/km2 GDP p/capita region: USD 17,437 GDP p/capita Country: USD 10,839

Agriculture: The province has an extensive irrigation system supporting its agriculture, which is based primarily on rice and wheat, followed by maize and sorghum. Main cash crops include cotton, soybeans, peanuts, rapeseed, sesame, ambary hemp, and tea. Other products include peppermint, spearmint, bamboo, medicinal herbs, apples, pears, peaches, loquats, ginkgo. Silkworms form an important part of Jiangsu’s agriculture. China has a long tradition of ocean and freshwater fishing and of aquaculture. Pond raising has always been important and has been increasingly emphasized to supplement coastal and inland fisheries threatened by overfishing and to provide such valuable export commodities as prawns.

China

3. Caolincun, Shaanxi province, China

Density: 148 pers/km2 GDP p/capita region: USD 66,649 GDP p/capita Country: USD 10,839

Agriculture: Environmental problems such as floods, drought, and erosion pose serious threats to farming in many parts of the country. The wholesale destruction of forests gave way to an energetic reforestation program that proved inadequate, and forest resources are still fairly meagre. The principal forests are found in the Qin Mountains (Shaanxi province). In the past decade, the government has been encouraging agricultural mechanization and land consolidation to raise yields and compensate for the loss of rural workers who have migrated to the cities. Good progress has been made in increasing water conservancy, and about half the cultivated land is under irrigation.

100m 200m

context

Netherlands

4. Duijvestijnstraat, The Hague, South Holland region, Netherlands

context

Density: 488 pers/km2 GDP p/capita region: USD 52,274 GDP p/capita Country: USD 53,024

Agriculture: The Netherlands is one of the world’s largest agricultural producers, exporting 65 billion Euros worth of vegetables, fruit, flowers, meat and dairy products each year. It is the second-largest exporter of agriculture in the world, after the United States. The Dutch agricultural sector produces mostly cereals (wheat in particular), feed crops (such as fodder maize) and potatoes. The horticultural sector focuses on vegetables and flower bulbs. Dutch greenhouses produce mostly vegetables and flowers like sweet peppers and roses. Organic farms in agriculture and horticulture care for the environment. They do not use chemical pesticides for instance. To make organic farms more competitive with regular agriculture, the government signed covenants with supermarkets, the Dutch Confederation of Agriculture and Horticulture (LTO) and other parties for the joint promotion of organic products and a wider selection in the shops. These efforts should lead to a 10% increase in the sale of organic products.

Netherlands

5. Brandwijk, South Holland region, Netherlands

Density: 488 pers/km2 GDP p/capita region: USD 52,274 GDP p/capita Country: USD 53,024

Agriculture: The southern part of South Holland consists of a number of islands of the Rhine–Meuse–Scheldt delta. Although technically islands in the sense that they are surrounded by rivers, canals or other bodies of water, most of these islands are well connected to the rest of the province via bridges, tunnels and dams. The province is home to around 2550 glasshouse companies, approximately half of the Netherlands’ total. In the first half of the 20th century, nature areas in the Netherlands were been converted to agriculture on a large scale. Small farms were transformed into large farms depending on high input and industrial management practices. As a consequence of the intensification of Dutch agriculture, imports of external inputs such as animal feed and fertilizers have increased substantially.

300m

context

Netherlands

6. Okkenbroek, Overijssel region, Netherlands

Density: 488 pers/km2 GDP p/capita region: USD 37,873 GDP p/capita Country: USD 53,024

Agriculture: The province of Overijssel specialises in chemicals, agriculture and food, care and technology. Greenhouse production is more characteristic of the southern part of the Netherlands, while to the north traditional crops are grown outdoors. In the Netherlands, the most important (by area) aggregated crop groups are fodder crops, cereals, roots and tubers, followed by vegetables and sugar crops. The crop acreage of the main crops has remained fairly constant over the last decade. Only the sugar crops (sugar beet) acreage is decreasing rapidly. This is due to the liberalization of the global sugar market, rendering the cultivation of sugar beet commercially less attractive.

300m

context

300m

Denmark

7. Knud, Region of Southern Denmark

Density: 137 pers/km2 GDP p/capita region: USD 41,418 GDP p/capita Country: USD 59,822.1

Agriculture: The agricultural land is covering approximately 62 % of the area (FAO 2016). Over 90 % of this utilized agricultural area is arable land characterized by intensive and specialized production. The agricultural land consists of cultivated fields, permanent crops and permanent grassland. More than half of the cultivated land is devoted to cereals, with barley and wheat accounting for a large percentage of the total grain harvest. Sugar beets are another leading crop. The division of the lands is very irregular because they are lands with thousands of years, with different owners each with small plots, which were sold through time. From experience of visiting the area, the visible crops are wheat, oats, barley, rapeseed (for cinnamon oil) and also corn for animal feed.

300m

context

Denmark

8. Luneborg, North Denmark Region

context

Density: 137 pers/km2 GDP p/capita region: USD 48,320 GDP p/capita Country: USD 59,822.1

Agriculture: In this particular fabric, a more regular area of division of plots is observed, understood as newer, due to deforestation of a mount and postplotting. Domesticated animals are also an important feature of life in Denmark. Dairy cattle, pigs, and poultry are raised in great numbers to supply both the domestic and the foreign markets. Fur farming, especially of minks and foxes, is economically important as well. In general in the Danish climate the amount of rainfall suffices the crops to reach their potential maximum growth during the growing seasons. In the Western part of Denmark, in Jutland, sandy soils may be irrigated during extremely dry periods.

300m

Denmark

Density: 137 pers/km2 GDP p/capita region: USD 41,418 GDP p/capita Country: USD 59,822.1

Agriculture: In the aerial views of the lots it can be seen a lot of bare land due to the use of traditional plow (terribly harmful to the soil), this is to avoid using Glyphosate, since this among many herbicides are prohibited in Europe. therefore, by means of the plow they remove the weeds to eliminate them. Denmark aims to improve biodiversity, water and soil management with environmental friendly management practices, by changing the use of land to more environmental and climate friendly practices, for example by increasing the area of organic farming (FAO 2016).

9. Syke, Region of Southern Denmark

400m

context

Density: 3.3 pers/km2 GDP p/capita State: USD 73,143 GDP p/capita Country: USD 57.373,69

Australia

10. Warrego Highway, Oakey, Queensland, Australia

Agriculture: Although Australia is the driest nation in the world, with most the country being desert, the nation is a major agricultural producer and exporter, with over 325,300 employed in agriculture, forestry and fishing. Approximately 64% of all farms across Australia belong to the state, with a further 23% that are still owned by indigenous groups or tribes. Australia produces a wide variety of fruit, nuts and vegetables. Tropical fruits, including bananas, mangoes and pineapples, fare well in Queensland and the Northern Territory. The horticulture industry has traditionally provided Australians with all their fresh fruit and vegetable needs, with a smaller export industry. Solar power in Australia is a fast growing industry and we can find various solar plants throughout the country forming a characteristic part of the Australian rural landscape. Solar Cities is a demonstration program designed to promote solar power, smart meters, and energy conservation in urban locations throughout Australia.

100m

context

Australia

Density: 3.3 pers/km2 GDP p/capita State: USD 109,565 GDP p/capita Country: USD 57.373,69

Agriculture: A notable characteristic of Australian farming and agricultural production is the extent to which net farm income varies from year to year. Australia’s weather is subject to extreme fluctuations, which has an impact on annual production and ultimately on farm income.

11. Rottnest, Western Australia, Australia

Farm sizes range from relatively small part-time farms to operations of more than 5000 hectares. In general, Australian farming is characterized by large scale, highly mechanized and efficient operations, one of the key reasons why only a small percentage of the workforce is employed in this sector.

25m

context

Australia

12. Dandaragan, Western Australia, Australia

context

Density: 3.3 pers/km2 GDP p/capita State: USD 109,565 GDP p/capita Country: USD 57.373,69

Agriculture: Across the country there is a mix of irrigation and dry-land farming. Australia leads the world with 35 million hectares certified organic, which is 8.8% of Australia’s agricultural land. Australia’s main agricultural products are very contrasting crops: sugar cane (typical of tropical countries), wheat and barley (typical of cold countries). The beef industry is the largest agricultural enterprise in Australia, and it is the second largest beef exporter, behind Brazil, in the world. All states and territories of Australia support cattle breeding in a wide range of climates. Cattle production is a major industry that covers an area in excess of 200 million hectares. Because of Australia’s large deserts and irregular rainfall, irrigation is necessary for agriculture in some parts of the country. Pivot irrigation does not only occur in the central part of a more desert climate, but it depends on the type of crop that is carried out, if it needs more irrigation (such as alfalfa for example).

100m

India

13. Khanoda, India

Khanoda, Khanoda, india india

Density: 382 pers/km2 GDP p/capita Country: USD 3,700

Agriculture: During the past 140 years, India has experienced remarkable land use and land cover changes including deforestation, cropland changes, and urban expansion. Over half of the territory is used as cropland, making India one of the largest producing countries of agricultural commodities worldwide (FAO 2017). Two thirds of the Indian population lives in rural areas (World Bank, 2016). India has shown a steady average nationwide annual increase in the kilograms produced per hectare for some agricultural items, over the last 60 years. These gains have come mainly from India’s Green Revolution. Shortly after independence from the British in 1947, India realized that there was a need to become self-sufficient. The Green Revolution in India started in 1965. It was a period of time when agricultural practices shifted from traditional practices to more technological methods. Technological approaches have given rise to input intensive and unsustainable agricultural practices that ultimately reduce the ground water table, causing erosion and loss in biodiversity.

100m 100m

context

India

14. Ganula, India

Density: 382 pers/km2 GDP p/capita Country: USD 3,700

Agriculture: The average size of land holdings is very small (less than 2 hectares) and is subject to fragmentation due to land ceiling acts, and in some cases, family disputes. Such small holdings are often over-manned, resulting in disguised unemployment and low productivity of labour. India has very poor rural roads affecting timely supply of inputs and timely transfer of outputs from Indian farms. Irrigation systems are inadequate, leading to crop failures in some parts of the country because of lack of water. In other areas regional floods, poor seed quality and inefficient farming practices, lack of cold storage and harvest spoilage cause over 30% of farmer’s produce going to waste, lack of organised retail and competing buyers thereby limiting Indian farmer’s ability to sell the surplus and commercial crops.

100m

Ganula, Ganula,india india

context

100m

India

15. Dubacherla, India

Density: 382 pers/km2 GDP p/capita Country: USD 3,700

Agriculture: India is the world’s largest producer of many fresh fruits like banana, mango, guava, papaya, lemon and vegetables like chickpea, okra and milk, major spices like chili pepper, ginger, fibrous crops such as jute, staples such as millets and castor oil seed. India is the second largest producer of wheat and rice, the world’s major food staples. Aquaculture and catch fishery is amongst the fastest growing industries in India. Between 1990 and 2010, the Indian fish capture harvest doubled, while aquaculture harvest tripled. The Indian food distribution system is highly inefficient. Movement of agricultural produce is heavily regulated, with inter-state and even inter-district restrictions on marketing and movement of agricultural goods

300m 300m

context

Egypt

16. El Beheira, Egypt

context

Density: 5,600 pers/km2 GDP p/capita Country: USD 3,008.8

Agriculture: The area of agricultural land in Egypt is confined to the Nile Valley and delta, with a few oases and some arable land in Sinai. The total cultivated area is 73.02 Ha, representing only 3 percent of the total land area. Since 2009 increasing desertification has become a problem. “Egypt loses an estimated 11,736 hectares of agricultural land every year. Scarcity of clean water is also a problem. Egypt has an arid climate with an annual average rainfall ranging from 60 to 190 mm along the Mediterranean coast, to 25 to 60 mm in the Nile delta, and less than 25 mm in upper Egypt and adjacent areas. The climate is generally very uniform with good sunshine. In addition, the Nile is an exceptional source of water, and soil near the river is generally of excellent quality. Pivot irrigation is common due to desert soils, configuring the particular landscape of infinite circles

300m

Egypt

17. Giza, Egypt

Density: 5,600 pers/km2 GDP p/capita Country: USD 3,008.8

Agriculture: The entire crop area is irrigated, except for some rain-fed areas on the Mediterranean coast. The landholdings are fragmented, with the average size of farm units being 1.05 Hectares. Cotton, rice, wheat, corn, sugarcane, sugar beets, onions, tobacco, and beans are the principal crops. Land is worked intensively and yields are high. Increasingly, a few modern techniques are applied to producing fruits, vegetables and flowers, in addition to cotton, for export. Citrus, primarily oranges that represent 85 percent of total citrus production, makes up 50 percent of total fruit production. The fruit-planted area has expanded over the last three decades to reach about 84000 Hectares. Many small farmers also own cows, water buffalos, and chickens.

300m

context

Lybia

18. Az Zawiyah, Lybia

context

Density: 50 pers/km2 GDP p/capita Country: USD 7,241

The economy of Libya depends primarily on revenues from the petroleum sector, which represents over 95% of export earnings and 60% of GDP. Agriculture: Although agriculture is the second-largest sector in the economy, Libya depends on imports in most foods. Climatic conditions and poor soils severely limit farm output, and domestic food production meets only about 25% of demand. Most agriculturally productive land is limited to a strip along the Mediterranean Sea, where most rain falls. Because of low rainfall levels in Libya, agricultural projects such as the Kufra oasis rely on underground water sources. Libya’s primary agricultural water source remains the Great Manmade River. Wheat and barley are the major cereals grown in the country. Other important crops include olives, grapes, dates, almonds and oranges. The main agricultural products exported are groundnuts, which represented about 50 percent of all agricultural exports. Livestock is also important with poultry, small ruminants, sheep and cattle.

200m

Texas

19. Wayside, Texas, USA

19- wayside, texas 19- wayside, texas

Density: 174 pers/km2 GDP p/capita State: USD 63,588 GDP p/capita Country: USD 63,051

Agriculture: Texas has the most farms of all United States both in terms of number and acreage. The State leads the nation in number of cattle, usually exceeding 16 million head. The primary crops of Texas are cotton, corn, feed grains (sorghum, milo, etc.), rice and wheat and there is an abundance of other crops, too. From peanuts, to sunflowers to sugarcane and more. An enormous variety of vegetable and citrus farms can be found nearly year-round in the Rio Grande Valley at almost all times of the year. Groundwater is by far the source of most agricultural irrigation in the state, accounting for 86 percent of the irrigated acres. Aquifer levels are declining, especially in the Ogallala Aquifer, which supports agriculture in the Texas High Plains. Surface water faces increasing demands. Rapid development and expansion of urban areas are expected with many converted to residential areas with significant quantities of irrigated landscapes.

400m 400m

context

California

20. Moorpark, California, USA

APRICOT LANE FARMS Agroecology

context

Density: 406 pers/km2 GDP p/capita State: USD 80,563 GDP p/capita Country: USD 63,051

The economy of California is the largest in the United States and it is one of the most climatologically diverse states. Agriculture: California’s agricultural abundance includes more than 400 commodities. Over a third of the country’s vegetables and two-thirds of the country’s fruits and nuts are grown in California. The Central Valley of California is one of the world’s most productive agricultural regions. More than 230 crops are grown there. Its agricultural productivity relies on irrigation both from surface water diversions and from groundwater pumping (wells). California has more certified organic farms than any other state (more than 1 million, 2016). CA grows 90% or more of the U.S. production of Organic almonds, artichokes, avocados, broccoli, cauliflower, celery, dates, figs, grapes, strawberries, lemons, lettuce, plums, and walnuts. There are two primary laws that regulate organic production: at a federal level, the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 and at a state level, the California Organic Food and Farming Act of 2016.

200m

Illinois

21. Raritan, Illinois, USA

Density: 370 pers/km2 GDP p/capita State: USD 70,797 GDP p/capita Country: USD 63,051

The Public Land Survey System (PLSS) is the surveying method developed and used in the United States to plot, or divide, real property for sale and settling. Also known as the Rectangular Survey System. Originally proposed by Thomas Jefferson to create a Nation of “yeoman farmers”, the PLSS began shortly after the American Revolutionary War, when the federal government became responsible for large areas of land west of the original thirteen states. The government wished both to distribute land to Revolutionary War soldiers in reward for their services, as well as to sell land as a way of raising money for the nation. Agriculture: Corn, soybeans, and other large-field crops are grown extensively. These crops and their products account for much of the state’s economic output outside Chicago. Much of the field crop is remanufactured into feed for hogs and cattle. Dairy products and wheat are important secondary crops in specific segments of the state. In addition, some Illinois farmers grow specialty crops such as corn and pumpkins. The state is the largest producer of pumpkins among the United States.

400m

61 400m

context

Bolivia

22. Santa Cruz, Bolivia

context

Density: 9,1 pers/km2 GDP p/capita Country: USD 3,671

Agriculture: The tissue shows the increasing deforestation in the area and the loss of the Amazon forest. This task leaves linear marks due to the machinery, leaving a particular image. In Bolivia, the deforestation rate is 350,000 ha per year, but in per capita terms 320 m2 / person / year, it results in a rate 20 times higher than the world average In a deforestation scenario for the year 2100, it is found that the expansion of the agricultural frontier in Bolivia will be the main cause of deforestation, reaching over 33 million hectares of forest. The cultivated area in Bolivia is divided into three geographical areas and 63% corresponds to the department of Santa Cruz, in the area of the llanos. These crops are divided into industrial crops, cereals and swells and forages.

800m

Bolivia

Density: 9,1 pers/km2 GDP p/capita Country: USD 3,671

Agriculture: In this case, large-scale deforestation is also present, with subsequent use of the land for cultivation. In the linear forms, there are strips of trees that are not deforested, useful as forest curtains and maintenance of nutrients in the soil. There are also circular farmlands present, due to pivot irrigation. In the aerial image of context, it is clearly seen how land is gained for agriculture through deforestation in the eastern direction, where the Amazon forest is still natural and without anthropization.

23. Hormiguerote, Bolivia

300m

context

Bolivia

context

Density: 9,1 pers/km2 GDP p/capita Country: USD 3,671

Neuquén Province

Agriculture: In this fabric, the modification by man can be observed, first deforestation and then crops in a radial way, with houses and services located in the center, this is due to the pivot irrigation method and the intensity and need for care of the crops, so they should always be at a distance that allows easy access.

25. Neuquén, Argentina

24. Guapamó, Bolivia

400m

Density: 7,16 pers/km2 GDP p/capita province: USD 26,27 GDP p/capita Country: USD 8,269

Agriculture: Fruit production stands out, where there is a strong concentration of activity in the Upper Valley. The most common production is based on apples, pears, peaches, plums, walnuts and cherries. Then, in the coldest zone, strawberries, raspberries and other fine fruits are grown. A younger activity is viticulture, with a large presence of wineries and vineyards. There is a presence of great growing deforestation. As for livestock, the production of sheep predominates, capable of adapting to regions with a more arid climate and with a shortage of pasture. Goats meet with greater volume in the center and north of the Province. In turn, the cattle in the center and the south, in the area of the foothills of the Andes. The main productive activity of the Province is the exploitation of hydrocarbons. It is one of the most important oil and gas areas in Argentina and covers an area of 26,000 km2.

100m

context

Entre Ríos Province

26. Entre Ríos, Argentina

context

Density: 16,77 pers/km2 GDP p/capita province: USD 5,682 GDP p/capita Country: USD 8,269

Agriculture: Agricultural activity was the transformer of its population, as it is associated with massive immigration, the establishment of colonies and the emergence of new urban centers. Some of the province’s crops are cotton, rice, oats, sunflower, lemon, linen, corn, tangerine, orange, grapefruit, soybean, sorghum, and wheat. The cultivation of wheat, corn and linen has evolved towards a highly diversified activity, which responds to the demands of the stimuli generated by the needs of the national and world markets. The characteristics of the soil present great differences in level. Citrus crops are found in the south and west of the province, on the borders with Buenos Aires and Santa Fé.

400m

San Luis Province

27. San Luis, Argentina

Density: 5,6 pers/km2 GDP p/capita province: USD 5,580 GDP p/capita Country: USD 8,269

Agriculture: Given the climate of the Province, the development of agriculture would not have been possible without the contribution of irrigation through dams and aqueducts. The main crops are corn, soybeans, sorghum, rye, wheat and sunflower. Agriculture was developed in two differentiated areas: one of dry land, associated or as a complement to livestock activity, where the cultivation of forage areas and corn stands out and is practiced on the banks of rivers and streams, and its results depend on the climatic variations; and other agriculture under irrigation, destined mainly to horticulture or to very specialized crops. According to its projections, currently 21,000 hectares are irrigated with gravity irrigation in traditional systems and another 47,000 by sprinkler, mainly through central pivots.

400m

r 1.3%

Chemicals 2.2%

Cement

3.3%

3.5 ing %

Agriculture, forestry and land use

18.4% Was te

3.2%

Industry 5.2%

ulture in agric .7% Energyand fishing 1 from ionsuction s s i d % em tive y pro 5.8 Fugi energ

l ue d f tion % e t s a u 8 oc b 7. all com n U

Source: Made by the author based on Climate Watch, The World Resources Institute (2020)

Energy 73.2%

16. anspo 2% rt

sed rgy u s Ene ilding in b5u% 17.

Territories of exploitation of natural resources are increasing the development of uneven urbanization processes under capitalism. Industrial agriculture is clearly identified as a globalized process, where almost all productive soils on the planet are intervened in the same way, with the same recipes, technologies and seeds, completely forgetting a relationship with the context, the climate, and the geography in general. Economic, social and technological advances have come at the expense of the Earth’s ability to sustain current and future human well-being (UN United

k Livestoucre and man5.8%

Wastewa te

ed us ry y g t er us En ind % in 4.2

% 4.1

2.2 on Crop % land 1.4% Landfi lls 1.9%

Global effects of industrial agriculture

Nations, 2021). Landscapes are changing and being altered for growing food and other crops. During the last sixty years, the tendency has been to reward economies of scale, large-scale production, mechanization, monocultures in the name of increasing production and efficiency. And that has been extremely damaging for the health of the soils, for the preservation of biodiversity and even the health of consumers. It is a system that now is showing its limits. Therefore, humans use lot of non-renewable natural resources to produce

ati

ral ultusoils

res t

on ati 3% ltiv 1.

De fo

Cr op

3.1

ric Ag

Global greenhouse gas emissions by sector

ce Ri

FARMING THE PLANET

Shares by country of sector Agriculture total in total emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) Year 2017

CO2 emissions (kt) World 35 30 25 20

% <=4.8 <=8.88

<=15.73 <=35.22 >35.22

10 1960

1965

1970

Source:World Bank data. 2016 70

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

Source:FAOstat, Food and agriculture Organization for the United Nations 71

agriculture. But also Agriculture is one of the biggest generators of greenhouse gases produced by human activity in the world. The relation between agricultural production and climate change is a dualistic one. On the one hand, agricultural production is largely negatively affecting climate change, but on the other hand, it can also “contribute to climate change mitigation through reducing greenhouse gas emissions by changing agricultural practices”. (FAO 2008) About two-thirds of the warming caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases is attributable to carbon dioxide, caused mostly by the use of fossil fuels and some industrial processes. Around a quarter of the warming is the result of land-related activities: agriculture, grazing, forestry and, especially, modification of the natural land cover by and for humans (UN United Nations, 2021). Industrial agriculture (crops and feed lots for fattening animals) has expanded exponentially in recent decades, specifically since the 1970s after the green revolution (when technologies began to be mechanized, transgenic seeds were produced and the use of agrochemicals was imposed). The biggest problem is that this mass production agriculture was born with the purpose of solving world hunger. What was not taken into account is that hunger is associated with poverty, and this agriculture does not solve any social inequity, but increases the fragmentation of unequal territories and turns food-producing lands into extractive and capitalist elements. This agriculture has increasingly visible global impacts, such as a rise in the frequency and intensity of extreme events (and lack of resilience in ecosystems to recover from these events), loss of fertility, soil degradation, loss of biodiversity, pollution in the air due to the indiscriminate use of agrochemicals, and social consequences such as increased inequality, expulsion of rural populations, expropriation of land and increased poverty. The homogenization of the landscape is more remarkable worldwide, the variety of crops has been reduced to a few and the lands dedicated to agriculture use their largest percentage to cultivating for animal feed and biofuels. The assessment of the effects and impacts of climate change on biodiversity must be analyzed in the long term, because there are many processes that are expressed (or evident) on large scales of space and time. The expansion of soy is the main driver of deforestation in the country, and this has led to it being perceived as a major environmental and social threat. 72

In the country, there has been a notable increase in the frequency and intensity of extreme events, as well as in rainfall since 1960, with a shift in agriculture to semi-arid regions, an increase in rural and urban flooding, and a growth of the Plata basin, not only because of rainfall, but also because of a change in land use. In relation to climate change, when the Argentine Republic ratified the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), through Law No. 24,295 in 1994, the country assumed the obligation to report its national inventories of greenhouse gases and its national programmes containing measures to mitigate and facilitate adequate adaptation to climate change. In Argentina’s land-based production systems, floods, fires and volcanic eruptions have occurred in the last 10 years, which have had an impact on productive ecosystems. In the North east and Central region, the most destructive disasters with impacts on production systems were floods. These occur more or less cyclically, every 10 years, however, in the last decade floods occurred more frequently, in the years 2003, 2007, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2017, with strong impacts on production systems located in areas of natural grasslands, cultivated grasslands in the Santa Fe and Cordoba dairy basin and low-crop fields in the provinces of Santa Fe, Buenos Aires and southern Entre Rios. In 2017, for example, the rainfall records of the last 50 years have been registered. Between 2008 and 2009 there was a major drought that affected more than 10 million hectares in the central region of Argentina, compromising crop systems and also natural areas in northern Córdoba, Santiago del Estero, central and southern Buenos Aires and La Pampa. In those regions, the rainfall regime was 40 to 60% less than expected. The lack of rain generated the loss of approximately 30 million tons of grains, which generated socio-economic consequences linked to the decrease of rural labor, the decrease of pastures and loss of crops, animal mortality, and the intensification of erosion processes, among other issues. The expansion of soy is the main driver of deforestation in the central area, and this has led to it being perceived as a major environmental and social threat. Of the 270 million hectares of the national territory, more than 60 million are affected by erosion, a process that is progressing at a rate of about 650,000 hectares per year. 73

Emissions by continent in Agriculture. Average 1990-2017

4.2 15.1

13.3

In addition, and considering the biodiversity, 40% of the plant and animal species of the regions with aridity are in danger of disappearing. These degradation processes have various causes, including deforestation, overgrazing, expansion and intensification of agriculture and/or “pampeanization” (application of wet pampas management in fragile areas). From the opinion of the experts in the Regional Workshops, it emerges that there are two equally significant factors that negatively affect soil conservation, and these are land use change and over-exploitation. Next in importance are invasive alien species, markets, trade and the private sector, as well as population growth and urbanisation.

In the next 30 to 50 years, the main global challenge will be to increase agricultural productivity to feed a growing world population, while addressing the growing problems of soil, water, air degradation, pollution and the loss of biodiversity. This challenge will be intensified by climate change, water scarcity, land degradation, energy security and ideological differences on how to improve food sovereignty worldwide. The well-being of the youth of today and of future generations depends on an urgent and clear break with the current trends of deteriorating environment. The next ten years are crucial. Society must reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 45% by 2030 compared to 2010 levels and achieve net zero emissions by 2050, in order to limit warming to 1.5 ° C in line with the Paris Agreement and, at the same time, conserve and restore biodiversity, minimize pollution and the generation of waste (UN United Nations, 2021).

25.2 42.2

Asia

Americas

Africa

Oceania

Europe

Emissions by sector. Average 1990-2017

11.9

11.9 10.1 6.8

39.6 15.4

Burning- Crop residues

Burning- Savanna

Crop residues

Cultivation organic soils

Enteric fragmentation

Rice cultivation

Manure on pasture

Manure management

Synthetic fertilizers

Top 10 emitters (CO2 equivalent), Agriculture total

China, mainland

India

Russia

Brazil

USA

Australia

Indonesia

Pakistan

Argentina

Russian Federation

1950

Landscape transformations

2021

“Modern agriculture is characterized by its uniformity at the genetic and specific level, at the plot level (the entire plot planted with the same species, without the presence of spontaneous vegetation: weeds), at the farm level (large areas with a few crops) and at the region level (production areas of certain crops), which also results in uniform landscape.” (Sarandón, 2002) Source: made by the author 76

Soil degradation caused by man

The loss of productive capacity of soils due to degradation processes is increasing in severity and extent in many parts of the world with more than 20% of agricultural land affected, 30% of forests and 10% of grasslands, which means that a quarter of the world population depends directly on degraded soils (FAO, 2008). The GLASOD study (1990) estimated that water erosion is the dominant type of soil degradation and responsible for 56% of the degraded lands in the world (11 million km2), while wind erosion is responsible for 28% of that degradation. In Argentina, 20% of the territory (55 million hectares), is affected by severe water or wind erosion, and grows by approximately 650,000 hectares per year (CEPAL, 1999). In the “Pampa Ondulada”, Argentina, the introduction of soy in the 1970s, replacing corn, and permanent agriculture (wheat-soybean rotation), with the use of a plow and a moldboard, have been responsible for the loss of 5 to 20 cm of the surface layer of the soil on a surface 1,280,000 ha., representing 32% of one of the most productive regions of the country (Senigagliesi, 1991).

stable ground chemical deterioration eolic erosion water erosion physical deterioration serious degradation unused wasteland

In just 20 years, millions of tons of the best land have gone to the water courses, dragging essential nutrients to maintain the productivity of crops and causing other problems derived from the accumulation of sediments in water bodies. It is estimated that soil erosion from agricultural fields is between 10 and more than 100 times higher than the rate of soil formation, which affects agricultural yield due to reduced water holding capacity and loss of nutrients. Climate change will exacerbate the risks of water stress, especially in areas where rainfall has decreased and groundwater is already being depleted, affecting agriculture, as well as the more than 2 billion people already suffering from water stress. Water pollution has continued to worsen over the past two decades, increasing threats to freshwater ecosystems and human health. (UN United Nations, 2021).

Source: made by the author based on www.fao.org. Food and agriculture Organization FAO 78

3.2

SOCIO-SPATIAL PROCESSES

Social inequality , exclusion and vulnerability

The industrialization of agriculture not only caused environmental impacts, but also socio-territorial effects. The application of the Green Revolution model has led to the exclusion of a large number of farmers in developing countries, since to adapt to the model, it was necessary to have significant capital to acquire agricultural machinery and buy fertilizers and pesticides. Over the years, this industrial agricultural mode led to a decrease in the number of agricultural establishments, not only due to the decrease in “small producers” but also due to the concentration of productive land in the hands of the “large”. The local effects of this industrialization of agriculture allowed a few with large capital to expand their agricultural productions, invest in machinery, land and external inputs, but it was very notable how small producers were forced to abandon the land or sell it due to not having the ability to access the resources necessary for the new methods of agriculture, already involved in a broader system that also includes the State and the global market. In Argentina, since the 90s, around 70% of family farms disappeared in ten years (According to the 1988 and 2002 National Agricultural Census), there was a deterritorialization of production, where those who produced the land were not the owners, and the interest in protecting the territories was left aside. The smaller plots produced by various peasants are transformed into larger properties, since technological change demanded arable land of larger sizes, with fewer and more powerful owners, producing a notorious exclusion and economic concentration -6% of the producers represents 54% of the National production- (Carrasco Andrés E., Sánchez Norma E., Tamagno Liliana E. 2012). This phenomenon produced a decomposition of the peasantry and family agriculture. In this way, a part of the rural population was expelled to the urban centers as they were unable to subsist within a highly technical model, with the consequent generation of high rates of unemployment and poverty. Some chose to sell their land, others rented and others suffered a capitalization process of land grabbing. The crisis processes of family farming were affected by deregulation policies, in this case the so-called “Convertibility Plan” in Argentina, which rethink the role of the State, opened the external market and supported the wealthiest producers. Rural poverty spread over the country, linked to the fragility of family farming, where the social impacts are linked to an economy that has not stopped 80

driving producers out of the countryside and has been unable to absorb them in other areas of labor. Unlike other Latin American countries, Argentina has been characterized by the absence of specific policies directed at small producers. In terms of territorial effects, the advance of soybeans produced a notable homogenization of landscapes, and this replacement of the agriculturallivestock rotation by monoculture produces an average soil loss of 28 t/ha per year (Carrasco Andrés E., Sánchez Norma E., Tamagno Liliana E. 2012). Native forests were deforested and land not suitable for agricultural use was exploited, which entails a high ecological cost. In all the rural areas of Argentina, the population was born with the culture of working in the field, but that ancestral enrichment gained over the years, has been lost in the last decades since the implementation of industrial agriculture. And the big problem is that the latter has always been positively analyzed in terms of increased production and yields. But what happened to food sovereignty? And the environmental impact? The crops produced in these fields are only a few, degrading the soils, biodiversity and the environment with each harvest. There is a notable lack of education, discussion and debate about what has been routinely done for years. If you ask a farmer why he/she produces in this way, why he/she applies huge amounts of herbicides, pesticides, etc., on each crop, he/she will answer that it has to be this way, it is the way to produce. Generally, what effects are being generated in the environment and consequently in human beings are not considered. For a purely agricultural country like Argentina, the increase in production added to the high profitability of soybeans in international markets in recent years, has produced an important contribution to the country’s trade balance and fiscal accounts. At present, it is the export product with the greatest weight in the country’s agricultural GDP and the main generator of foreign exchange. This reality further aggravates the situation of a search for change in favor of the most vulnerables and a new vision of production that does not harm natural ecosystems. As a possible future strategy, agro-ecological expansion and replacement of industrial production is seen as having great potential, where the main goal is to recover the biodiversity of ecosystems, but at the same time, it is important to combine this with an efficient system of policies that allow food sovereignty and accessibility to nutrition without inequality.

3.3

Food security, food sovereignty and environmental justice

Food security: Availability at all times of adequate world food supplies of basic foodstuffs to sustain a steady expansion of food consumption and to offset fluctuations in production and prices, ensuring that all people at all times have both physical and economic access to the basic food that they need (FAO Food and agriculture Organization for the United Nations, 1996). Food insecurity exists when people do not have adequate physical, social or economic access to food. Food sovereignty: The RIGHT of peoples, their Countries or Unions of States to define their agricultural and food policy, without dumping against third countries. Food sovereignty includes: prioritize local agricultural production to feed the population, access to land, water, seeds and credit; the right of peasants to produce food and the right of consumers to decide what they want to consume and how and by whom it is produced; the right of countries to protect themselves from too cheap agricultural and food imports; the participation of the peoples in the definition of agrarian policy (LVC La via Campesina-The peasant way-, 1996). There is an interconnected nature of the increasing inequities created and exacerbated with the current model of agriculture framing this crisis from an environmental justice perspective. Environmental justice is defined as ‘the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, nation, origin or income with respect to the development, implementation and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and policies’ (The United States Environmental Protection Agency). And according to environmental philosopher Robert Figueroa, ‘Environmental injustice occurs when a policy elite disrespects traditional environmental practices and excludes the least empowered and most economically vulnerable groups from environmental decision-making’. In the case of the Pampean region, the increase in monoculture production through external inputs and technologies and the exclusion of the poorest rural populations, is a case of environmental injustice. These sectors were unable to react to a National change into a new industrial agricultural model, and to the impossibility of proposing a sustainable method. The most vulnerable sectors receive little or no benefit from transgenic soy 82

production and yet bear most of the social and ecological costs. Analyzing Harvey in “The right to the city”, it is possible to draw a parallel with the right to the countryside and a socially just agriculture. To reinforce this thought, it is also appropriate to cite the Planetary Urbanization theory again, where the division between city and country does not exist and the exploitation territories are understood as extended urbanization or operational landscapes. Harvey points out that the right to the city is collective and not individual. The same occurs in the case of rural territories, and it is not only a right to the resources that nature offers, but the right to modify and reinvent those territories. Therefore, from this angle, this right is truncated for certain sectors, after the industrialization of agriculture, benefiting only a privileged sector. Emphasizing that urbanization was always a class phenomenon, where the distribution of the economic surplus typically falls into the hands of a few and this situation persists in the face of capitalism. The politics of capitalism are affected by the perpetual need to find profitable terrains for capital surplus production and absorption (Harvey, 2012). Industrial agriculture expanded to its maximum limits, devastated land and deforested areas to be able to cultivate more, and when it could not expand further in territory, it modified the sowing and implemented doses of agrochemicals to increase yields. The inordinate production ambition neglected the ancestral purpose of agriculture as the production of food for subsistence. The territories of exploitation of resources are increasingly fragmented and conflictive and under this unequal division of wealth, the ideals of an identity and sense of belonging are difficult to define. It is at this point where rural social movements emerge to try to claim that right to modify the countryside and give it a different image from the one implemented by the developer powers backed by finance and corporate capital. As Harvey says, the surplus absorption has a darker aspect and he talks about ‘creative destruction’, where the poor, the underprivileged and the marginalized of power politics suffer the most from the consequences of this process. In the process under capitalism, also a phenomenon of displacement and dispossession occurs. This is the case in the rural territories explained above about the exclusion of family farms that could not address the new technological packages. The process of erosion of the territories by agricultural exploitation is a global fact, with insecurities and uneven geographical developments. But autonomous groups are emerging and growing more to combat these inequalities and fight for a change in global agriculture, destructive and agro-toxic. Many groups have no connection to each other, but there are certain world events such as the fights and protests against forest fires, ocean pollution and global warming itself (one of the impacts of industrial agriculture) that began to gather more forces, communication power and wisdom in search of agricultural sustainability. Because this exceeds individual countries or the economy of a region, natural resources are limited and it is a factor that was never taken into account after 83

each harvest. Article 41 of the Argentine National Constitution says: ‘All inhabitants enjoy the right to a healthy, balanced environment, suitable for human development and for productive activities to satisfy present needs without compromising those of future generations; and they have a duty to preserve it. Environmental damage will generate, as a priority, the obligation to repair, as established by law.’ The base exists, but we are far from not committing future generations to the environmental and social erosion that we are generating and with half of the national population within the limits of poverty. The concept of food sovereignty is in force more and more worldwide, since it goes beyond food security, it understands access to food as a political act, where we have the right to know where that food comes from and how it was produced. In Argentina, 75% of the production is destined to industrialization (oil, flour and biofuels) while the rest is exported as grain (Carrasco Andrés E., Sánchez Norma E., Tamagno Liliana E. 2012). Few territories produce food for human consumption, and a large percentage of them must be imported into the country. Simply increasing food production will not reduce poverty and hunger, because this alone will not succeed in altering the strong concentration of economic power, which determines who can buy food or have access to seeds, water and land in order to produce it. Increased food production in the future must be accompanied by strategies that both improve the livelihoods of peasants and conserve ecosystems. This is one of the goals of environmental justice, in addition to an even more general and ambitious perspective of achieving the sustainable development goals proposed by the UN (No poverty, reduced inequalities, Sustainable cities and communities, etc.). According to the Environmental Justice Atlas, more or less one third of all the socio-environmental conflicts in the world are happening in Latin america.1 In Argentina and Latin America there is a very close relationship between extractivism and social mobilization, with increasing numbers of groups and communities in opposition to mining extraction, agribusiness, energy and oil extraction projects. New forms of solidarity and cooperation networks are emerging between communities and this is a crucial starting point for the development of public policies that sustain environmental justice.

3.4

RESILIENCE

Conserving genetic diversity and species diversity in fields and herds are strategies to mitigate risks in places subject to weather uncertainty. (Altieri and Nicholls, 2010)

Resilience theory provides an integrated framework to investigate the ability of complex social-ecological systems to cope with changing environments (Folke in Meuwissen, 2017). The theory emphasises change, uncertainty, interconnectivity and adaptability of complex systems. The resilience framework builds on the concept of adaptive cycles, which represent different stages (growth, equilibrium, collapse, reorientation) through which systems pass in response to changing environments and internal dynamics (Fath in Meuwissen, 2017). In view of a climate change that grows exponentially, the transition to sustainable production models can help to regenerate resilience in the territories. If the health of the soils increases, the infiltration capacity of the soil increases, increasing the speed at which water can penetrate the ground and therefore, the ability to take advantage of heavy rains grows. Many of the agroecological practices increase soil health, fertility, and therefore productivity. For instance, the strategies can be: growing green manures, keeping the soils covered with crops during the fallow phase, use of crop rotation and association of them, protection and restoration of ecosystems, sustainable use of water and soil resources, agroforestry, various adjustments in farming practices, the use of stress-tolerant species and varieties and adding animals to the system. These practices enhance biodiversity and attempt to mimic natural ecological processes. System resilience can be built through increasing biological diversity (Altieri, 2005). Experiences show that producers who increase biodiversity suffer less from the consequences and damage of adverse natural phenomena. The resilience of territories is being increasingly affected by industrial production methods. After a natural catastrophe, soils have almost zero capacity to recover, in addition to not having defense mechanisms against the fact. In Argentina the sequence of floods increases and occurs every shorter

1-Environmental Justice Atlas. https://ejatlas.org/ (accessed 10 December 2020). See also OLCA Latin American Observatory for Environmental Conflicts http://olca.cl/oca/index.htm (accessed 10 December 2020).

periods over the years. In the Pampean region, most of the agricultural producers that use the industrial model lost 100% of the harvest in the last floods that occurred in 2017. On the other hand, producers that are initiating the agroecological transition did 85

not suffer damages in all their plots. In addition to the economic cost is almost zero, since previously they had not invested in huge amounts of external inputs such as agrochemicals and transgenic seeds.

3.5

COVID-19 and the crisis of food systems

AGROECOSYSTEM RESILIENCE Extreme weather events Agroecosystem resilience Plant diversity Cities in 2018

Landscape matrix

-Agroforestry systems -polyculture -animal integration -genetic diversity

Water and soil management -Organic matter -Water collection -Soil cover

st cities are vulnerable to at least one type of natural disaster 9 Cities’ risk of exposure to natural disasters

areCities’ vulnerable to toatnatural least one type of natural disaster risk of exposure disasters Cities’ risk of exposure to natural disasters

City population 10 million or more 5 million to 10 million 1 million to 5 million 500,000 to 1 million

Risk of natural disaster

● High risk of one type of disaster ● High risk of two types of disaster ● High risk of three or more types of disaster Source: United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division City population City 146 cities with at population least 500,000 inhabitants in 2018, 679 (59 per cent) were at high risk of exposure at least one six types Booklet of natural disaster, (2018). Theto World’s Cities in of 2018—Data Risk of natural disaster 10 million or more Riskand of natural disaster cyclones, floods, droughts, earthquakes, landslides volcanic eruptions.* Taken together, cities of 500,000 inhabitants or more facing high 10 million or more 5 million to 10 million High risk of one type of disaster risk of one typeto of 1.4 disaster ● High 5 million 10 million 1 million to to 5atmillion xposure least onetotype of natural disaster were home billion people in 2018. Highrisk riskof of two two types of disaster types of disaster ● High 1 million to 5 million 500,000 to 1 million High risk of three or more types of of disaster High risk of three or more types disaster ● 500000 to 1 million

ndred and eighty-nine cities—most located along coastlines—were at high risk of exposure to two or more types of natural disaster; 26 citluding megacities Manila, Osaka and Tokyo—faced high risk of exposure to three or more types of disaster.

t least 500,000 inhabitants in 2018, 679 (59 per cent) were at high risk of exposure to at least one of six types of natural disaster, ___ Of the 1,146 cities with at least 500,000 inhabitants in 2018, 679 (59 %) were at high risk of exposure to at least

analysis of city populations from the 2018 revision ofand Worldvolcanic Urbanizationeruptions.* Prospects together with spatial hotspot data reflecting the historical occurrence of or six types of natural disaster droughts, earthquakes, landslides Taken together, cities of 500,000 inhabitants more facing highfrom Columbia nd the World Bank.of Thesix natural disaster data includedisaster, cyclones occurring between 1980 and floods, 2000; floods between 1985 and 2003; droughts between 1980 and volcanic 2000; earthquakes between 1976 and 2002; one types of natural namely cyclones, droughts, earthquakes, landslides and eruptions. st and onevolcanic typeeruptions of natural disaster wereA city home to 1.4asbillion people 2018. des between 1979 and 2000. was classified being at high risk of in exposure to a particular type of natural disaster if its location intersected spatial grid cells ranking in the top s of the global risk distribution of the frequency of that specific type of natural disaster. More information about the methodology can be found in Gu and others (2015): Risks of exposure and vulnerability sasters at the city level: A global overview. Technical Paper No. 2015/2, Population Division, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations. Available from http://esa.un.org/unpd/wup/Publicay-nine cities—most located along coastlines—were at high risk of exposure to two or more types of natural disaster; 26 citWUP2014-TechnicalPaper-NaturalDisaster.pdf.

es Manila, Osaka and Tokyo—faced high risk of exposure to three or more types of disaster.

In a short time, COVID-19 has exposed the risks, fragilities and inequalities in global food systems. Due to the current global pandemic, food chains are going through a great period of crisis. Affecting, for example, thousands of children who receive help from institutions to eat, the export of food that was stopped, the inability to move to workplaces for food production, in addition to the risk in the poorest countries in the world where missing a day of work is absolutely critical for the food security of families. In parallel, this crisis has brought to light new, more resistant food systems generated by communities united to get ahead, as opposed to the big heads that manage the industrial agricultural systems, which took benefit of the crisis to accelerate their powerful activities taking advantage of the difficulties of the less well off. This global crisis should be the starting point for the search for a transformation in the food system that generates resilience in all aspects.

Industrial agriculture and COVID-19 Industrial farming systems are accentuating habitat loss and creating the conditions for viruses to emerge and spread. It could be said that intensive livestock production multiplies the risks of disease emergence and spread. The likelihood of high-impact animal disease outbreaks is increased by the confinement of large numbers of animals in small spaces, reduced genetic diversity, rapid turnover of animals, and fragmentation of habitat through expansion of livestock production. In turn, risks are amplified by increasing human-animal interaction, which can be exacerbated by habitat destruction due to commercial agriculture, uncontrolled urbanization, and land and resource grabbing. Consequently, climatic changes accentuate the possibility of the spread of these diseases, due to the degradation of soils and the loss of biodiversity, mainly generated by the industrial production of agriculture and livestock. It is believed that more than 70% of infectious diseases that have emerged in humans since the 1940s can be traced to animals (FAO, 2013). Although the evidence on the origins of the COVID-19 outbreak is not yet conclusive, it is believed that it was developed through the amplification of wildlife diseases through intermediate hosts. Industrial farms have also 87

been identified as a possible transmission point. COVID-19 also revealed the vulnerability of food chains, which are linked to industrialized consumption systems, where the circuits from food production to reaching the consumer are extremely long, generating large losses, environmental pollution and energetic expense. Export restrictions are disrupting the essential circulation of staple foods, generating more demand and empty shelves in supermarkets. As for short chains, problems are arising due to the closure mainly of informal and outdoor markets, which are the most affected due to the lack of sanitation, generators of the impossibility of social distancing, etc.

of sustainable and resilient solutions. Action must be taken urgently to maintain access to food and safety. Governments must immediately establish or strengthen social protection mechanisms and emergency food assistance programs that protect the most vulnerable. Measures must also be taken to ensure that workers in the agricultural and food sector, including migrant and informal sector workers, have access to safe and decent working conditions. The paradigm shifting from industrial agriculture to diversified agroecological systems is also more urgent than ever. The ability of agroecology to provide environmental, economic and social dimensions

The unsanitary conditions of agricultural workers also came to light with the pandemic, where they still have to move to their jobs, running many risks of contracting the disease but no less serious than the risks of working in agro-industrial spaces, polluting and full of external inputs harmful to human health. These problems are added to the generally insufficient conditions and low wages of workers in the food system.

of sustainability have been recognized by the Food and agriculture organization of the United Nations (FAO), and since then it has begun to be more named, respected and feared by the main mega-companies that lead industrial agriculture. Territorial markets and short supply chains are often a key component of agroecological systems and can improve access to fresh food, ensure higher farmer remuneration, and reduce vulnerability to fluctuations in international markets. A number of actions have been identified to drive a shift towards resilient agroecological food systems, including redirecting agricultural subsidies and research investments to agroecology. Immediate steps will be needed to ensure that local chains can function and prosper, and to strengthen capacity to comply with food safety regulations, of which those that present barriers to local selling should be eliminated. The urgent need for a new pact between the State and civil society has become clear evidence of what is a health crisis, but also an economic and food crisis. COVID-19 has highlighted that governments can act in the name of well-being when they perform core centralized functions alongside wellcoordinated and resourced actions at the regional and local levels, where needs are better understood and different tools can be implemented with the help of the civil society. Organized society, especially community organizations, farmer groups and cooperatives, have proven to be an effective buffer against the impacts of the crisis, demonstrating their importance in tackling climate change and other impending challenges.

Malnutrition and extreme poverty Before the COVID-19 hit, 820 million people were already undernourished, and 2 billion people suffered from food insecurity. Many millions more live dangerously close to the poverty line: they lack the financial and physical means to procure food due to forced social isolation, restrictions on movement and supply interruptions. As economies slowly come to a halt due to the pandemic, the impacts will be harsher for those already affected by these realities. In Argentina, the situation is complicated, since the strict quarantine extended to more than five months in 2020, and the economy of this developing country is not strong enough to have citizens without working, showing that vulnerability especially in the poorer sectors of shantytowns and slums. At the same time, the crisis is affecting the nutritional quality of the foods that are chosen to be consumed, since more foods with a high degree of processing and preservatives are bought due to the fear of supply and there is less accessibility to fresh fruits and vegetables. The rate of new pandemics is increasing, the vulnerability of our food systems must not be forgotten once the crisis is over. We must go in search 88

THE FOODSCAPE

4.1

Global land use for food production

What we eat? What we produce? It is important to consider how is changing the Nutrition. During the years we change how we eat, but the levels of production are still the same. In a considered general balanced diet, the world is producing for example less vegetables than the percentage we need, but 5 times more of the red meet we need, with irreversible consequences for nature and also for society.

Source: Prepared by the author based on ‘our world in Data’

Agriculture in itself implies a reduction in the natural biodiversity of ecosystems to replace it with an artificial population of one or few crops in large areas. But today’s agriculture has reduced this diversity to the maximum. Of the nearly 80,000 edible plants considered to exist, only about 200 are used, and only 12 are important staples of humanity (UNFPA, 1991). This is clearly seen when analyzing annual productions of the main crops. The production of the 3 most important crops (rice, wheat and corn), exceeds the sum of all the others and represents approximately 60% of total world production.

Agriculture’s foot print

Production of food vs. production for feed and fuels

CROPS

World production (2007) of the main crops Corn Wheat Rice Potato Yucca Soy 133 Barley Sweet potato 108 Sorghum 73 63 Rapeseed Cotton 50 Peanut 46 37 Yam Millet 34 Oats 27 25 Sunflower Rye 14,7 Lentil 3,29 Linen 0,6

220 214

200

309

400 Production (1000 MT)

659 605

500

792

800

Source: FAOSTAT (2009)

This low diversity is compounded by the fact that, in general, only a few varieties (the most “successful”) of these crops are used on large areas, increasing the fragility of the system and the risk that the attack of a pest or pathogen can cause devastating effects on food production. An example of this is the cultivation of soy in Argentina.

100%

FOOD

50%

100%

FEED AND FUEL

The lack of genetic variability in turn restricts the potential sources of resistance to pests, diseases and adaptation to unfavorable conditions (droughts, salinity, low temperatures, etc.).

Many varieties and ecotypes of crop plants have disappeared forever from the face of the earth. 92

Source: Made by the author based on National Geographic magazine. Feeding 9 billion. 2020 93

All countries exporting Agricultural products to All countries 2015 by value (US$)

Global and major exporter soy trade 2000-15 by weight

Source: Prepared by the author based on resourcetrade.earth

World vegetable map

Source: Prepared by the author based on World vegetable map, 2018, Rabobank. 94

Estimated greenhouse vegetableproduction area and vertical farming concentrations

Argentine exports by major items

41% Manufactures of agricultural origin 31,6% Manufactures of industrial origin 23,4% Primary products 4% Fuels and energy

Commercial vertical farming businesses (growers and technology suppliers)

Source: CAC Department of Economics based on INDEC National Institute of Statistics and Censuses of the Argentine Republic

100 50 6. Carrots and turnips

7. Sweet peppers and chillies

8. Pumpkins and squash

9. Lettuce and chicory

10. Garlic

million tones

150

Main destinations of Argentine exports

20,3%

6,5%

Top 10 exported fresh vegetables by volume, 2016

Garlic 6%

Others 25%

China

Asparagus 4%

4,1%

2,9%

2,6%

2,5%

2,4%

2,3%

Mushrooms 3%

Brazil

Broccoli 3% Lettuces 3%

5,9%

Netherlands

5. Aubergines

Algeria

4. Cabbages

Canadá

3. Cucumbers and gherkins

Spain

2. Onions

United States

1. Tomatoes

India

Venezuela

100

million tones

150

Chile

Top 10 vegetables by global production volume, 2017

Cabbages 6%

Source of the page: Prepared by the author based on World vegetable map, 2018, Rabobank. 96

Cucumbers and gherkins 6% Onions 9%

Tomatoes 22% Sweet peppers and chillies 12%

Source: CAC economics department based on UN Comtrade 97

ALTERNATIVE FOOD CHAINS AND CIRCULAR ECONOMY

In this point it is believed essential to focus on the producer-consumer relationship, understanding that this connection creates cultural meanings, instead of only focusing on the type of product itself. In turn, alternative food chains are directly related to the aforementioned quest for food sovereignty, emphasizing the political act of eating and the need to know where food comes from and how it is produced. Secondly, the relationship between alternative food chains and the concept of circular economy is crucial, understanding that industrial agriculture creates linear and unsustainable economies, while agroecological alternatives allow generating a closed circuit of production, consumption and reuse of nutrients. “A ‘circular agriculture economy’ proposes a viable model for the current linear economy “take-make-waste” approach by minimizing the amount of external inputs for agricultural production, closing nutrient loops and reducing negative impacts to the environment by eliminating discharges (wastewater) and surface runoff. Under the lens of the circular economy, agriculture can offer a multitude of opportunities from primary production using precision agriculture techniques, to the recycling and utilization of agricultural wastes and materials” (FAO, 2020).

Nutrients matter

CIRCULAR ECONOMY

Food consumption

Food surplus & waste management

att

Food production

rie

Nutrients matter

ng s. r cli nt tte cy trie ma Re u ng n of eusi R

‘Conventional’ food system can be conceptualised as the approach where food is transformed and transported across international boundaries within complex and elongated industrial food chains that remove foods from their origins, rendering food production invisible and primary food products unrecognisable to end consumers (Fischler in Robinson G, 2008). INPUTS Food is being transported further than before, often by air between countries on opposite sides of the world, whilst local crop varieties are replaced by a few commercial popular types. This pattern of growing ‘food miles’ is far from sustainable, it is by product being increasing air pollution, notable of major PRODUCTION greenhouse gases such us carbon dioxide, increasing road congestion and noise, and increasing stress. The consequences of this are evident in the reduced numbers of varieties TRANSPORT of particular fruit and vegetables available in most supermarkets. One of the most effective ways of assessing the environmental impact of a particular process or product is to find out how much non-renewable energy is required to produce it; this quantity of energy is referred to as embodied energy. PROCESSING The consumption of embodied energy results in the emission of greenhouse gases, which contribute to global warming and climate change. So embodied energy can be thought of as shorthand of assessing the climate change potential PACKAGING of a process. When we think in the energy of agriculture activity, maybe we don’t take into account the transport required to shift crops from farm to the point of sale, and from point of sale to point of consumption. Even uncooked fruit INSPECTION and vegetables are frequently sold pre-cut and ready to eat, not to mention the energy used to keep semi-ripe fruit and vegetables refrigered. It is really important to take account of the entire lifecycle of any product TRANSPORT or activity. The principles of organic agriculture, local trading and seasonal consumption of food form one of the central arguments in support of urban agriculture and productive landscapes. COMMERCIAL SALE SEASONAL CONSUPTION Not only do seasonal crops reduce the need for the transnational shipment of foods, and hence reduce embodied energy due to transport, but also they have implications for how crops are grown locally. CONSUMERS The desire to consume the same fruit and vegetables all the year round is one of the more important causes of large scale greenhouse gas emissions associated with food production, resulting as it does in transport requirements and greenhouse heating.

4.4

Nu t

FOOD WASTE 98

INDUSTRIAL FOOD CHAINS

ter

4.3

100

Regenerative practices (such as agroecology) contribute to the circular economy process, using elements such as the rotation and intercropping of crops, increasing biodiversity, the use of animals to remove soils and their dung as fertilizer and natural compost. Currently, a third of all food produced globally – worth USD 1 trillion – is thrown away each year. This represents a huge loss of nutrients and a major cause of environmental issues (Ellen Macarthur foundation, 2013). In a circular economy, food is designed to cycle, so the by-products from one enterprise provides input for the next. Cities can make the most of food by redistributing surplus edible food, while turning the remaining inedible by-products into new

The dimensions of the interrelationships between producer-consumer can be defined on different scales. The first category is esencially the face-to-face relation. It is the most direct way to make the acquisition and can be represented with: farm shops, farmers markets, ‘pick your own’, box schemes, home deliveries, mail order, e-commerce. A second scale is the proximate AFN, associated with the following spaces: farm shop groups, regional hallmarks, consumer cooperatives, community supported agriculture, thematic routes, special events, fairs, local shops, restaurants, tourist enterprises, dietetic shops, catering for institutions.

products, ranging from organic fertilisers for regenerative peri-urban farming, to biomaterials, medicine, and bioenergy. To complement this closed circuit, it is necessary, as mentioned before, to reestablish the direct relationship between producer and consumer, and this will be possible with the emergence of Alternative food chains. Food sourced from AFN (Alternative food networks), is largely considered to have been produced, processed, distributed, and consumed within a given region or locality without the need for elongated, multi-actor food chains (Fischler in Robinson G, 2008). These food networks resist and distance themeselves from the omnipresent industrialised mode of food production and consumption, by reconnecting producers, consumers and their food. Large consumers groups no longer tend to believe or trust unconditionally in the expert system formally assigned to protect the safety of what they eat and drink. In addition, the shift towards more sustainable thoughts of the act of eating has an exponential increase today where many consumers are interested in the impacts generated by their actions. But the possibility of growth of the AFN first requires a change of mentality towards production methods, so that sustainable foods are affordable for all citizens at local and regional scales and of course the support of institutions and the development of public policies that facilitate the commercialization, communication and development of these markets. A key characteristic of new supply chains is their capacity to resocialise and make a face-to face relation, allowing the consumer to make new value judgments about the relative desirability of foods on the basis of their own experience, knowledge, or perceived imagery. The social construction of today’s markets is totally depersonalized.

AFN, by facilitating public-private linkages, specially creating a legal framework supporting the new business, notably small and medio agro-enterprises involving small scale producers. Promotion initiatives by the State can include the following: -Promotion of networks and cooperatives between small agro-ecological producers in the region, between neighboring regions and consumer groups. -Establish an AFN development center that provides support, creates funds and small interest loans, training, technical assistance, among others. -Facilitate infrastructure necessary for the process, development and distribution of regional agroecological markets. -Develop programs related to nutrition and health, organizing campaigns that improve consumer knowledge about the need to eat healthy food and the ecological support of local products.

Local governments can play an important role in the development of

The consciuousness of the source and quality of food promotes an awareness of the social and political dimensions of food production. The development of alternative chains based on a circular economy will not only produce economic and social benefits for the communities in regional scales, but will also have a positive global impact on the environment that could perhaps reverse the situation and allow a reconstructed future for generations to come.

101

THE AGROSCAPE

5.1

102

Spatial configurations of production spaces. Countryside elements

01. Storage silos

02. Sheds for feed-lot

03. Greenhouse structures

10. Common drinkers

11. Tank drinkers

12. Gates and dividing fences

04. Horse boxes

05. Butcher shop, warehouse, engine room

06. Cover sheds

13. Windmill for water extraction

14. Windmill to generate power

15. Cattle sleeves

07. Agricultural machinery

08. Cattle bale

09. Pivot sprinkler

16. Crop protections

17. Silobags

18. Arrangement of silobags 103

The rural landscape is characterized by certain components and structures that are repeated in any part of the world, with exceptions of certain specific structures depending on the region or that refer to specific climatic conditions. These elements help to develop daily performance in the field, serving as supply spaces, rain covers and protection for machinery, animal retention and privacy, among others. 01. Storage silos: structure designed to store grain and other bulk materials. The most common silos have a cylindrical shape, resembling a tower built with wood or concrete. 02. Sheds for feed-lot: covered structures that make up intensive animal fattening or corral fattening systems. It is a technology for the production of meat with animals in confinement, diets of high energy concentration and high digestibility. 03. Greenhouse structures: made up of metallic or plastic structures covered by translucent materials in order to have maximum luminosity inside. The aim is to achieve artificial conditions (microclimate) that generate higher productivity for plants, with minimal cost and less time. These structures protect the plants or crops that are inside from environmental damage such as frost, strong winds, hail, insect pests, etc. 04. Horse boxes: Horse care facilities. The box is a place where the animal will usually spend most of the time or many hours of the day. 05. Butcher shop, warehouse, engine room: Closed structures necessary for the functioning of certain activities, such as keeping and storing objects, tools, food. Butcher’s shop for cutting meat and engine room for the operation of generator equipment. 06. Cover sheds: Structures of different dimensions for the protection of agricultural machinery. 07. Agricultural machinery: Seeders, tractors, combines, sprayers. 08. Cattle bale: or rolls, is the most common way of storing forage. Livestock producers have used this technique in order to accumulate forage, to be used during the winter period or in times of scarcity. 09. Pivot sprinkler: mobile irrigation systems that allow watering large areas. They have evolved remarkably and according to their mechanical character we can differentiate: circular pivot, movable, corner and lateral. They are electrically propelled equipment that supplies water and fertilizers in the form of rain in a homogeneous way to the crops. The pivots consist of a support structure, an 104

electrical system, mechanical traction and a hydraulic system for transporting and applying water. 10. Common drinkers: structures consisting of a rectangular tank that allow daily access to a clean water supply for livestock. They must be firm, easy to clean and easily accessible to animals. 11. Tank drinkers: They fulfill the same function as a common drinkers but have a greater storage capacity. 12. Gates and dividing fences: They are physical containment barriers. In order for them to fulfill their objective, all of its parts have to be adequate and correctly installed. Conventional fences can be classified into perimeter (border the establishment) and internal (subdivisions within the establishment). The gates allow access to different subdivisions of the field. 13. Windmill for water extraction: water extraction technologies that are powered through wind energy. They allow water to be drawn from boreholes, wells, as well as from a dam or stream. It can in turn be used to raise water above ground level or to pump water a considerable distance. 14. Windmill to generate power: The energy of the wind is harnessed through the use of wind machines or wind motors capable of transforming wind energy into usable mechanical rotational energy, either to directly drive operating machines or to produce electrical energy. Wind power is an abundant, renewable, and clean resource that helps reduce greenhouse gas emissions by replacing fossil fuelbased energy sources. 15. Cattle sleeves: It has a sanitary objective since it allows the work to be carried out optimizing time and prevents personal and animal accidents. The function of the same is varied: direction, subjection and transfers. The placement of sleeves between different pens, between them and the warehouses or next to greenhouses and / or pastures, allow conveniently directing the cattle. 16. Crop protections: meshes or half-shades that protect the crops in areas of strong sun. 17. Silobag: It was consolidated in Argentina in 1994 as a viable alternative to store and preserve crops. It is low cost, easy to implement, and highly efficient. A typical bag silo with a storage capacity of 200 tons consists of a cylinder approximately 75 meters long and 2.70 meters in diameter.

105

5.2

The residential image

The image of rural housing could be said to also be part of the lost culture, along with ancestral knowledge about the forms of agricultural production. As described in previous chapters, the industrialization of agriculture led to the expulsion of many peasant families for not being able to access the technological packages that the new agriculture proposed. As a consequence of this fact, rural houses have a direct effect, being partly uninhabited or abandoned, since the industrial agriculture is totally deterritorialized, people who work in the field no longer live in the site, since the new methodologies do not require extreme presence and need few employees. In other cases, peasant houses are rented to employees, who are often foreigners and do not have a local and deep-

5.3

Changing scales. Towards the robotization of spaces

There is an increasing scale of service farms infrastructure. An urbanization without people. A kind of building out of scale, codified, distant from us, without the need of human being. There is an exponential growth in the use of technology in the countryside, but this phenomenon increasingly distances the human scale from the structures and elements that belong to the field. The reality is that this robotization is totally linked to the industrialization and simplification of tasks in agriculture when it comes to monocultives. Technology is and can continue to be a positive tool for the development of agricultural activities, but the point is in which agriculture should be looked at in the future and then develop the corresponding technology that facilitates the production.

rooted connection with the context; and in a third instance, there are country houses that are simply summer or vacation homes belonging to wealthy families, which are uninhabited for most of the year. Therefore, industrialized forms of production do not think of the countryside as habitable or possible urbanization spaces, but rather that each square meter is crucial to plant more of the same monocultive.

Argentina 106

Netherlands

Italy

2010

2015

107

AGROECOLOGICAL DESIGNS

6.1

Agroecological principles for the creation of self-sustainable systems

Ninety-one percent of the 1.5 billion hectares of cultivated land in the world are occupied by annual crops, mainly monocultures of wheat, rice, corn, cotton and soybeans. One of the main problems that derive from the homogenization of agricultural systems is an increase in the vulnerability of crops to pests and diseases. (Altieri, 2010) The purpose and importance of determining AGROECOOLOGICAL DESIGNS is to restore the natural control mechanisms by increasing biodiversity and begin to develop food production in a non-invasive way for the environment. These designs are complex, since they must be based on a correct BALANCE of systems, connected in the appropriate way so that none of the components are overstressed, the circuit does not collapse and each of the elements fulfills the specific function. When managing and making modifications to the habitat, it is important to consider: the selection of the most appropriate plant species and their spatial and temporal deployment; the spatial scale on which the habitat improvement operates and the potential negative aspects associated with the addition of new plants in the agroecosystem (Altieri, 2010). Long-term vegetation management strategies are site-specific and must be developed based on local and regional environmental factors, as well as socioeconomic and cultural conditions. In this way, crop mixtures can serve to meet the broadest needs and preferences of local farmers and, at the same time, promote environmental quality. The key is to identify the type of biodiversity that you want to maintain and/or promote to carry out ecological services, and then determine the best practices that favor the desired biodiversity components. A main strategy in agroecology is to exploit the complementarity and synergy that result from the different combinations of crops, trees and animals of agroecosystems so that through spatial and temporal arrangements, they favor polyculture, agroforestry and agricultural systems (Altieri, 2010) As explained in the chapter of industrial agriculture, monocultures are dominated by a single plant species and therefore represent an extreme example of agroecosystems with low diversity. Such systems are more susceptible to climatic disasters, pest and disease outbreaks, and other catastrophes. 108

INCREASE THE DIVERSITY OF NATURAL ENEMIES. REDUCE DENSITIES OF PLAGUE SPECIES

CROP STRIPES. WINDBREAK CURTAINS

CONSOCIATED CROPS

ROTATIONS

COVERAGE CROPS

Habitat diversification

organic soil Zero tillage management

MANAGEMENT OF THE AGROECOSYSTEM

Cultural practices CONVENTIONAL TILLAGE

Pesticides

TOTAL WEED MONOCULTURE REMOVAL

CHEMICAL FERTILIZATION

REDUCE THE DIVERSITY OF NATURAL ENEMIES. PEST INSECT POPULATIONS INCREASE

Effects of agroecosystem management and associated cultural practices. Source: DISEÑOS AGROECOLÓGICOS, Miguel Angel Altieri Ph.D y Clara Nicholls Ph.D 109

WEEDS Within agroecological designs, one tool is to use and plant specific weeds to maintain populations of beneficial insects. This is accomplished by designing competitive crop mixtures; allowing the growth of weeds in alternate rows or only on the margins of the crop; using cover crops; maintaining weed-free periods (eg, during the first third of the crop’s growth cycle); through organic mulch; managing soil fertility; modifying the crop. These weeds provide alternative habitats for insects (natural enemies), indirectly protecting the crop. CONSOCIATED CROPS These are systems in which two or more crops are established simultaneously and close enough for interspecific competition and/or complementarity to occur. The most common crop associations may be two to three species, intercropping of crops in multi-row strip design, among others. The effects are diverse, since in addition to increasing the use of the cultivated area, it contributes to the conservation of the soil, the cycling of nutrients and the natural regulation of harmful organisms, among others. Polycultures involve a spatial diversification of farming systems that allows two or more crops to be planted together on the same plot (Francis, 1986). It is usuall to mix a legume with a cereal, which brings greater productivity than would be obtained from each species separately, because legumes fix nitrogen and because the mixture uses resources more efficiently and exhibits greater resistance to pests (Vandermeer, 1989). In the design and management of these systems, one of the strategies is to minimize competition and obtain maximum complementarity of the species in the mix (Francis, 1986). To achieve this spatial and temporal benefit, crops are combined in the same area. Expected designs can take the form of systems such as: strip crops, intercropping, mixed line crops, and ground cover crops (Andrews and Kassam, 1976). Numerous studies suggest that this plant diversification often results in a significant reduction in insect pest problems. A large number of entomological studies carried out in orchards with hedges indicate that orchards with floral richness in the soil show a significantly lower incidence of insect pests than in gardens with no vegetation, mainly due to the greater abundance and efficiency of predators and parasitoids. FOREST CURTAINS

buildings, and regulate microclimate conditions (INTA, 2011) Vegetation in areas adjacent to the crop can provide alternative food and essential habitat to perpetuate certain natural enemies of pests. Forest curtains also regulate ambient humidity. Evaporation is directly linked to wind speed, therefore, by decreasing it, significant water savings are generated in the protected area. Curtain design: The design of the forest curtains is given by their location within the premises, the orientation, the distance between curtains and the distance between plants. Orientation: A curtain will be more effective, the more perpendicular the direction of the prevailing winds is established. If in the place, there is more than one wind direction, it is necessary to design an “L”, “T” shaped curtain, or perimeter to the premises. Spacing between plants and between rows of trees The number of rows to establish in a curtain will depend on the sectors to be protected, the speed of the wind and the topography of the place. They usually vary between 1 to 4, the most common curtains in central Argentina being 1 and 2 rows. The spacing between plants in the row can vary between 1.5 to 2 meters, and between rows 2 to 3 meters, depending on the species used and the density to be obtained. Density: it is determined by the species used and the distance between the trees. If the trees are widely spaced in a curtain, the wind will pass through them without much resistance and its speed will not decrease significantly. Tree height: it is the most important factor to consider in its design, since it determines the area that the curtain protects. The maximum protection distance of a curtain varies between 15 and 20 times the height of the trees. In other words, if a curtain is 10 m high, it will protect up to a distance of 150 - 200 m from it. The height of the trees will depend on the species used, the management carried out, the age of the curtain and the characteristics of the site (especially climate and soil). Species to use: In the central region of Argentina, the most widespread forest curtains are those of poplars (álamos). There are different varieties of poplars and that is why it is important to know in advance the most advisable ones for the site. Other species may also be used, including: willows, various species of pine, cypress, elderberry, elm, bohemian olive, crataegus, and tamarisk.

Forest curtains are made up of one or more rows of trees that form a barrier perpendicular to the prevailing wind direction. In this way, it is possible to reduce wind speed, soil movement and erosion. They also make it possible to conserve soil moisture, reduce the mechanical action of the wind on crops, livestock and 110

111

VEGETATION STRIPS AND INTERCULTIVATED CROPS

DISTANCE Depends on the DENSITY of the tree

FOREST CURTAINS

AMOUNT OF LINES 1 to 4, Depends on the site, soil, wind

Reduce velocity of WIND

1,5m 2m

PROTECTION 15 to 20 times the height of the tree

10m

Protect CULTIVATIONS and CONSTRUCTIONS

80%

20%

ORIENTATION EFFICIENCY Perpendicular to wind direction

Conserve HUMIDITY of SOILS “T” COMPOSITION More than one direction

MICROCLIMATE in the PROTECTED areas PROXIMITY TO ANTHROPIZED PLACES

112

Another important strategy is to create strips of vegetation on the edges of crops, providing hundreds of meters of new shelters. And in addition, interspersing bands of vegetation that reach the center of the crop, these are arranged parallel to the crop lines (1.5m wide) and are planted in these bands, in order to conserve predators (Altieri, 2010). The strips not only provide greater food availability, but also more suitable wintering sites, in addition to providing shelter during agricultural disturbances or unfavorable weather conditions, such as drought. The auxiliary vegetation offers various ecological services, such as the following: › Physical barrier (anti-erosion, insects, weed seeds, microorganism spores, toxic fumes, strong wind currents, among others). › Refuge sites and multiplication of pollinators and natural regulators of harmful organisms. › Ecological corridor of biodiversity. › Repellency to harmful organisms. › Conservation and improvement of soil fertility. The incidence of pests and pathogens is usually lower in intercropping. Furthermore, the total efficiency of resource use is higher when plants with different root systems and leaf morphologies are combined, as this reduces competition between them for using different light and water strata. Combining two opposing species, usually a legume and a cereal, will result in higher biological productivity than both species would achieve separately, because their combination is capable of using resources more effectively than using them separately (Vandermeer, 1989). The diversity of species also works as a buffer to avoid the failure of the system in the face of environmental fluctuations, increasing the compensatory capacity of the agroecosystem; if one species falls or fails, others can take over. AGROFORESTAL SYSTEMS The agroforestry ecosystem is an intensive land management system that combines trees and/or shrubs with crops and/or livestock (Nair in Altieri, 2010). Agroforestry has been recommended to reduce outbreaks of pests generally associated with monocultures. The incorporation of trees with different phenology and different ages, through staggered plantings, can provide shelter and a more constant nutritional supplement for natural enemies, since the availability of resources is increased over time. Trees can also provide alternative hosts for natural enemies, as in the 113

case of plum plantations adjacent to vineyards that provide shelter for wintering populations of parasites. The attraction that plant species exert to insect pests of other plants can be exploited in agroforestry associations in the form of trap crops. These trap crops are an interesting option when they attract pests from the main crop within the field (local attraction) but not when they attract pests from areas outside the field (regional attraction). Well-designed agroforestry systems can reduce crop stress by providing plants with the right amount of shade, reducing extreme temperatures, protecting them from strong winds, and improving soil fertility. Diversity can be increased over time, through crop rotations and sequencing, and over space in the form of plant covers, intercropping, agroforestry, croplivestock mixes, and vegetation management outside the cultivated area. Plant diversification not only results in a regulation of pests by reestablishing natural control, but also produces optimal nutrient recycling, soil conservation, energy conservation and less dependence on external contributions to the ecosystem. Incorporating perennial crops into the system provides a continuous plant cover that can also protect the soil. The constant fall of the leaves incorporates organic matter and allows the uninterrupted circulation of nutrients. Another main goal achieved is the increase of landscape diversity in ecosystems. The central issue in sustainable agriculture is not reaching maximum production, but long-term stabilization. The integration of the components will achieve that the complete biological efficiency is improved, the productivity of the agroecosystem is preserved and its self-sustainability is maintained. Summarizing, the goal of agroecological design should incorporate: -Vegetable cover as a means of efficient soil and water conservation; -Regular supply of organic matter through the use of manure, plant biomass, compost and the promotion of biotic activity in the soil. -Mechanisms of nutrient recycling through crop rotations, agricultural systems based on legumes, etc. -Pest control by improving the activity of biological control agents, by introduction and/or conservation, or by vegetation design.

114

SOILS The fertility of the soil is not maintained here with a chemical fertilizer, nor with an organic substitute bought abroad, such as compost or commercial manure, or biofertilizers, but through a combination of composting with worms from the crop residues, the incorporation constant organic matter to the soil, feeding the animals with the rest of the crops, the use of their manure as fertilizer, interspersed with legumes that fix nitrogen and, finally, the promotion and maintenance of an active biology in the soils (Rosset, 2011). These types of agroecological systems have managed to restore even severely degraded soils.

GENERAL CONDITIONS The design and management of crop and breeding fields requires a deep understanding of the biophysical characteristics of the production system, mainly history of land use, topography, soil type, climate, water table, prevailing wind direction, proximity to natural ecosystems, proximity to anthropized environments (cities, industries, highways, and others), or proximity to other farms, sources of water supply, among others. It is important to understand that the design of crops on the farm can be spatial, temporary, annual or permanent, which constitutes the dynamics of crops that characterize diversified farms, but that must be conducted in such a way that productive interests are taken into account. , agronomic and ecological. Regarding the shape of the fields, the essential thing is that the farm has a certain diversity of shapes (square or rectangular, in stripes and round, divided by quadrants in some irrigation systems, among others), mainly to achieve disorientation of insect species that fly in search of the preferred crop, in addition to its effects on soil conservation. The long-term maintenance of diversity requires a management strategy that considers landscape patterns and regional biogeography, as well as the design of agroecosystems that respect the environment, above purely economic interests.

115

los

ze imi

INTERNAL VEGETATION CORRIDORS

WINDBREAK CURTAINS

Crop rotation

GROVE OR MIXED FOREST

Pollen and nectar carrying plants Provide new shelters, conserve predators, reduce inter-plant competition, provide alternative habitats to protect the crop.

1,5m

FIELDS FORMS Diversity in the shape of the fields <square or rectangular, striped and round, divided by quadrants>

ALIVE FENCE

to achieve disorientation of the insect species that fly in search of the preferred crop, in addition to its effects on soil conservation.

Animal integration

Consociated crops COVERAGE CROPS

Prov man ide the m agin g or ost fav gan o ic m rable s o atte r an il cond i d in Inc crea tions fo r e a bet r sing we se bio the plant gr en b l iolog owth com ogica , ical pon l int acti especia vity l ent erac of s ly by so t i o o fa ils gro ns an bio d b div ene ers ity ficial syn erg ies

o ses

Increased functional diversity, creating appropriate habitats

yste

ecos agro

e of th s e c n ur Mi reso vel c i t le ne d ge dscape n a es lan nts peci ld and s f nutrie y o f i g e n s li fi c r he cy Dive e at the er and t t t a m c ic rgan spa ion of o it s o p m co e the de Optimiz

and time m in a ter a w gy, r e n

t ene g d

s rce u o es ic r

VEGETATION STRIPES

FAVORATION OF ECOLOGICAL PROCESSES

Composting

AGROFORESTAL or AGROSILVICULTURE SYSTEMS Forest integration CROPS

LIVESTOCK

LIVESTOCK FIELDS CONTINUOUS TO CULTIVATION FIELDS

Crop mosaic

Green fertilizers Adding organic matter

116

SEMINATURAL ENVIRONMENTS

CROP ASSOCIATIONS 2 or 3 species legumes + cereal

117

PERMACULTURE principles

Concept

The design of these elements can be moved until they work in the direction of obtaining the greatest advantage. 118

enti Coope ties r and atives, foun lega l dati ons

Eco village-housing

SOCIAL COMPONENTS Culture

People

n pe o ic us ion m t nd icipa a t t Ar par o t

nd e a ns r u o lt Cu tructi ins

ses hou

Self -bu ilt

ture Bioarchite c

gy colo

La an nd o d c wn go omm ersh ver i na unit p nc y e

ENERGY COMPONENTS Technologies

nt me

Structures

n iro v n te

il Bu

principles of PERMACULTURE

Functions

Instruments and technology

THE DESIGN

ons

Agr oe

For es erv try atio n

lth we and ll- sp be iri ing tua

n an

Carin g for t earth h and n e ature

ctio

Conflict resolution

-Permaculture designs can be adapted to any climatic or cultural condition. -Each element is located in relation to another so that they assist each other. -Each element fulfills many functions. Each element must be chosen and located in such a way that it fulfills as many functions as possible. -Efficient energy planning for houses and communities. -Emphasis on the use of biological resources. -Energy recycling on site -Policulture and diversity of beneficial species for a productive and interactive system

olle

Disciplines for the mind and body

House, greenhouse, orchard, chicken coop, water storage tanks, compost heap, beehive, firewood forest, aquaculture pond, windbreaks, barn, tool shed, firewood, farmhouse hosts, pastures, living fences, worm beds, etc.

He a

Typical elements:

See

Water Floor Landscape

nd ya om ce on an Ec fin

The center of permaculture is design

way we place them in the landscape. (Mollison, 1981) The philosophy behind permaculture is one of working with, rather than against, nature. Permaculture is based on the observation of natural systems. This creates a cultivated ecology, which is designed to produce more food for humans and animals than is generally found in nature. The ideology can bring benefits to conservation and urban ecology through conscious provision of habitat for native flora and fauna, and high plant diversity. This way of designing, shows how an ethical approach to land and a simplified or idealized ecological understanding can fuel the enabling of space in a way that makes it socially, environmentally and productively relevant. The crops of industrial agriculture are totally dependent on external energies. As mentioned above when industrial agriculture is described, currently we cannot pay the real cost of our agriculture, since after each harvest it is not analyzed how much is the environmental cost that this production caused. In permaculture care for the land and people is taken into account. The key is cooperation and not competition.

SITE COMPONENTS

Site specifics

ic m edic ine

Permaculture is a design system for creating sustainable human environments. The word itself is a contraction not only of permanent agriculture but also of permanent culture, as cultures cannot survive for long without a sustainable agricultural base and a land use ethic. On one level, permaculture deals with plants, animals, buildings, and infrastructure (water, energy, communications). However, permaculture is not about these elements themselves, but about the relationships that we can create between them by the

Hol ist

7.1

Renewable energy Approp riat technolo e gy Sus tra tainab nsp ort le Re atio us n e/ rec yc lin g

ABSTRACTS COMPONENTS Ethics

Programming Data

119

7.2

Design elements

The principles of permaculture can be adapted to any climatic and cultural condition. The center of permaculture is DESIGN. Each element is located in relation to another in such a way that they assist each other and each fulfills many functions. Therefore, when designing, each element of the system must be chosen and located in such a way that it fulfills as many functions as possible (Mollison, 1981).

Relationship between distance and intensity of use

Various purposes of plants: d oo

lc mu

ife ( ildl w w a str for tat i b ha r buffe e t a clim eaker Wind br animal fodder fuel fire control

Priva cy soi l co nd ero itio sio ns nc on tro l

SECTORS PLANNING The sectors deal with wild energies, the elements of sun, light, wind, rain, fire, and water flow (including floods). All of these come from outside the system and go through it. The sectors to take into account are: the sector with danger of fire, cold or damaging winds, hot or dusty winds, blocking of unwanted landscapeview, sun angles in winter and summer, reflection of ponds (water mirrors), areas where flooding can occur. Based on these factors, the design components will be located to handle the energy that comes to our advantage. EFFICIENT ENERGY PLANNING The key to achieving energy efficiency is to consider the area and sector where the plants, ranges of animals and structures are located. For this, ZONE PLANNING is necessary, which means locating the elements according to their capacity of use or according to the frequency with which we need to work on them. The areas that must be visited each day (for example the greenhouse, the chicken coop, the orchard) are located nearby, while the less visited sites (fruit orchard, pasture areas, wood forest) are located further away. 120

121

USE OF BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Building the biological resources on the site is a long-term investment, requiring thought and management. In permaculture, green manures and legume trees are used instead of nitrogen fertilizers, lawnmowers are replaced by geese, biological control of insects is used instead of pesticides, and animals such as chickens or pigs are used instead of the plow machine, herbicides and fertilizers. Legume trees can provide nutrients to the soil, taking nitrogen from the air and processing it through the roots. Other biological resources include bees (pollinators of nectar-gathering flowers), thorny plants (for fences), allelopathic plants (weed suppressors), and guard dogs. The key is the correct management of these biological resources, otherwise they can become out of control and destructive. A community sustained by permaculture, it is independent of the retail trade and guarantees a varied diet. The big energy savings come from lower transportation, packaging and market costs. Permaculture systems seek to stop the flow of nutrients and energy off-site and return it to cycles. Good designs use the natural energies entering the system, as well as those generated on site, to ensure a complete power cycle. The exchange between plants and animals increases the energy available at the site. The purpose of permaculture is not just to recycle and therefore increase energy, but to consider capturing, storing and using it all before it is degraded to its lowest point of use and lost forever.

PLANTS OVERCOMING In each ecosystem the different species of plants have different heights with respect to the ground and the root structures are found at different depths. Plants grow in response to the availability of light. The shrub stratum, adapted to lower levels of light, can grow under small trees, and if light is available, a layer of herbaceous is constituted in the lower stratum. You can make your own variation by establishing an intersowing of large and small species, climbing plants and grasses, located according to their heights, shade tolerance and water requirements. The space between the plants depends mainly on the availability of water and the light requirements. Plantings in dry lands require more space between them, while in hot, humid environments they can be sown very close to each other.

122

Source: made by the author based on “Introduction to permaculture” by Bill Mollison (1981) 123

The yield in a monoculture system may probably be higher for a particular planting than the harvest of any species in a permaculture system, but the sum of the yields in a mixed system will tend to be higher than in an industrial system.

EDGE DEFINITION The edges act as networks, the energies or materials accumulate at the edges. It is essential to design taking advantage of the natural flow of materials and energies that occur in our system. Borders define areas and divide them into manageable sections. Just by defining these around an area, we can begin to control it. In addition, the performance of our system can be increased by manipulating the shape of an edge. A curved edge can be more useful than a straight one. A wavy edge is even more useful because it allows access to a larger surface area in the area. Regarding the selection of these, it is necessary to choose border patterns appropriate to the climate, landscape, size and the specific situation in the area.

SITE DESIGN ON A LARGE SCALE Observation and research are crucial to identifying the resources and limitations of a site. It is essential to collect maps, consult the records of winds, floods, native species, soils, access roads, water courses. The natural and existing morphology and the already built environment should be mapped. The topography is an unalterable feature of the site, it has an effect on the microclimate, it indicates the drainage patterns of the water, the depth of the soil, the quality, the access and the view of a landscape.

summer

winter

summer

winter

80° 35°

hillock hillock

embankment embankment

36 plants

hillock

45 plants

summer

winter

Dry and hot winds of summer

Source: made by the author based on “Introduction to permaculture” by Bill Mollison (1981) 124

Berms of earth or mounds to create special microclimatic effects Co ld of s est w um ind me s r

A. Edge crops B. Hillock and embankment C. Zig-zag fences D. Winding or curved E. Sun trap F. Key hole G. Garden bed holes, collect the straw brought by the wind

cold winds of winter

Source: made by the author based on “Introduction to permaculture” by Bill Mollison (1981) 125

MASSES OF WATER Water modifies temperature through evaporation. During the latter, the energy is sucked from the surrounding air and as the temperature decreases, the humidity increases. Even small lakes and ponds can be effective climate moderators. Reflection of light is also a factor to consider when designing a site. Mirror reflection is usually high during winter, when the sun is low in the sky (Mollison Bill, 1981). IRRIGATION TANKS AND DAMS Almost all useful water must be stored in tanks and dams. Tanks can receive rainwater from rooftops or water pumped from a dam. Small dams and clay tanks are used to provide drinking points for grazing animals, wildlife and domestic animals and the second use is to store excess water for domestic use or irrigation during dry periods. Dams and tanks must be carefully designed with regard to factors such as safety, water outlet, preferably providing a gravitational flow.

40 39 38 37

concave wall

36 35

convex wall

transversal section

Contour dams are practical on slopes of 8 ° or less, as part of a general series of dams on the farm

STRUCTURES Structures such as trellises, slopes, greenhouses, fences, walls and pergolas can affect the microclimate by changing the wind speed or temperature. The greenhouse is a very useful structure to control the microclimate in temperate regions. Greenhouses next to the house are effective for heating in winter, as they can help with heating during the day. Slopes and mounds also affect the microclimate in a variety of ways: they block the sun giving relief to the house, they block or channel the winds, they offer insulation (the ground retains heat and gradually loses temperature), they offer privacy and they isolate the noise of the house. traffic, provide more complex space for plants. For the design of the house, it is essential to set the objective of the maximum reduction of gas electrical energy to heat or cool it. For the layout of the plans, it is preferred that the less frequented places of the house such as the rooms look to the shady side (to the south in the southern hemisphere and to the north in the north hemisphere) and the common spaces look to the sun, to maintain the heat in winter. In general, few openings are placed towards the west side, since in the summer it concentrates a lot of heat or reflects the snow in the winter. A shade house on the south face (for the southern hemisphere) is recommended, as it allows fresh air to enter the house in the summer. The use of insulating materials is crucial when designing the house. Some natural insulating materials to be considered can be: sawdust, wool, feathers, sea grass, straw, cork, fiber waste, paper, raft, among others. West side walls and shady facing walls are available for evergreen trellises and shrubs to protect these areas from exposure to heat in summer and cold winds in winter.

ventilation grill

45-60° ventilation grill

Diversion monks for the next dam A greenhouse on the sunny side of the house can help with heating transversal section

126

127

ORCHARDS The orchards should always be located in zone I, since it is the area that is visited daily and requires more care. It is preferable that the organization of the garden is more of a heap of objects, with winding paths, rather than perfectly defined rows. A spiral of culinary herbs is recommended immediately after the kitchen door, for quick and easy access to them. The organization of the family garden can be similar to the formation of layers, where plants of different heights share light and food. FRUIT ORCHARDS AND GRAIN CROPS These can be located in zone II and III since they require less care than an orchard. Species must be chosen to complement the design. Nitrogen-fixing legumes, main crops, disease resistant species, windbreak trees, and dispersed alternative trees are used for pest control and attractive to abjejas. At the lowest level of the orchard, animal fodder crops, insect repellent species, or nitrogenfixing clovers can be grown. STRUCTURAL FORESTS The trees provide fodder in difficult times as well as for livestock and wildlife, cushioning the extreme conditions of cold and heat. Increasingly, farmers develop forest systems on farms for these reasons, in addition to helping to prevent soil erosion, they are a source of firewood and construction material for the farm, among others. FINAL DESIGN REMARKS Permaculture-based design strategies range from the broadest generalities such as the identification of zones mentioned above to the smallest details, such as taking into account the internal spaces for storing and drying food, avoiding the use of the refrigerator in its greatest part, the use of waste resources from the house, such as gray water that can be filtered and reused, plastic, glass and metal waste can be recycled and organic waste is used as animal feed or for composting, the use of renewable energy, among countless other characteristics that are fine-tuned through design to make the system as efficient as possible.

128

7.3

Community strategies

Today, cities and towns do not have the capacity to provide themselves with food and energy, as they consume much more than they produce. Permaculture seeks to achieve strategies and techniques so that cities and communities can be self-sufficient. Communal lands can contain central gathering spaces, large areas for community gardens, vineyards, etc. The idea of the global communal village is currently growing, it is the most significant revolution in thought, values and technology. In a world where natural resources show their limit of exhaustion, the formation of responsible communities involved with permaculture is the political and economic solution to this global problem. Not all people need to be a farmer, but the combination of different skills creates a sense of community. The formation of local action groups is essential to try to achieve a change in local and state policies and demand access to land, in order to divert resources from waste and destruction towards conservation and construction. The change from competitive philosophy to one of cooperation in free associations is crucial. But at the same time, the biggest change that must be made is that of consumption by production, although on a small scale. There is no other way than cooperative productivity and community responsibility (Mollison, 1981). The development and implement of holistic approaches developing regionfood systems will ensure food security, contribute to poverty eradication, protect and enhance local biodiversity, strength resilience and adaptation and reinforce the identity and culture of communities.

129

VISIONS

8.1

Frank Lloyd Wright

Broadacre city

The final chapter of Volume I, called “Visions”, has the purpose of referring to alternative thoughts expressed by renowned architecture studios with different views towards the future of urbanization and specifically, thoughts towards the future of the countryside. The selected cases are presented in chronological order, from Broadacre city in 1935, developed by Frank Lloyd Wright, to the present, with the Archizoom exhibition in Portugal, where a parallel is made between the history of agriculture

1935

In this vision, the architect proposes to relocate the entire United States population within individual homesteads. Broadacre city challenges the urbanity of spaces by proposing decentralization and a life in communities. Broadacre City offered American audiences the clearest crystallization of Wright’s critique of the modern industrial city; it posited an indigenous organic model for North American settlement across an essentially boundless plain of cultivated landscape. It proposed a network of transportation and communication infrastructures, with the Jeffersonian grid as its principal ordering system. With ownership of one acre of land per person as a birthright, residents of Broadacre would enjoy modern houses, subsistence gardens and small-scale farms. This basic pattern of variously scaled housing and landscape types was interspersed with light industry, small commercial centers and markets, civic buildings and, of course, the highway.

and that of architecture, and the exhibition by OMA, called “Countryside the future”. These manifests highlight the thinking of the future of urbanization that is being debated, where the countryside begins to be the main stage and agglomerations and cities are moved to the background. These radical ideas propose different visions of what this decentralized future could be like, but at the same time it is suggested that the robotization of the countryside is dehumanizing these areas as habitable spaces for new urban developments.

130

131

8.2 1960

Kisho Kurokawa

8.3

Archizoom

Agricultural city

The non-stop city

Intended for the replacement of the agricultural towns in Aichi destroyed by the Ise Bay Typhoon in 1959, the accommodation was to be raised above the ground to deal with future flooding. Agricultural cities, industrial cities, consumption cities, and recreation cities should each form an integral part of a compact community. A distinct urban system should exist between those cities. Agricultural cities have potential as future cities. And that is the reason why it is necessary to have a basic plan for their future expansion. “It seems to me that there exists a city versus village concept with an emphasis on cities. We say “the flow of agricultural population into cities” or “dispersion of urban population”. I believe that rural communities are cities whose means of production are in agriculture.”

This vision was really more an exploration of a kind of “degree zero” urbanization, an urbanism without qualities. The work of Archizoom prefigured the current interest in mapping how financial and ecological flows shape the modern low-density metropolis; and it anticipates the focus on infrastructure and ecology as non-figurative drivers of urban form. It ilustrates an urbanism of continous mobility, fluidity and flux. It also prefigured attention to describing the relentlessly horizontal field conditions of the modern metropolis as a surface shaped by the strong forces of economic and ecological flows.

1968-71

The basic unit of the rural area of Japan is 500 m x 500 m community centered around a shrine, a grammar school, and a temple. According to the proposed plan, roads, water services, electricity, monorails for work and other facilities are installed 4 meters above the ground. This will enable the common handling and administering of agricultural works.

The basic housing unit (vide) is in the shape of a mushroom, a one to three-storied structure with a wooden frame aluminum roof. The mushroom-shaped house has a ferroconcrete facility shaft to which living quarters and other facilities are attached. The living units multiply spontaneously without any hierarchy, gradually bringing the village into being as the traditional rural settlement has developed throughout Japanese history. 132

133

8.5 1994

Andrea Branzi

Agronica Agronica represents the potential parallelism between agricultural and energy production, new modalities of post-Fordist industrial economy, and the cultures of consuption that they construct. Andrea Branzi returns to his interest in the relentlessly horizontal spread of capital across thin tissues of territory, and the resultant “weak urbanization” that the neoliberal economic paradigm affords. The project is utopian, referring to a “non-place” rather than a specific geographical location. Agronica looks for the integration with existing cities and urban agglomerations; it is considered utopian in the sense it is projective, proposing new urban patterns, but at the same time connects a critique of the contemporary political and urban situation. Agronica operates in an environment of functions without structures, it looks to virtual networks. This project is rooted in the matrices of non-stop city. It dissolves linkages between social and political structures and the spatial organization of the city.

134

8.4

Andrea Branzi

The weak metropolis

2010

This vision overlays a grid of physical connections rendered in red with dotted lines linking iconic representations of people and networked devices. The weak metropolis resembles the social and spatial arrangements found on beaches or in camps more than those of cities; its dotted lines representing traces of temporary connections enabled by virtual networks, or by the flexible and easily removable ribbon.

Seven suggestions The models of weak organization consist in the cohabitation of half-agricultural and half urban territories. / The weak metropolis is not a system of architectural boxes, but an always changing enzymatic territory, consisting in a personal computer every 20 square meters. / It is not the metropolis of the future, but the metropolis of the present. / A metropolis must always change its functions from inside; without permanent solutions, but based on reversibility; on functional un-definition; on fluid perimeters; on cohabitation between living and dead beings, humans and animals. / It is a territory of experience; a concave space; a high tech favela; an airconditioned area. / It is the space of a civilization of goods; the uncertain site of a self-reforming society. / The quality of the weak metropolis is in the quality of its objects.

Traditional hierarchy of the industrial society versus network society, 2006.

135

8.6 2011

8.7

MDRDV

Almere Oosterwold. Netherlands This is a project carried out by the Mdrdv studio and which is currently being implemented. “Free design and construction will transform an area of 43km2. Limits are set to ensure the rural character of the area is maintained: 18% construction, 8% roads, 13% public green, 2% water and 59% urban agriculture. An individual’s creativity is limitless within this framework – who knows what forms the houses will take!” It is a growing attempt to make a masterplan collectively. By giving these initiatives step by step a place, the area will gradually transform the existing situation to a diverse living and working landscape. Freeland develops as a rich assemblage of originality where everything is possible, and where advanced urban planning is also very basic. Freedom goes hand in hand with responsibilities as well. It is based on common sense: you can do whatever you want, but do not harm others. By not only developing your own plot, but also all the necessary components around it, including infrastructure, energy supply, waste disposal, water storage, and public parks, you do not only build your own home, but you also contribute to the development of your neighbourhood and your part of town.

It is an unexpected urbanism and a world of surprises of a rich collection of houses and all other initiatives appears. A city that is not predominated by ‘structure’. A city that we develop all together over time. Where facilities are developed by individuals, collectives and public organizations. The absence of zoning allows for rich and exciting program, providing diversity and liveliness at all times.

136

Archizoom

Agriculture and architecture taking the country’s side

Taking stock of the severe environmental predicament that now faces our world, “Taking the Country’s side” is an exhibition carried out from February to April 2020 in Lisbon, Portugal and intends to ignite a reflection (both retrospective and pro-spective) on the strong link between the twin disciplines of agriculture and architecture, and on their growing divorce since the industrial revolution. It aims to learn from agricultural scientists, activists and designers who have consistently explored the hypothesis of a future of energy descent and its consequences, for the redesign and maintenance of living territories. Taking the Country’s Side extends to architects, as well as to all those concerned by the current evolution of our living environments, an invitation to leave their metropolitan niche, their zones of professional comfort and smartness, and literally “take a walk on the wild side”. For some decades now, it so happens that several individuals and communities, committed to enacting alternatives to the deleterious processes of industrial agriculture and market economy (under the name of permaculture, social ecology, agroforestry, bioregionalism or agroecology), have evolved a treasure trove of ideas and principles that significantly challenge the core concepts of architecture and urbanism today.

2020

”The history of the city is intimately linked to that of the productive territories, it is a coevolution.” Sébastien Marot, curator of the exhibition

By surrounding each development with a green ring of urban agricultural and public or private green, city and landscape are mixed and creates a continuous green landscape. It prevents the closing up of the landscape, but creates a continuous open space, with surprising shapes, directions and interpretations. This allows for the development of a ‘productive landscape’ for the production of food, energy, water reception and purification, etc. 137

8.8 2020

OMA Office for metropolitan architecture

Countryside the future A manifesto by Rem Koolhas that culminates in an exhibition at the Guggenheim Museum in New York, it will present speculations about tomorrow through insights into the countryside today. “At a certain point, the UN declared that half of mankind is now living in cities, since when there has been an avalanche of books and biennales talking only about cities. As a result, there is an enormous deficit in understanding what is happening in the countryside, which is where the truly radical changes are taking place.” Countryside, The Future will explore radical changes in the rural, remote, and wild territories collectively identified here as “countryside,” or the 98% of the Earth’s surface not occupied by cities. The manifesto examines the modern conception of leisure, large-scale planning by political forces, climate change, migration, human and nonhuman ecosystems, market-driven preservation, artificial and organic coexistence, and other forms of radical experimentation that are altering landscapes across the world.

CONCLUSIONS

This volume was intended to provide an overview of current globally expanded production techniques and their impacts at all levels, from environmental to social. In addition to how it is produced, it is crucial to understand what is produced, analyze the differences according to area, region, continent, understanding that it is a matter of geographic context, politics and economy of the site impacted in the form of agricultural production. In addition, the type of production tending to monocultures, contributed to the fact that few countries produce what is necessary to be self-sufficient, therefore the long industrial chains multiplied, and a direct impact could be visualized with the Covid-19 pandemic. Therefore, the volume tries to show sustainable production alternatives, which currently cover a minimal percentage of implementation, but which are raising awareness in many parts of the world, where the consequences of industrial agriculture are already almost irreversible and the decision towards a transition must be taken urgently. Agroecological and permaculture designs show immense potential to make this transition possible, but they must be studied and analyzed particularly adapted to each context, showing that agriculture is a complex system that must imitate natural ecosystems, and it is not just planting a cultivation repeatedly and infinitely, completely destroying biodiversity and soils. Agroecological designs focus directly on production, while

permaculture complements these ideas, adding the social component to the system, therefore, annexing the necessary structures for societies living

with this agroecological system. Finally, the visions expressed by different architecture studios reinforce the need for change towards a decentralized urbanization. They emphasize the thoughts of possible changes in the processes of formation of communities

and of the countryside as the protagonist of future scenarios.

138

139

Bibliography

-Altieri Miguel A., Nicholls Clara I. 2005. Agroecology and the Search for a Truly Sustainable Agriculture 1st edition. University of California, Berkeley. -Altieri Miguel A. , Nicholls Clara I. 2010. Diseños agroecológicos para incrementar la biodiversidad de entomofauna benéfica en agroecosistemas [Agroecological designs to increase the biodiversity of beneficial entomofauna in agroecosystems]. Medellín, Colombia.

-FAO, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2014. Agroecology for food security and nutrition proceedings of the FAO International SymposiumRome, Italy. Rome, Italy.

-Altieri Miguel A. , Nicholls Clara I. 2020. Agroecology and the reconstruction of a post-COVID-19 agriculture. The Journal of Peasant Studies.

-FAO, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2018. World food and agriculture, statistical pocketbook. Rome, Italy.

- Anderson Colin, Pimbert Michel and Kiss Csilla. 2015. Bulding, defending and

-FAO, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2019. The

strengthening agroecology, a Global Struggle for food sovereignty. Declaration of the International Forum for Agroecology.

world state of agriculture and food: progress in combating food loss and waste. Rome, Italy.

-Arboleda Martín. 2016. Spaces of extraction, metropolitaan explotions: Planetary urbanization and the Commodity Boom in Latin America. International journal of Urban and Regional research, vol. 40, issue 1, 96-112.

-Giraldo Omar Felipe & Rosset Peter M. 2017. Agroecology as a territory in dispute: between institutionality and social movements. The Journal of Peasant Studies.

-Arrazola Aranzabal Iñigo. 2018. Miradas complementarias desde la ecología política. Aproximaciones para los agrosistemas [Complementary views from political ecology. Approaches for agrosystems]. Ecuador.

-Fukuoka Masanobu. 1978. The One-Straw revolution: an introduction to Natural farming. Hakujusha Co. Ltd., Tokyo, Japan.

-Brenner Neil. 2016. The hinterland, urbanized? Architectural design 86, pages 118-127. -Brenner Neil and Katsikis Nikos. 2020. Operational landscapes, Hinterlands of the Capitalocene. The landscapist, redefining Landscape Relation, pages 22-31. -Brenner Neil and Christian Schmid. 2015. Towards a new epistemology of the urban? Vol. 19, Nos. 2–3, pages 151–182 -Busscher Nienke, Parra Constanza & Vanclay Frank. 2019. Environmental justice implications of land grabbing for industrial agriculture and forestry in Argentina. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. -Carrasco Andrés E., Sánchez Norma E., Tamagno Liliana E. 2012. Agricultural model and socio-environmental impact in Argentina: monoculture and agribusiness. AUGM-Environment Committee. -Dalgaard Tommy, Hutchings Nicholas J., Porter John R. 2003. Agroecology, scaling and interdisciplinarity. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 100 (2003) 39–51. 140

-Donaldson Brianne and Carter Christopher. 2016. The future of meat without animals. Chapter 10, “The future of industrial agriculture, an environmental justice perspective”. USA.

-Gonzalez de Molina, Manuel. 2012. Agroecology and Politics. How to Get Sustainability? About the Necessity for a Political Agroecology. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 37:1, 45-59. Sevilla, Spain. -Harvard University Graduate School of Design; Ecological Urbanism; 2010; -Henk De Zeeuw and Pay Drechsel; Cities and agriculture: developing resilient urban food systems; 2015; Cambridge. -Harvey David. 2012. Rebel cities, From the Right to the City to the Urban Revolution. Chapter 1. London. -Leguizamón Amalia. 2016. LAS LUCHAS POR LA JUSTICIA AMBIENTAL en la Argentina sojera [ENVIRONMENTAL INJUSTICE IN ARGENTINA: struggles against genetically modified soy]. Critical Development Studies. Volume VI, number 11. -Manzanal Mabel, Arzeno Mariana, Villarreal Federico, González Fernando, Ponce Mariana. 2014. Family farming and food sovereignty. Territorial diversity of public policies in Misiones and Buenos Aires (Argentina). Eutopía, number 6, pages 11-24. 141

-Meuwissen Miranda and partners. 2017. Report on resilience framework for EU agriculture. European’s Union horizon 2020 research and innovation programme

design of urban and suburban production systems to favor ecological processes]. Agricultura Orgánica, año 18, número 3 de 2012.

under Grant Agreement No. 727520.

-Viljoen André. 2005. Continous productive urban landscapes. Oxford.

-Mollison Bill with Reny Mia Slay. 1981. Introduction to permaculture. Tagari publications.

-Vandermeer John H. 1989. The ecology of intercropping. Cambridge University Press.

-Mollison Bill. 1988. Permaculture, a designer’s manual. Tagari publications. -Pacchi Carolina and Pasqui Gabriele. 2015. Urban planning without conflicts? Observations on the nature and conditions for urban contestation in the case of Milan. Critical Perspectives on Contentious Urban Developments, Ashgate, London, pp. 79-98.

-Oikawa A., Domene A., Franco C., Agrointeligencia. Accessed 10 September 2020. <https:// www.agrointeligencia.com/tendencias-mercado-mundial-verduras/> -World horti center. Eat this! Rem Koolhas webinar. Accessed 10 May 2020. <https://www.

-Renting Henk, Marsden Terry K. 2003. Understanding alternative food networks: exploring the role of short food supply chains in rural development. Environment and Planning A 2003, volume 35, pages 393-411.

worldhorticenter.nl/>

-Robinson Guy M. 2008. Sustainable rural systems, Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Communities. London. -Rosset Peter M. and Martinez Torres Maria Elena. 2012. Rural Social Movements and Agroecology: Context, Theory, and Process. Ecology and Society, Sep 2012, Vol. 17, No. 3.

mtalks-rem-koolhaas-and-david-gianotten-on-countryside>

-Sarandon Javier. 2014. Agroecology: theoretical bases for design and management of sustainable agroecosystems. La Plata, Buenos Aires, Argentina. -Sordi Jeannette, Valenzuela Luis, Vera Felipe. 2017. The camp and the city, territories of extraction. Harvard.

142

Websites

-The University of Melbourne, MTALKS, Rem Koolhaas and David Gianotten on countryside. Melbourne school of design, accessed 20 May 2020. <https://msd.unimelb.edu.au/events/

-National geographic magazine. Holland agriculture sustainable farming, accessed 25 May 2020. <https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/article/holland-agriculture-sustainablefarming> -FAOSTAT Food and agriculture Organization of the United Nations, accessed 5 June 2020. < http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#home> -Global Forest watch. Interactive maps. Accessed 18 May 2020. < https://www.globalforestwatch. org/map/>

-Stabinsky Doreen. 2012. Ecological agriculture for food security and climate resilience. Scientific Conference 2012 Hyderabad / India.

-World bank data. Agriculture and rural development. Accessed 10 June 2020. <https://data.

-UN United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. 2018. The world’s cities in 2018-Data Booklet. ST/ESA/ SER.A/417.

-Our world in data, Agricultural Production. Accessed 10 June 2020. <https://ourworldindata.

-UN United Nations. 2021. Make peace with nature: Scientific plan to deal with emergencies of climate, biodiversity and pollution. Nairobi. https://www.unep.org/ resources/making-peace-nature.

-Koolhas R. Guggenheim museum. Countryside, The future. Accessed 15 April 2020. <https://

-Vázquez Moreno Luis L. , Yaril Mati enzo Brito, Janet, Alfonso Simonetti.

projects/32/almere-oosterwold>

2012. Contribución al diseño agroecológico de sistemas de producción urbanos y suburbanos para favorecer procesos ecológicos [Contribution to the agroecological

-INTA Instituto Nacional de Tecnología agropecuaria. Forest curtains. Accessed 15 May 2020.

worldbank.org/topic/agriculture-and-rural-development>

org/agricultural-production>

www.guggenheim.org/exhibition/countryside> -MDRDV Projects. Almere Oosterwold. Accessed 20 June 2020. <https://www.mvrdv.nl/

< https://inta.gob.ar/sites/default/files/script-tmp-inta_forestal22_alamos_cortinas.pdf> 143

-ENCUENTRO. Autosustentables [Self-sustaining, Encuentro Channel]. Accessed 20 May 2020. < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-NKljNPAB8&t=4s+Accessed+2+November+2020> -Urban theory lab. Accessed 15 November 2020. < http://www.urbantheorylab.net/publications/> -FAO, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Agroecology Knowledge Center. Accessed 20 November 2020.<http://www.fao.org/agroecology/database/detail/es/c/1295997> -LA VÍA CAMPESINA [The peasant way], Accessed 20 November2020. < https://viacampesina. org/en> -Environmental Justice Atlas. Accesed 10 December 2020. < https://ejatlas.org/> -OLCA Latin American Observatory for Environmental Conflicts. Accessed 25 November 2020. < http://olca.cl/oca/index.php> -EPFL. Agriculture and Architecture: Taking the Country’s Side. Exhibition. Accessed 16 October 2020.

<https://www.epfl.ch/campus/art-culture/museum-exhibitions/archizoom/taking-the-

countrys-side/> -CLACSO Consejo Latinoamericano de Ciencias Sociales. La agroecología en tiempos de covid-19 [Agroecology in times of covid-19]. Accessed 16 September 2020. < https://www.clacso.org/laagroecologia-en-tiempos-del-covid-19/> -SOCLA Scientific Society of agroecology. Agroecology in action. Accessed 25 October 2020. < http://agroeco.org/projects/> -Lavaca. Tierra viva: campos agroecológicos de Lincoln [Living Land: Lincoln Agroecological Fields]. Accessed 28 November 2020. < https://www.lavaca.org/mu125/tierra-viva/> -CIRAA Circulo Argentino de agroecología. Mapa agroecología [Agroecology map]. Acessed 25 November 2020. <https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1byt8CifteSr7ZR5xqX6ZRLOxho&ll=-27.738861011562324%2C-67.06559823437499&z=3> -Agroecología Venezuela. Permacultura. Accessed 20 October 2020. <http://agroecologiavenezuela.blogspot.com/2008/09/permacultura.html> -ARQA. Permacultura: autarquía alimentaria y diseño sostenible [Permaculture: food autarky and sustainable design]. Accessed 24 November 2020. < https://arqa.com/actualidad/entrevistas/ permacultura-autarquia-alimentaria-y-diseno-sostenible.html> -Tenth acre farms, permaculture for the suburbs. 6 Maps for the Permaculture Farm Design. Accessed 28 November 2020. <https://www.tenthacrefarm.com/6-maps-permaculturefarm-design/> -Ellen Macarthur Foundation. Food and the circular economy. Accessed 3 December 2020. 144

< https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/explore/food-cities-the-circular-economy>

145

VOLUME II The site and the hope of change

146

147

INTRODUCTION

Volume II focuses especially on Argentina, initially analyzing the history and transformations of the use of the countryside throughout the years and especially from the impact in the 1990s, after the green revolution. Consequently, the physical and geographical characteristics are developed to understand the territory in depth and a catalog of native plants is made, highlighting the importance of a possible reconstruction of biodiversity, after the erosion generated by industrial agriculture. Subsequently, the production scales in the territories are understood, performing a reading of the National agriculture census. A review is made of the 6 points of Critical Regionalism proposed by Kenneth Frampton, setting up a parallel with the Argentine territories of industrialized agriculture. In addition, the possibilities of a search for a transition towards rural sustainability and agroecological processes are analyzed, taking into account political obstacles and ideological conflicts in the country. Finally, agroecological transition processes are explained, bringing to the fore real cases that demonstrate the veracity of the change and understanding that these processes can be long and complex, since it is a transformation after years of applying agrochemicals and fertilizers to soils, but they are not impossible and can really generate the future change, necessary to guarantee more sustainable environments, safety and food sovereignty for all societies.

148

149

9.1

ARGENTINA

History of a territorial transformation in the countryside

The Pampas plain is characterized by having the most fertile soils in Argentina. Before the formation of the cities and villages in the area, at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century, the land was occupied by the indigenous group called Ranqueles, and it was a strategic point of transit between Chile and the city of Buenos Aires. After the Conquest of the Desert, a campaign led by the president, the Ranqueles towns were dissolved, distributing the few that remained to other areas. The lands were awarded to people of power to found the towns, these figures had held important positions and were rewarded with land instead of money. Since the mid-nineteenth century, the entire country has been closely related to economic development directly linked to the exploitation of natural resources and in particular to agricultural production. The mentioned activity in this area was first characterized by a large percentage of extensive livestock, mixed with rotating crops, thus maintaining the fertility of the soils, achieving an economic and sustainable productive cycle. The native pastures of the Pampean region needed to be improved with more nutritious alfalfa for breeding, therefore agriculture in the area began based on livestock. The turning point reached the global level with the Green Revolution, between 1960 and 1980 in the United States, bringing its direct effects to Argentina since the 1980s (see Green revolution, Volume I). Therefore, as a result of world events, Argentina in the 1980’s also began to significantly increase its production and to change its methods. In this accelerating trend, the doubling of production in a period of fifteen years (particularly since the 90s) and the growing importance that SOY acquires in the territories stands out, this crop will make up 50% of the National production. The development of soybeans did not prohibit the parallel growth of the dairy and livestock industry, but in territorial terms, agricultural production displaced extensive livestock, demanding more land, the latter being produced industrially in the so-called Feed-lots (closed spaces fattening) and soybeans continued to devastate territory, not only displacing livestock but also increasing the deforestation of native forests. ‘Between 1996 and 2005 there was a reduction of between 5 and 6 million hectares dedicated to livestock’ (Bisang Roberto, 2007). 150

151

9.2

The jump in production in the 1990s was due to different factors that accompanied this transformation, such as dynamic external demands, positive changes in the regulatory environment, public infrastructure policies to improve export output, and launching of loans from private banks to finance the agriculture, due to the growing need to invest in new technologies and mechanization. But a really important fact in our country occurred in 1996, when the new “technological package” of transgenic soy resistant to glyphosate or RR soy was introduced. Therefore, input suppliers, linked to multinational capitals, enter the scene. Companies such as Bayer, Monsanto, Syngenta, replicate the concentration processes locally and a package (seeds, fertilizers and herbicides) is sold to the producer. Thus, the producer begins to be involved in a network of investments, expenses and actors that manipulate the territory, distancing it more and more from sustainable agriculture and generating social impacts of exclusion, inequality and expulsion towards producers who cannot access these new technologies. Family productions in the Pampean region were particularly affected. Between 1960 and 1999, in mainly agricultural areas, about 70% of family farms would have disappeared and more than half would have disappeared between 1988 and 1999 (According to the 1988 and 2002 National Agricultural Census). The structure of the agricultural fabric was reconfigured especially between 1998 and 2000 with these new actors, beginning to accentuate a process of delocalization of production, (those who work the land are companies that transhuman territorially, supply themselves with inputs and spend their surpluses in places other than those where they do tillage). Glyphosate-resistant soybeans began to become the central crop of the Pampean and also extra-Pampa agriculture. The landscapes were homogenized in a few years, biodiversity decreased notably, ecosystems are highly altered and a great impact can be observed in the area with repeated floods, especially the last one in 2017, followed by a severe drought in the 2019, impacts that are much more drastic when soils have very little resilience, losing 100% of crops and also affecting population. At present, this model of intensive agriculture, based mainly on the cultivation of transgenic soybeans, is still in force, increasing more and more visible problems related to the environment and societies, which begin to manifest themselves in situations such as people affected by agrochemicals from fumigations, job and food sovereignty losses. This model coexists with a small percentage resistant to this type of practices, which begin to have new alternatives to the extensive and toxic agricultural model, which are still far from being established nationally, but are the only visible path towards a future of sustainable agriculture. 152

PAMPEAN REGION

It covers the central-eastern region of the country. It is a large plain with intense agricultural exploitation, a temperate and humid climate. Politically, it corresponds to the provinces of Buenos Aires, and part of Santa Fe, Córdoba, Entre Rios and La Pampa. Due to its extension, it constitutes the most important prairie ecosystem in Argentina, adding up to a total of 54 million hectares. It has a relatively flat relief, with a gentle slope towards the Atlantic Ocean, exposed to permanent or cyclical flooding. The soils are suitable for agriculture and livestock. This region has attracted attention because of the simplification of the landscape, the replacement of native vegetation, intense droughts, floods, the occurrence and management of fire, and the modification of drainage patterns due to large-scale livestock and agriculture. These transformations have generated important impacts that require active intervention of state policies to mitigate the negative effects. Wetlands are, perhaps after forests, the ecosystems that have received most pressure from this agro-industrial process. FAO understands that biodiversity for food and agriculture comprises the “variety and variability of animals, plants and micro-organisms, both at the genetic level and as species and ecosystems that support ecosystem structures, functions and processes, around production systems, and that provide food and other non-food agricultural commodities”. In the Pampas region, agriculture has been carried out for more than 100 years and may have generated the local extinction of many species of plants and animals. However, there is still the presence of species from the original ecosystem, thanks to the conservation of uncultivated borders that are inserted in a landscape matrix with certain structural complexity, which contributes to the alpha, beta and range of plant diversity. In the 1980s, the intensification of agriculture and the replacement of livestock systems with continuous cultivation promoted a renewed homogenization of the most productive areas. Birds and carnivorous species were affected, as well as rodents and insects, but responses were varied within geographical ranges and/or the abundance of many native species was reduced, including carnivores, herbivores and species such as grassland birds and rodents and specialized pollinators. Similarly, agricultural production displaced livestock from the central region to the Chaco region and the northwest of the country. This produced 153

a strong deforestation, which for Argentina the average rate is approximately 0.82% per year, (FAO, 2011), although there are areas where this figure reaches 10%. The experts noted that the most negative effects on biodiversity, which were due to pollution within the different production systems, occurred in rainfed crops, mainly in the Central, North east and North west regions, where the highest use of agrochemicals is concentrated. In Argentina, the generalized use of pesticides coincided with the agricultural expansion of the Pampas towards areas of the Chaco forest and other floodable pastures, where permanent agriculture began to be consolidated.

9.2.1

WEATHER

Subtropical without dry season

Temperate mountain

Subtropical with dry season

Arid of mountains

Tropical serrano

Semi-arid

Temperate humid Pampean

arid patagonian

Temperate semi-arid Pampean

Arid Andean-Puno

Temperate ocean

Wet cold

The climate of this region is a variation of the humid subtropical, also called temperate, characterized by the fact that the warmest season is also the rainiest. It has hot summers and cool and variable winters, with frequent frosts but no snowfall; the annual average temperature is 17 ° C. The amount of precipitation forms a division between the humid pampas and the dry pampas. The humid pampa receives an average of 1000 mm of precipitation annually and is favored by the winds from the Atlantic Ocean. In the dry pampas, located to the west of the region, there is only an average of 400 mm per year of precipitation on a sandy soil. The characteristic winds of the Pampean region are the Pampero and the The Pampean region in Argentina

154

Southeastern. The first comes from an Antarctic anticyclone, so it is a very cold and dry wind, blowing from the south or southwest of the country to our region; It has a speed of 100 km h and causes rain, a drop in temperature, large clouds of dust, and sometimes snowfall. 155

9.2.2

Predominant winds

TOPOGRAPHY South American profiles

A D TA

ZONDA WIND

9.2.3

IN W

OCE NTIC A T LA TH SOU

ARG

ENT

INE

SEA

M PA

Source: made by the author based on “Vientos de Argentina” (http://argentinaventosa.blogspot.com/ 156

Source: made by the author based on PEAK MAP. (https://anvaka.github.io/peak-map/) 157

9.2.4

PAMPEAN VEGETATION

It is the main agricultural area of Argentina. The original landscape is of grasslands and prairies, alternating with bushes and dissected by the gallery forests of the main rivers and streams. However, the natural cover has been replaced by agricultural or livestock activity and few relics of the natural vegetation remain. The general relief is flat to gently undulating or depressed plains that can be permanently or cyclically flooded. The territory has a gentle slope towards the Atlantic Ocean and drains towards the main rivers. It also includes low mountain ranges, fields of fossilized dunes and sand, temporary and permanent water mirrors resulting from the flat topography and the poor drainage network.

Sclerophyte Forest with Prosopis Nigra and Acacia Caven Sclerophyte forest with Prosopis Nigra and Prosopis alba Sclerophyte forest with Prosopis Caldenia Mesophytic pseudostepe of Bothriochloa laguroides and Nasella Ssp. Pseudostepa of mesophytes with steppe of halophytes Psamophytic steppe of Sorghastrum Pellitum and Elionorus Muticus Meadows of hygrophytes and halophytes Mesophyte pseudostepe with mountain scrub

Source: Ecología Austral. Asociación Argentina de ecología 158

Although herbaceous vegetation predominates, in some areas there are patches of introduced forest formed by a stratum of exotic trees and low strata of native species. A characteristic of the Pampean grasslands is that the vegetation cover remains green throughout the year with the presence of summer and winter flora. The climatic conditions allow two crops per year. The ecoregion has been dominated by agricultural production. There are few relics of natural grassland. In the rolling plains, plant communities vary gradually from the high grasslands of the hills to the halophilic grasslands of the lowlands. In general, grasslands have high coverage (between 90 and 100%). Species composition varies with the seasons of the year with winter and summer species turnover. In the depressed, floodable plains, the various species assemblages form a complex mosaic in response to topography and soil type and the long period of several centuries of grazing. Exotic species, changes in species proportions and the extirpation of some dominant natives are found in today’s grasslands. In the plains subjected to short periods of flooding, the grasslands have some species of grasses in common with those of the rolling plains, such as Briza subaristata, Bothriochloa laguroides or Paspalum dilatatum, Stipa neesiana and Piptochaetium bicolor, associated with species typical of the lowlands such as Sporobolus indicus, Stipa papposa, Stipa formicarum, Stipa philippii, Aristida murina, Distichlis scoparia, Paspalum vaginatum, among others. In the most humid places where floods remain for longer, the most common grasses are Steinchisima hians (Elliot) Nash, Panicum sabulorum, P. gouinii, Deyeuxia viridiflavescens, Phalaris angusta, among others, accompanied by herbs such as Alternanthera 159

NATIVE PLANTS

philoxeroids, Pamphalea bupleurifolia, Vicea graminea and Eryngium ebracteatum. In the depressions and lagoons that remain flooded most of the year, grasses develop, almost always with a dominant species that gives the name to the formation: cattails of Typha dominguensis and T. latifolia. It has been suggested that the original grassland of the depressed plains was Paspalum quadrifarium, a large perennial grass that grows in moist soil and may have constituted the Pampean grasslands before the entry of cattle. In the medanous areas there are no relics of the original pasture, which is supposed to have been a sorgastral, of Koeleria permollis, Sorghastrum pellitum, Poa ligularis, Eragrostis lugens, Stipa clarazii, typical of the dunes of central Argentina. Some weeds and low rhizomatous species have been introduced (Cynodon dactylon, Medicago minima, Erodium cicutarium, etc.) Natural vegetation remains only in areas unsuitable for production, such as the edges of lakes, where there are low halophyte grasslands dominated by Distichlis scoparia or D. spicata, and scattered patches of scrub of Atriplex undulata or Sarcocornia perennis. In less saline areas, Stipa papposa grasses and Cyclolepis genistoides shrubs appear. In depressed and bathed areas low grasslands may appear with the grasses Stipa papposa, Pappophorum caespitosum, Cynodon hirsutus, Paspalum sp, Poa lanuginosa and the creeping species Lepidium bonariense, Melilotus indicus, etc. (Source: Ecología Austral. Asociación Argentina de ecología < Austral Ecology. Argentine

01. Prosopis alba, Prosopis nigra

02. Acacia caven

03. Bosque de esclerófitas

04. Sauce

05. Eucalyptus viminalis

06. Álamo

07. Eucalyptus

08. Prosopis caldenia

09. Pinus radiata

“Algarrobo blanco y negro”

Ecology Association>)

camandulensis 160

161

10. Paspalum dilatatum

11. Stipa neesiana

12. Sporobolus indicus

19. Pamphalea bupleurifolia

20. Eryngium

21. Typha domingensis

13. Stipa papposa

14. Distichlis

15. Steinchisma

22. Schoenoplectus californicus

23. Zizaniopsis

24. Koeleria

16. Deyeuxia

17. Phalaris angusta

18. Alternanthera

25. Atriplex

26. Sarcocornia

27. Melilotus indicus

viridiflavescens 162

scoparia

hians

philoxeroides

undulata

ebracteatum

bonariensis

perennis

permollis

163

28. Matorral serrano

29. Elionurus muticus

30. Sorghastrum pellitum

37. Aristida

38. Baccharis

39. Eupatorium

31. Nassella ssp.

32. Paspalum quadrifarium

33. Poa

40. Hypochaeris

41. Vernonia

42. Bothriochloa

34. Piptochaetium

35. Bromus

36. Briza Subaristata

43. Lathyrus

44. Trifolium

45. Vicia

Perennial herb

164

laguroides

165

CROPS

166

46. Cyperacea

47. Solanacea

48. Apiaceae

55. Soy

56. Corn

57. Wheat

49. Brassicaceae

50. Caryoophyllaceae

51. Malvaceae

58. Sunflower

59. Sorghum

60. Barley

52. Verbenaceae

53. Spartina Alterniflora

54. Adesmia

61. Peanut

62. Oats

63. linen 167

ORCHARDS

168

64. Potatoes

65. Olives

66. Vine

73. Lettuce

74. Cucumber

75. Basil

67. Pumpkin

68. Sweet potato

69. Cabbage

76. Eggplant

77. Broccoli

78. Vetch

70. Beet

71. Carrot

72. Chard

79. Strawberry

80. Melon

81. Watermelon 169

01. Prosopis alba, Prosopis nigra

Irrigation Light

6.0

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

(m)

12 10

03. Bosque de esclerófitas

7.0

8.0

6.0

7.0

5.0

6.0

4.0

5.0

Irrigation

2.0

Light

1.0

Speed to grow

Maximum height: 18m

Maximum height: 15m

Maximum diam.: 10m

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

(m)

6.0

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

(m)

8.0

3.0

6.0 14

4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0

PERENNIAL

(m)

1.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

04. Sauce - Willow

02. Acacia caven 6.0

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

(m)

8.0 10 7.0 8.0 6.0 7.0

Irrigation Light Speed to grow Maximum height: 10m

6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0

Irrigation Light Speed to grow

5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0

Maximum height: 10m Maximum diam.: m

Maximum diam.: m

DECIDUOUS Need of moist soils

170

(m)

1.0

2.0

4.0

171

05. Eucalyptus viminalis

Irrigation Light Speed to grow

5.0 (m)

07. Eucalyptus camandulensis

Irrigation

20 15

Light

Speed to grow

5.0

Maximum height: 50m

Maximum height: 30m

Maximum diam.: 10m

Maximum diam.: m

9.0

6.0

3.0 (m)

9.0

6.0

3.0 (m)

12 9.0 6.0 3.0

Little dense cup

(m) 3.0 6.0

(m) 5

9.0

15 20

06. Álamo - Poplar

08. Prosopis caldenia

33 30 27

Irrigation Light Speed to grow Maximum height: 35m Maximum diam.: m DECIDUOUS

9.0

6.0

3.0 (m)

24 21 18 15 12 9.0 6.0 3.0

Irrigation Light Speed to grow

12 9.0 6.0 3.0

Maximum height: 25m Maximum diam.: m Adaptable to drought

Optimal for windbreaks

172

(m)

3.0

6.0

9.0

173

09. Pinus radiata

Irrigation Light Speed to grow

5.0 (m)

11. Stipa neesiana

Irrigation

20 15

Light

Speed to grow

5.0

Maximum height: 45m

Maximum height: 100cm

Maximum diam.: m

PERENNIAL GRASS of Argentine origin

9.0

6.0

3.0 (cm)

9.0

6.0

3.0 (cm)

48 44 40 36 32 28 24 20 16

Slow development in dry climates

12 8.0 4.0 (cm)

(m) 5 10 15 20

10. Paspalum dilatatum

12. Sporobolus indicus 19 18

9.0

6.0

3.0 (cm)

19 17 18 16

Irrigation Light Speed to grow Maximum height: 20cm Greater growth in high temperatures

16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9.0 8.0

Irrigation Light Speed to grow Maximum height: 20cm Summer growth Need for drained soils

14 13 12 11 10 9.0 8.0 7.0 6.0

7.0 6.0 5.0

5.0 4.0 3.0

4.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 2.0

(cm)

1.0 (cm)

174

175

13. Stipa papposa

Irrigation Light Speed to grow Maximum height: 60cm PERENNIAL GRASS Annual vegetation

9.0

6.0

3.0 (cm)

15. Steinchisma hians

Irrigation

48 44

Light

Speed to grow

36 32

Maximum height: 15cm

9.0

6.0

3.0 (cm)

8.0

4.0 (cm)

11 10 9.0 8.0 7.0 6.0

5.0

4.0

3.0

8.0

2.0

4.0

1.0

(cm)

16. Deyeuxia viridiflavescens

14. Distichlis scoparia

18 19

84 80

9.0

6.0

3.0 (cm) 76

Irrigation Light Speed to grow Maximum height: 20cm PERENNIAL GRASS of Argentine origin

14 13 12 11 10 9.0 8.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 (cm)

176

Irrigation Light Speed to grow Maximum height: 130cm

56 52 48 44 40 36 32 28 24 20 16 12 8.0 4.0

(cm)

177

17. Phalaris angusta

Irrigation Light Speed to grow Maximum height: 150cm

8.0

4.0 (cm)

19. Pamphalea bupleurifolia

Irrigation

56 52

Light

Speed to grow

44 40

Maximum height: 15cm

6.0

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0 (cm)

8.0

4.0 (cm)

12 11 10 9.0 8.0 7.0

6.0

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0 (cm)

8.0 4.0

(cm)

18. Alternanthera philoxeroides

20. Eryngium ebracteatum

80 78

9.0

6.0

3.0 (cm) 76

Irrigation Light Speed to grow Maximum height: 15cm

14 13 12 11 10 9.0 8.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 (cm)

178

Irrigation Light Speed to grow Maximum height: 200cm

56 52 48 44 40 36 32 28 24 20 16 12 8.0 4.0

(cm)

179

21. Typha domingensis

8.0

4.0 (cm)

23. Zizaniopsis bonariensis

(cm)

8.0

4.0 (cm)

190 180

72 170 68 160 64 150 60 140 56 130

Irrigation Light Speed to grow Maximum height: 250cm

Irrigation

Light

44 40

Speed to grow

Maximum height: 300cm

32 28

120 110 100 90 80 70 60

24 50 20 40 16 30 12 20 8.0 10 4.0

(cm)

22. Schoenoplectus californicus

Irrigation Light Speed to grow Maximum height: 400cm

180

24 80

8.0

4.0 (cm)

24. Koeleria permollis

Irrigation

52 48 44 40 36

Light Speed to grow Maximum height: 90cm

56 52 48 44 40 36

8.0

4.0

(cm)

181

25. Atriplex undulata

8.0

4.0 (cm)

27. Melilotus indicus

9.0

6.0

3.0 (cm)

6.0

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

57 54

72 51 68 48 64 45 60 42 56 39

Irrigation Light Speed to grow Maximum height: 100m

Irrigation

Light

44 40

Speed to grow

Maximum height: 50cm

32 28

36 33 30 27 24 21 18

24 15 20 12 16 9.0 12 6.0 8.0 3.0 4.0

(cm)

26. Sarcocornia perennis

Irrigation Light Speed to grow Maximum height: 20cm

6.0 21

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0 (cm)

28. Matorral serrano

9.0

8.0

7.0

6.0

5.0

Irrigation

13 12 11 10 9.0

Light Speed to grow

(m)

4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 (m)

Maximum height: 9m

8.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0

(cm)

(m) 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

182

183

29. Elionurus muticus

8.0

4.0 (cm)

31. Nassella ssp. Perennial herb

12.5

7.5

5.0

2.5 (cm)

8.0 (cm)

47.5 45

72 42.5 68 40 64 37.5 60 35 56 32.5

Irrigation Light Speed to grow Maximum height: 100cm

Irrigation

Light

44 40

Speed to grow

Maximum height: 50cm

32 28

30 27.5 25 22.5 20 17.5 15

24 12.5 20 10 16 7.5 12 5.0 8.0 2.5 4.0

(cm)

30. Sorghastrum pellitum

6.0 21

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0 (cm)

32. Paspalum quadrifarium

180

20 172 19 164 18 156 17 148 16 140 15

Irrigation Light Speed to grow Maximum height: 120cm

Irrigation

132 124

13 12 11 10 9.0

Light Speed to grow Maximum height: 200cm

116 104 96 88 80

8.0 72 7.0 64 6.0 56 5.0 48 4.0 40 3.0 32 2.0 24 1.0 16 (cm)

(cm)

184

185

33. Poa

Irrigation Light Speed to grow Maximum height: 100cm

8.0

4.0 (cm)

35. Bromus

Irrigation

48 44

Light

Speed to grow

36 32

Maximum height: 150cm

8.0

4.0 (cm)

8.0

4.0 (cm)

56 52 48 44 40 36

8.0

4.0

(cm)

24 84

8.0 4.0

(cm)

34. Piptochaetium

Irrigation Light Speed to grow Maximum height: 50cm

24 76

8.0

4.0 (cm)

36. Briza Subaristata

48 44 40 36 32 28

Irrigation Light Speed to grow Maximum height: 120cm

56 52 48 44 40 36

8.0

4.0

(cm)

8.0 4.0

(cm)

186

187

37. Aristida

8.0

6.0

4.0

2.0 (cm)

39. Eupatorium

8.0 (cm)

8.0

6.0

4.0

2.0 (cm)

180

36 172 34 164 32 156 30 148 28 140 26

Irrigation Light Speed to grow Maximum height: 50cm

Irrigation

24 22

Light

Speed to grow

18 16

Maximum height: 150cm

132 124 116 104 96 88 80

12 72 10 64 8.0 56 6.0 48 4.0 40 2.0 32

(cm)

24 16 8

(cm)

38. Baccharis

180

8.0 (cm)

40. Hypochaeris

38 36

172

164 32 156 30 148 28 140 26

Irrigation Light Speed to grow Maximum height: 600cm

132 124 116 104 96 88 80

Irrigation Light Speed to grow Maximum height: 60cm

24 22 20 18 16 14 12

72 10 64 8.0 56 6.0 48 4.0 40 32

2.0 (cm)

24 16 8

(cm)

188

189

41. Vernonia

8.0

6.0

4.0

2.0 (cm)

43. Lathyrus

8.0 (cm)

8.0

6.0

4.0

2.0 (cm)

180

36 172 34

164

156

148

140

Irrigation Light Speed to grow Maximum height: 60cm

Irrigation

24 22

Light

Speed to grow

18 16

Maximum height: 300cm

132 124 116 104 96 88 80

12 72 10

8.0

6.0

4.0 40 2.0 32

(cm)

24 16 8

(cm)

42. Bothriochloa laguroides

24 84

8.0

4.0 (cm)

44. Trifolium

Irrigation Light Speed to grow Maximum height: 130cm

56 52 48 44 40 36 32 28 24 20 16 12

Irrigation Light Speed to grow Maximum height: 50cm

24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 (cm)

8.0 4.0

(cm)

190

191

45. Vicia

Irrigation Light Speed to grow Maximum height: 100cm

46. Cyperacea

8.0

4.0 (cm)

47. Solanacea

Irrigation

56 52

Light

Speed to grow

44 40

Maximum height: 100cm

8.0

4.0

(cm)

4.0 (cm)

48. Apiaceae

Speed to grow Maximum height: 100cm

44 40 36 32 28 24 20 16 12 8.0 4.0

(cm)

192

4.0 (cm)

8.0

Light

84 80

Irrigation

8.0

4.0 (cm)

8.0

24 84

Irrigation Light Speed to grow Maximum height: 80cm

56 52 48 44 40 36 32 28 24 20 16 12 8.0 4.0

(cm)

193

49. Brassicaceae

8.0

4.0 (cm)

51. Malvaceae

Maximum height: 80cm

(cm)

8.0

4.0 (cm)

200

160

150 140

Speed to grow

180

Light

190

Irrigation

60 210

Irrigation

56 52

Light

Speed to grow

44 40

Maximum height: 300cm

130 120 110 100 90 80 70

28 24

40 30

8.0 4.0

(cm)

50. Caryoophyllaceae

Irrigation Light Speed to grow Maximum height: 60cm

194

24 84

8.0

4.0 (cm)

52. Verbenaceae

56 52 48 44 40 36

Irrigation Light Speed to grow Maximum height: 120cm

56 52 48 44 40 36

8.0

4.0

(cm)

195

53. Spartina Alterniflora

Irrigation Light Speed to grow Maximum height: 150cm

8.0

4.0 (cm)

Irrigation

56 52

Light

Speed to grow

44 40

Maximum height: 150cm

SOWING September-January HARVEST March-May

28 24 20

Irrigation Light Speed to grow Maximum height: 200cm

180

160

150

140

110 100 90 80 70 60 50

196

Irrigation Light Speed to grow Maximum height: 400cm SOWING October-March

(cm)

200 190

120

210

190

130

(cm)

200

(cm)

56. Corn

4.0

(cm)

8.0

4.0

4.0 (cm)

8.0

210

24 84

54. Adesmia

55. Soy

130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50

(cm)

197

57. Wheat

Irrigation Light Speed to grow Maximum height: 200cm

(cm)

210

200

190

180

160

150

140

Irrigation

130 120

Light

110

Speed to grow

100 90

Maximum height: 200cm

Deep roots

(cm)

60. Barley

190

150

140

Irrigation Light Speed to grow Maximum height: 300cm

120 110 100 90 80

SOWING Spring and autumn

Direct answer to sun light

60 50

30 20 10

(cm)

8.0

4.0 (cm)

160

130

200

180

(cm)

100

110

120

130

210

60 210

200

58. Sunflower

59. Sorghum

Irrigation Light Speed to grow Maximum height: 150cm SOWING September-January HARVEST March-May

56 52 48 44 40 36 32 28 24 20 16 12 8.0 4.0

(cm)

198

199

61. Peanut

8.0

4.0 (cm)

63. linen

8.0

4.0 (cm)

84 80

64 76 60 72 56 68

Irrigation Light Speed to grow Maximum height: 45cm High soil damage with the HARVEST at least 5 year rotation to plant Peanut

Irrigation

40 36

Light

Speed to grow

Maximum height: 75cm

24 20

56 52 48 44 40 36 32

16 28 12 24

8.0

4.0

16 (cm) 12 8.0 4.0

(cm)

62. Oats

8.0

4.0 (cm)

84 80 76 72 68 64 60

Irrigation Light Speed to grow Maximum height: 100cm

56 52 48 44 40 36 32 28 24 20 16 12 8.0 4.0

(cm)

200

201

202

Vernonia

Stipa neesiana

Paspalum quadrifarium Sarcocornia perennis

Typha domingensis

Sporobolus indicus

Piptochaetium Elionurus muticus Sunflower Briza Subaristata

Poa Vicia Matorral serrano

Baccharis

Hypochaeris Atriplex undulata Soy

Schoenoplectus californicus Aristida

Sorghastrum pellitum

Distichlis scoparia Pamphalea bupleurifolia

Stipa papposa

Barley

Lathyrus

Oats

Bromus

Peanut

Melilotus indicus Eupatorium Steinchisma hians

Koeleria permollis

Paspalum dilatatum Corn Deyeuxia viridiflavescens Phalaris angusta Alternanthera philoxeroides Eryngium ebracteatum

Sorghum Atriplex undulata Nassella ssp. Perennial herb

Acacia caven

Eucalyptus viminalis

Sauce - Willow

Bosque de esclerófitas

Álamo - Poplar

Prosopis caldenia

Prosopis alba, Prosopis nigra

29 29

28 28

27 27

26 26

25 25

24 24

23 23

22 22

21 21

20 20

19 19

18 18

15 15

14 14

13 13

12 12

11 11

10 10

9.0 9.0

8.0 8.0

7.0 7.0

6.0 6.0

5.0 5.0

4.0 4.0

3.0 3.0

2.0 2.0

1.0 1.0

(m) (m)

Pinus radiata

203

OPERATIONAL LANDSCAPES IN ARGENTINA

10.1

Agriculture and Livestock

10.2

NATIONAL CENSUS OF AGRICULTURE

10.2.1

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS

250.881

157.423.932

Agricultural exploitations

Hectares

36.700

23.751.989

Argentina

Buenos Aires province

Area of the plots by type of land use. Country total 2018

Roads, parks and housing 2% Annual crops 15%

Unsuitable surface 10%

Unsuitable surface used 2%

Perennial crops 1% Annual forages 2% Perennial foragers 2%

21% Cattke Sheep cattle Swine cattle Goat cattle Poultry Fishing Fishing port Fruits and vegetables Oilseeds Cereals Industrial crops Forest

Forests and mountains implanted 1%

Forests and natural mountains 19%

79%

Implanted

Grasslands 45%

Intended for other uses 204

205

10.2.2

Agriculture in numbers

Oilseeds

2,9%

CROPS

0,8%

Peanut

Others

7,9%

30,4%

Sunflower

Cereals

38,5%

11.387.352 ha

Oilseeds

0,01%

14.391.625 ha

Greenhouses 2.372 ha

1,5%

Without discriminating 546.724 ha

3,3%

Implanted forests 1.230.246 ha

1,4%

Fruit trees

88,5%

514.701 ha

Soya

2,4%

0,02%

Aromatic and medicinal 7.068 ha

0,4%

Vegetables 134.993 ha

With soya Surveyed

Industrial crops

10,2%

Perennial foragers 3.814.256 ha

11%

1,0%

Annual forages

893.697 ha

Legumes 363.441 ha

4.124.704 ha

Cereals

CATTLE RAISING 1,5%

1,5%

Forage barley for Grain sorghum grain

1,5%

Candeal wheat

40.411.905

Bovines

8.625.383

Sheep

2.573.681

Goats

3.601.236

Pigs

908.288

1,4% Rice

1,5% Others

Brewing barley

Equines

33,5%

Wheat bread

54,1%

Corn for grain 206

With cereals Surveyed 207

10.2.3

Annual forage

3,4%

Forage barley

Surfaces treated with fertilizers and agrochemicals in Argentina

9,2% Others

1.26%

74.8%

0.14 M ha

8.5 M ha

27.4%

85.8%

29.2%

9.7 M ha

3.3 M ha

29,6% Oats

4,7%

11.4 M ha

Annual maigras

6,1%

Cereals

Forage rye

Organic fertilizers

Fertilizers

3.1 M ha

Fungicides

Herbicides

Insecticides

1.1%

53.6%

36.1%

90.9%

63%

0.16 M ha

7.7 M ha

5.2 M ha

13.1 M ha

9.1 M ha

Herbicides

Insecticides

14.4 M ha

21,8%

25,2%

Forage corn

Forage sorghum

With annual forage Surveyed

Oleaginous

Organic fertilizers

Fertilizers

Fungicides

2.3%

36.6%

1.7%

51.7%

9.6%

0.9 M ha

1.5 M ha

0.7 M ha

2.1 M ha

0.3 M ha

Perennial foragers 4.1 M ha

27,1%

19,5%

Pure alfalfa

Others

Annual forage

Organic fertilizers

4,4%

Agropiro

1.95%

7,1%

Fungicides

23.9%

0.9%

Herbicides 35.1%

Insecticides 16.7%

3.8 M ha

Weeping grass

13,5%

Perennial forage

14,4%

Consociated alfalfa

14,1%

Gatton panic 208

Fertilizers

Consociated perennial foragers

0.74 M ha

Organic fertilizers With perennial forage Surveyed

1 M ha

Fertilizers

Source: Made by the author based on National Agricultural Census 2018. INDEC. Argentina

0.35 M ha

Fungicides

1.3 M ha

Herbicides

0.63 M ha

Insecticides

209

Countryside At the same time, it can be said that with respect to the countryside, civilizations live at the expense of the natural resources of each territory, without their own appreciation or respect for the local biodiversity of the sites, and without a sustainable look towards the depletion of natural resources. In this case, the paradox would be how to be modern in terms of agriculture and housing in the rural environment but maintaining the culture and knowledge of the native land to each site, keeping up with the present and the necessary changes but without damaging or creating a total disconnection with the identity of rural areas. 210

Towards a critical regionalism: six points for an architecture of resistance Kenneth Frampton

Critical Regionalism is an approach to architecture that strives to counter the placelessness and lack of identity of the International Style, but also rejects the whimsical individualism and ornamentation of Postmodern architecture. The vision of critical regionalism focuses on the importance of integrating in architectural projects the different elements that characterize a place, such as its climate, topography, light, sense of touch, among others. They also incorporate aspects that are within the sociocultural context, as it highlights the importance of knowing and including the idiosyncratic features of the region within the design and contraction. In addition, the rescue of this last characteristic is emphasized in relation to a trend of globalization, where homogenized cultures with similar identities are developing at the macro level. The stylings of critical regionalism seek to provide an architecture rooted in the modern tradition, but tied to geographical and cultural context. Critical regionalism is not simply regionalism in the sense of vernacular architecture. It is a progressive approach to design that seeks to mediate between the global and the local languages of architecture. In a recent reflection by Keneth Frampton on his essay on critical regionalism, he emphasizes that this theory is still applicable in current times, but that issues of a globalized society such as instantaneous communication and the facility of transporting oneself and getting to know different cultures in a very simple way, it causes that culture to be lost and disengaged, and that individuals are not rooted with a specific culture either. In addition, the concept of center and periphery has practically disappeared in a world where distances are no longer a problem due to the evolution of transport. That old definition of perimeter is gone, but identity architecture is still possible and should continue to exist. In turn, he speaks of the fact that architecture should talk about specificity and not of a generalized local culture, each site is diverse, taking into account the specific landscape and maximum sensitivity to the environment. “Although the phenomenon of universalization is an advance of humanity, at the same time it constitutes a kind of subtle destruction, not only of traditional cultures, which perhaps was not an irreparable loss, but also the creative core of great cultures.

We have the feeling that this unique world civilization is simultaneously exerting a kind of attrition at the expense of the cultural resources that formed the great civilizations of the past. It is a fact: not every culture can withstand and absorb the shock of modern civilization. There is this paradox: how to become modern and go back to the sources, - how to revive an ancient and dormant civilization and take part in universal civilization. “ (Frampton, 1983)

11.1

Culture and civilization

Modern construction is now so universally conditioned by the improvement of technology that the possibility of creating meaningful urban forms has been extremely limited. Frampton claims that there is a huge role of technological improvements and this limits the scope of urban design in many ways. He says that the architectural thoughts are divided into two parts, one is profits of technological predication on the product, and the other one is the provision of a compensatory facade to cover the harsh realities of this universal system. Frampton highlights in technological advances the design of the tower as an object and the design of highways that are directly related to the real estate value of the former. “Today the practice of architecture seems to be increasingly polarized between an approach to so-called ‘high technology’ based exclusively on production and, on the other hand, the provision of a ‘compensatory facade’ to cover the harsh realities of this universal system.” Architecture begins to be part of a scenography that is not part of its context, and only thinks about the profitability of it.

11.2

This point seen from the perspective of the countryside is totally relevant. The technology implemented and increased for rural development is increasingly growing, using more and more external inputs to achieve the main objective of production in large quantities, without thinking about how it is produced and the consequences of these methodologies. Although technological advances could not always be considered negative, since for certain aspects it has facilitated work in the fields and contributed to less physical wear and tear on the human being, but in many other aspects, these advances have devastated biodiversity and nature. Premises, taking advantage only of the efficiency and highest possible performance, without respecting the natural times of the resources.

The rise and fall of the Avant-garde

The author claims that in general, avant-garde architecture has played a positive role, an example of this is neoclassicism, which, from the mid-18th century onwards, served as a symbol and as an instrument for the propagation of universal civilization. But other architectural movements since the nineteenth century, played more than anything a negative role in societies, such as ART and CRAFT that adopts a negative vision towards utilitarianism and the division of labor; or Art Nouveau, which takes refuge in “art for art’s sake”, representing ornamentation of nostalgic worlds. And finally, he makes a critique of postmodern architecture, focused primarily on pure technique or pure scenography. “The so-called postmodern architects simply feed the media and society with gratuitous and quietist images, instead of proposing a call for the creative order after the supposedly proven bankruptcy of the modern liberating project.”

Changes and evolution in agricultural production methods represented positive but also negative aspects. After the green revolution, every year agriculture and livestock were a little further away from traditional methods, generating a global vision of production strategies, applying the same “recipes” in all parts of the world, increasingly disconnecting with processes linked to characteristic geographic contexts. 211

11.3

To adapt the gaze of critical regionalism to the context of the countryside, it is necessary that it begins to think about changes that favor future sustainability. It has to be detached from the global inheritance of a green revolution that sought to solve the problem of world hunger but which ended up generating an extreme and almost irrecoverable loss of natural resources, to find an agricultural path compatible with the specificity of the environment that makes it up. But it is important to know how to differentiate the ancient elements of a tradition that would not be successful in a contemporary world and that are not transcendental compared to the essence of a place directly related to the autochthonous and the conservation of local biodiversity.

On this question, it is important to say that the relationship of the form must also be in the case of the countryside directly linked to the site. The landscape will be part of the architecture, the architecture must speak of that landscape and in turn, agriculture is also architecture, it is design and complementation with a natural environment that is now degraded and seeks to resume a natural development that recovers its characteristics so that flow in a homogeneous composition with the built environment. 212

Critical regionalism and World Culture

“Only a rearguard has the capacity to cultivate a resistant culture, giving identity, while having the possibility of discreetly resorting to universal technique.” The term critical regionalism was before Frampton, coined by Alex Tzonis and Liliane Lefaivre in “The Grid and the Path” (1981). “Regionalism has dominated architecture in almost every country at some point in the last two and a half centuries. It defends individual and local architectural features against more universal and abstract ones”. It is possible to appreciate architecture as a phenomenon of a place that identifies and defines it, since it takes into account all the factors present in the environment and applies them in such a way as to create a direct link between the locus and the project. Therefore, this concept rejects the idea conceived in modernism of an architecture or an international style, because contrary to this movement it seeks to give it character and identity. This is achieved through the connection with the environment, without falling into the vernacular or historicist aspects to represent the character of the place. Therefore, this conception of architecture also goes against universalization since it tries to homogenize the differences between cultures, imposing a form of construction or restricting it to the point that the constructive elements are repeated indefinitely in all parts of the world. “It is necessary to distinguish critical regionalism from naive attempts to revive hypothetical forms of lost local elements. Critical regionalism has to “deconstruct” that world culture that it inevitably inherits and, through a synthetic contradiction, has to express a critique of universal civilization. “

11.4

The resistance of the place-form

In this point, Frampton says that in architectural work, architects must study very well contextual features instead of acting it as a free standing object. When applying critical regionalism to the design, architects should consider the idea that there is no limitation of physical space and the characteristic of place cannot be consisted of an independent building. Spaces may be created by enclosing however its borders should be the beginning of the place instead of its ending. The spatial organization of a building should be solved in terms of its relation between exterior qualification of place such as its entrance, exits, and the circulation.

11.5

Culture versus Nature: Topography, context, climate, light and tectonic form

“Critical regionalism necessarily implies a more direct dialectical relationship with nature than the more abstract and formal traditions allowed by modern avant-garde architecture. We meet again in concrete terms with this fundamental opposition between universal civilization and indigenous culture. For example, “the excavation of an irregular topography to turn it into a flat site is clearly a technocratic gesture that aspires to a condition of absolute lack of location, while filling the same site to receive the stepped shape of a building is a commitment to the act of ‘cultivating’ the site.” The geographical characteristics and the cultural legacy will be decisive in the ecology, climate, and the symbolic aspect of place. That’s the creating the “place-form” balance between natural environment and the cultural legacy identifies societies.

11.6

In this aspect, the ways of making a footstep in the countryside are more than anything linked to nature, in the countryside, the largest percentage that composes it is landscape, therefore the new architecture has to blend in with that base and not disturb it, harm or hinder it. The landscape is a whole, the natural and the built, therefore the conscious design of the countryside will be a decisive point in a future where the desire to live away from chaos and the city becomes more latent.

The visual versus the Tactile

“The tactile elasticity of the place and the shape and capacity of the body to interpret the environment with data other than that provided by sight, suggest a potential strategy to resist the domination of universal technology.” At this point, the author emphasizes the importance of the tactile perception of spaces, it is a fundamental aspect to finish understanding an architecture, even if the object is not really touched, it is the question of understanding what that touch means, understand the materiality and characteristics of a specific texture. His ability to awaken and impulse to touch refers the architect to the poetics of construction and to the erection of works in which the tectonic value of each component depends on the density of its object. The union of the tactile and the tectonic has the ability to transcend the mere aspect of the technical in much the same way as the potential of place and form to withstand the relentless onslaught of global modernization. This concept supports the usage of all materials which target all senses and that will allow variable emotional reactions.

The visual and the tactile are also a fundamental part of the countryside landscape. The image of a homogeneous industrialized landscape also represents a tactile poverty of a repetition of its constituent elements. The visual and tactile image aims to recover the characteristic complexity of the sites and their natural biodiversity, mixing with all the senses, generating a complexity and at the same time simplicity of an autochthonous natural landscape that blends with the architectural materiality.

213

A possible sustainable agriculture in Argentina

12.1

The importance of developing policies towards a sustainable transition The concept of agroecology started to gain importance in the 1980s, where the effects of the green revolution became visible and a search for an alternative of rural sustainability began. Agroecology is in a growing struggle to be recognized as an alternative and solution to world agriculture. This struggle is represented through different groups, farmers who take a leap towards change and try to promote their experiences and the voice of engineers and scholars who begin to spread their word to create spaces for debate in all social areas, highlighting that the problem it exceeds rural areas and encompasses all the inhabitants of the planet. There are many cases of agro ecological experiences with positive results around the world, but most of them are developed at the local level, showing that it is possible and the transition takes some years to achieve the same or better yields. But in this tireless search to be recognized, the objective is to create public policies in favor of this science, ecology is political and it needs to develop a plan in this regard. Vertical scaling up would be the institutionalization of policies to support agroecology, whether in terms of education, training, research, extension, credit, markets or any other. Agro-ecological practices are very complex and intensely managed, so in order to adopt them, greater learning is needed, especially through horizontal, farmer-to-farmer mechanisms. Ideas such as that agroecology is “a return to the past”, that it is “applicable only to marginal and subsistence agriculture”, that it “could never feed the world”, etc., prevent real support for its implementation. Public officials, researchers and extension officers are influenced by private interests towards the promotion of conventional approaches. Agronomic agenda remain biased in favor of conventional industrial agriculture. The absence of networks and organizations for peasants in many areas for collective experimentation and exchange of agro-ecological information is a major weakness for the adoption and dissemination of agro-ecological innovations. Policies need to be developed to acquire the necessary infrastructure, in order to achieve a more widespread adoption of sustainable practices,

214

for example in a larger number of farmers, markets and in the public procurement of organic products from small producers, as well as in transport for farmers to bring their products to market. CAC CAMPESINO A CAMPESINO (farmer to farmer) in Latin America is a participatory approach based on the local needs of farmers, culture and environmental conditions. It unleashes creativity, knowledge, enthusiasm and leadership as a way of discovering, recognizing and building on the rich body of family and community agricultural knowledge linked to their historical and identity-based uniqueness. The experience of rural social movements, farmers and peasants organizations, indicates that the degree of organization or organicity, as well as the extent to which horizontal social methodologies based on the protagonism of peasants and farmers are used to collectively build social processes, are key factors in scaling up agroecology. Another important aspect would be connecting local production to local and regional markets. Demand for agroecological products and opportunities for farmers to sell their agroecological products for profit can be important vectors for scaling up agroecology. It is crucial to ensure that policies that can facilitate fair infrastructure, credit and prices for producers and consumers, and promote public procurement models for peasant and organic products (institutional markets) and local, regional and solidarity-based peasant markets and Community Supported Agriculture. The development of a sustainable transition towards agroecology will never be possible without the support of local, provincial and national public policies. The missing push must be cultural and social for all citizens. The problem we are facing is global and the capacity of the territories is already showing its limits. It is necessary to generate awareness, the State must initially invest in communication and dissemination of information, so that those who have not yet taken the step to a change of mentality understand that this transition towards a sustainable model is necessary and does not seek to reduce economic profits in the producers, but in addition to maintaining them, it seeks to generate a balance with the ecosystem, protect the most vulnerable and create alternative markets where you can live in a more just society. 215

12.2

216

IDEOLOGICAL CONFLICTS Agribusiness sector against agroecology

For a long time, the idea of agroecology was criticized, treated as outdated, backward and based on ancestral agriculture. The situation begins to change when the FAO (Food agricultural organization of the United Nations) begins to implement it as a possible solution to climate change. It is only then that industrial agriculture begins to be threatened by these new theories and the ideological conflict between agroecology, represented by various rural social movements, and industrial agriculture, represented by large companies that lead agribusinesses (contrast, financial capital, transnational corporations, and domestic private sectors), becomes visible. Around the world, initiatives towards agroecology are beginning to emerge and this is born mainly from scholars who started to share, communicate and technically disseminate the issue, groups made up of small producers who go out to protest in search of beginning to be recognized as a strong entity and the initiative of farmers who begin to apply theories in their territories is essential, spreading experiences and reinforcing the ideology that an agro ecological transition is possible in terms of economic and environmental performance, in addition to having a deeper objective of shortening food chains and achieve food sovereignty. Agribusiness, has a centralized pattern based on corporate producers of inputs, processors, and trading companies, with production that is de-contextualized from the specificities of local ecosystems and social relations. In this system, production and consumption are de-linked in both time and space, whereas operations act on a global scale, with strategic networks between input suppliers, processers, traders, supermarket chains, and finance banks to form agro-food complexes or corporate food. It is important to note that agroecology is playing an increasingly central role for these social movements in both arenas of territorial dispute. In the discursive struggle, social movements contrast agro ecological farming by peasants and family farmers with the destructive practices and unhealthy food produced by industrial agriculture and agribusiness. But the situation is difficult when the agribusiness sector responds with different strategies, saying that they are being more organic (perhaps only reducing the amount of agrochemicals but with a greater potency) and other types of labeling games. In contrast, social movements are forced to draw ever finer and more political distinctions between true agroecology and corporate “green-washing”. For example, a very recent strategy of these corporations was the agreement between the company “Crop life” and FAO (November 2020),

with the supposed aim of working together in search of transforming the agro-food system and contributing to the sustainable development of the United Nations. The truth is that this company represents the interests of the largest agrochemical industries in the world. Faced with this situation, hundreds of groups around the world sent letters and petitions to FAO to request the cancellation of the agreement and demanding that this Entity should continue to be a multilateral and neutral space for confrontation and cannot be co-opted by the intent of the private interests of earn income at the expense of small producers, communities and the environment. It is important to note that the social movements that promote agroecology began to be more listened to in recent years, especially this 2020 aroused alerts in the world, in a context of the Covid-19 pandemic, where long food chains were totally affected and the increase in knowledge and dissemination of information on pests generated by fattening animals in unsanitary conditions became very visible. Especially in Argentina, the concept of agroecology became notorious when, in July of this year, the news reached the citizens that Chinese companies want to import megafattening factories into the country. Thanks to social movements, this agreement was momentarily stopped, but the fight is not yet won (see chapter 12.3, Industrial pig farms in Argentina). The confrontation between these two ideologies is today more than ever in vogue, agroecology still does not have political weapons and that is what it is trying to achieve, since in these circumstances where the country already works and depends exclusively on these agribusiness, it is very difficult establish itself as a radical change. Globally, there is a large number of social movements that combat this problem, such as SOCLA Sociedad científica Latinoamericana de Agroecología (Latin American Scientific Society of Agroecology), UTT Unión de trabajadores de la tierra (Union of Land Workers Union), Colectivo Tierra Viva (Living Land Collective), Conciencia Agroecológica (Agroecology awareness), among others. LVC La Via Campesina (The peasant way), is one of the most recognized groups in the world. It is a global alliance of organizations of family farmers, peasant farmers, indigenous people, landless peasants and farm workers, rural women, and rural youth, representing at least 200 million families worldwide (Rosset and Martinez, 2012). The plan of LVC involves not only a battle over land itself, but also very much a battle over ideas. To do this by integrating and networking them into regional systems for experience and lesson exchanges, mutual support and pressure work to push governments to implement policies more favorable to peasant farming, agroecology, food sovereignty, and the reconstruction of peasant territories. In this continuous dispute over the immaterial territory of agroecology, the greater purpose is also to offer a solution to climate change. 217

12.3

INDUSTRIAL PIG FARMS IN ARGENTINA August 2020

“The possibility of China investing in farms for raising pigs and producing pork in Argentina for the consumption of the Asian giant, triggered a controversy that resonated with public opinion and even promoted a campaign rejecting the potential project by journalists, writers, scientists, artists and organizations arguing the possible environmental, health and animal welfare risks that it would entail.” (Infobae, 2020 July 27) China is the world’s leading producer of hogs, as well as the largest consumer. By 2018, a pig herd of close to 500 million heads was estimated and an annual consumption of 55 million tons. However, at the end of 2018, an epidemic of African Swine Flu broke out on their farms, a deadly disease for the animal, very contagious and without cure. This outbreak caused the number of pigs in that country to drop between 30% and 40%, either due to the mortality caused by the virus, as well as the sacrifices to stop its spread. CHINA plans to invest 27,000 million dollars and export its INDUSTRIAL FARMS to supply a consumption of 700 MILLION pigs per year (In Argentina currently around 7 million pigs are produced per year and it could become 100 million). More than 80% of our country’s grain exports are used to feed the animal industry, the main driver of the agro-toxic model and the emission of greenhouse gases. According to the FAO, by 2050, meat consumption will increase 78% and to supply it it will be necessary to deforest 600 MILLION HECTARES (2 times Argentina) in a context of ecological and climate crisis. FUTURE SCENARIO Knowing that the largest percentage of the soy produced is exported to China to feed these animals, not only the industrial production of Soy would expand (causing the growth of gas emissions, deforestation to obtain more productive land, etc.), but that these animals would also be in Argentina, occupying agricultural land, but at the same time with all the pollution that an industrial farm entails, in addition to the mistreatment and unsanitary living conditions that these animals lead, which are raised in cages the size of their body and with a very high dose of antibiotics due to the stress that they live by not being in their natural habitat. Future environmental conditions could be irreversible if this happens. Currently we are already alerted and creating a collective thought in pursuit of finding new forms of agricultural-livestock production that begin to be kinder to the environment and biodiversity, because the consequences are always direct, in addition to nature, on the human being.

218

219

12.4

Utopian image of a landscape dominated by factory pig farms. The original image belongs to one of the most important industrial farms producing pigs in Argentina: “La Sucho” Farm, located in Arroyo Barú, Entre Ríos province 220

Obstacles and progress in the development of sustainable agriculture policies in Argentina

In Argentina there is a very marked division between rural populations and those who live in the city, there is a strong disconnection and lack of communication from the rural side in particular, which prevents the practices from being visible, thus achieving low support from the inhabitants urban agglomerations, and a strong disconnect between food production and consumption. It is absolutely necessary that in our territories the questioning of new methods of agricultural production begins to arise, causing the birth of groups and social movements that begin to fight for policies that support these new needs. If the State indisputably supports industrial production, facilitating access to external inputs such as agrochemicals or transgenic seeds, it will be impossible to make a transition towards more sustainable models. Therefore, the focus should be on seeing our fields again as the real producers of food for the entire Argentine population and the main source of poverty reduction (in Argentina the current poverty rate is 45%, INDEC Statistics). A political plan is needed that supports small producers, encourages a transition towards sustainable models and facilitates access to food for the most disadvantaged. In Argentina there is a growing number of examples of agro ecological transition, and these began to be mapped, photographed, filmed to be disseminated to society and to start raising awareness. Particularly in the province of Buenos Aires, RENAMA (National Network of Municipalities and Communities that promote agroecology) was created, where 30 municipalities, 180 producers and 100,000 hectares are already part of it. It is a group that holds monthly meetings, shares experiences and makes visits to agro ecological fields to show the changes and infect new producers to carry out the agro ecological transition. But his current search and debate is towards achieving a plan of local, provincial and National agroecology policies. Especially in 2020 there have been decisive leaps in the implementation of agroecology in the country and this is thanks to the social movements that push, communicate and defend their ideals. This year the National Directorate of Agroecology was created, with Eduardo Cerdá as president (agronomist and founder of RENAMA), at the provincial level, which momentarily encourages promotional instruments of agroecology, such as accompaniments and training, but the objective is

221

to achieve the creation of a network of agro ecological markets, promotion of non-transgenic seed varieties, support credits, among others. At the local level, there are only policies that regulate the radius of application of agrochemicals, but these are only measures that somewhat calm the populations that live surrounded by fumigated fields. At the local level, an exchange of knowledge and training is essential, producers do not know how to produce in another way, they do not know or are familiar with agroecology, therefore it is extremely difficult to expect a change if they do not know how to change. Some initiatives are emerging in other provinces such as Entre Ríos and Misiones, but a call to develop a National Agroecology plan is still awaiting. As mentioned above, the initiative from social movements is essential to pressure the State in search of change. Conflicts between social groups and between territories constitute a potential source of socioecological change. For example, currently, environmentalist protests are helping to internalize environmental costs. Mobilizations for climate change, fires in Australia, the Amazon, and in Argentina specifically the case of industrial pig farms that China plans to introduce in the country, increased concern and dissemination of information among many citizens, sharing the vision of a possible agro ecological solution against all existing industrial operations, and the possible damages that would be generated by the multiplication of production at that scale. This consideration of environmental conflict as a motor for socioecological change gives social movements a key role in the struggle for agrarian sustainability. In this respect, political agroecology is also a science of collective action in favor of sustainability, a philosophy of action. It could be said that sustainability is a public good that citizens cannot achieve individually. To achieve it, a collective union is necessary. Political ecology focuses on the study of this concept. Political agroecology should develop ways to apply the methods and findings [from political ecology research] in addressing socioecological change in agroecosystems. But political agroecology is not only a research subject. It has another practical dimension closely linked and considered as a central goal: achieving agrarian sustainability. Political agroecology should be developed as a disciplinary field responsible for designing and producing actions, institutions, and regulations aimed at achieving agrarian sustainability (Gonzalez de Molina, 2012). The future of sustainable development in the country requires interdisciplinary work among all branches, including farmers who are knowledgeable about the territories, in order to achieve a regulation capable of encouraging, training, supporting and allowing to break social inequalities. 222

FOLLOWING STEPS To face the obstacles of an agro ecological transition, it is necessary to develop public policies at all scales, which do not support the economic concentration of capital in a few and are based on the opportunities of the most excluded societies. In addition, the focus should be on the search for food sovereignty and not food security, understanding the action of eating as a political act, this being directly linked to an environmentally friendly production method and with principles and values of a just society. Among the initiatives of the province of Buenos Aires, the “Provincial Program for the Promotion of Agroecology” was published in June 2020, which has an agro ecological registry and 14 experimental farms. What is being sought from now on are the following instruments: Training and support, promotion of seed varieties, support for productive projects, credits and the development of a network of agro ecological businesses. RENAMA must continue interacting and adding municipalities, holding meetings and promoting training and communication, for a society that ignores that another method of production without agrochemicals is possible and with large-scale yields. As an example to follow, we can cite the province of Entre Ríos, a municipality that, as a first measure to promote agroecology, prohibited the use of Glyphosate, the main herbicide in industrial production. Among other initiatives such as the PASS (Healthy, Safe and Sovereign Food Plan) and the collaborative work of the UTT (Union of Land Workers). In Europe the use of Glyphosate as an herbicide is prohibited, and in Argentina it can still be used, it is very common to use it before planting various crops, to eliminate weeds, the consequences for example in this case is the loss of nutrients from the soil, erosion and contamination of groundwater. But in Europe that doesn’t use it, their way of removing weeds before planting is by using a plow, which terribly damages the soil layers. Therefore half solutions are not solutions, since the problem is bigger. The change has to be generated from a sustainability in the production methods. The process towards an agro ecological transition can be interpreted and approached from different scales: crop, farm, community or village, National and global. This is important to understand what can be achieved from each of the scales until you need to jump to the next. At the first individual scale of crop and farm, numerous successful transition cases can be identified, with positive results and proven new sustainable technical solutions. But they are still isolated examples if they are not supported by policies at another level. After this transformation on the ground, it is necessary to move to a local and provincial scale, in 223

search of the development of plans and policies that regulate and support change, such as the Renama initiatives and the development of a provincial strategic plan for agroecology. At a national or global level, the industrialization of agriculture has entailed the constitution of a global agrarian market and a single global food system, in which agro ecological products do not yet have an assigned space. Food chains continue to favor large supermarkets and there is a small initiative to sell (and search from the consumer side) towards more organic products, due to a growing awareness of healthy eating, but these foods are more expensive and obviously still very far from contributing to food sovereignty. Changes in the attitudes of agricultural producers may be sufficient on a farm scale to achieve a transition, and likewise, a change in individual consumption patterns. But when we get to a collective community and particularly State level, political power and collective action must emerge to make change possible. The development of public policies and the dynamic action of social movements are crucial in this task (Rosset and Alteri, 2018). Within this context, the role of the state and social movements becomes fundamental, as does the decision-making process of democracy itself. An attempt should be made to close the deep gap that exists between the potential of agroecology to solve agro-food problems and the current levels of support for advances in this field. Of course, these mentality changes must be accompanied by regulatory plans. As mentioned above in the case of Entre Ríos, where glyphosate is prohibited, a measure that can be added is the collection of a tax for the use of certain inputs. Therefore, the profits obtained could be used for support research and incentivize integrated and ecologically managed systems. Finally, another issue that should be addressed for a possible change towards sustainable agriculture in Argentina is the support of new farmers, who require access to land, capital, training and infrastructure resources for the development of innovative agriculture. The number of young agricultural producers is decreasing, due to the lack of possibilities. It is essential that these new policies improve opportunities for new youth who want to enter the agricultural system and assist with a transition to agroecology.

LAND RECOVERING AGROECOLOGICAL TRANSITION

Soil degradation consists of biological, chemical and physical degradation. Currently, about 33 percent of world soils are moderately to highly degrade. The strong relationship between soil health and food security calls for strategic and immediate actions especially at the local level to reverse soil degradation, in order to increase food production and alleviate food insecurity in the areas where it is most needed and in the context of climate change.

Sustainable agriculture cannot be reduced to a catalogue of techniques.

Agroecological transition trajectories are long, progressive, and sometimes winding, and they deserve to be monitored and sustained over time. Adequate combination of various practices in particular circumstances will necessarily have to change and this will depends strictly on each context.

The coherence of the transition process will define agricultural sustainability.

For preparing this transition, it is necessary to design a strategy. To be coherent, the transition process will have to meet certain conditions: -Holistic diagnosis. Proceeding to a comprehensive diagnosis of sustainability challenges and conditions specific to the particular given context. -Taking all relevant aspects of sustainability into account; identifying all assets (natural, social, human, physical and financial) locally available, as well as all human and environmental constraints and the ways through which those elements interact with each other; defining expected benefits in the short, medium and long term; moving beyond the level of the plot or the farming system.

A radical shift in agricultural development will not happen without an equivalent shift in the whole agrifood system. An agroecological transition will require a total change of mentality in agricultural workers. The dominant agro-industrial system developed a circle of corporations that dominate the food system, privileging large companies, large-scale development and prioritizing high-power actors,

224

225

leaving small producers marginalized. The awareness that is required must go beyond the economic gains of a system. Industrial agriculture, as detailed in previous chapters, each year contributes strongly to irreparable environmental damage. Therefore, the necessary change in production methodologies has to begin to arise from the desire for a better and livable future on planet Earth. As a consequence, scaling-up agroecological approaches implies radical changes in this current dominant agrifood system as a whole. For that to happen, peasants, consumers, pastoralists, indigenous communities and other civil society actors will have to regain control over the food system. This is primarily what agroecology as a movement is all about: reclaiming “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” (Nyéléni Declaration, 2007). Evidence demonstrated not only that agroecological approaches can provide enough food for all, but that small-scale farmers can double food production within 10 years in critical regions by using agroecological methods. Another important point to transition to agroecology is to understand food production as a lifestyle. This is perhaps more related to the traditional peasant, who not only sees production in the field reduced to an element of economic profitability (economic benefits are also part of it), but is primarily a lifestyle. The peasants live and work on that land. In these traditional farming systems, the link between agriculture and ecology is strong. Generally, the agricultural development of these peasants occurs on small or medium-sized lands. 73 percent of all farms units dispose of less than 1 ha of land and 85 percent less than 2 ha. Holdings under 5 ha represent nearly 95 percent of the holdings’ estimates. Being extremely context-specific, tending to evolve in symbiosis with their diverse environment, traditional peasant farms also typically support a high degree of plant diversity in the form of polycultures and/or agroforestry patterns. But it is important to say that also the real-world peasant agriculture doesn’t guarantee optimal sustainability performance. Peasant farms can also induce negative impacts on the environment. This is especially the case for those partially industrialized which make significant use of chemical inputs.

The search for change towards agroecology will be to reduce the use of external inputs as much as possible, and this will involve both large and small farms, as well as family businesses or large corporations. 226

The obsessive search for maximization of profit puts into question the production of food as the first purpose of agriculture. The expanded agricultural area growing soya, maize or sugar is mainly used for industrial purposes, especially agrofuels and animal feed. Industrial livestock farming causes a major drain on food resources. Through many other ways, agricultural industrialization has contributed significantly to worsen poverty, hunger and malnutrition levels, notably by increasing inequality among farmers. This type of agriculture has been the responsible for major social and environmental costs in the last five decades.

13.1

DESIGNING THE STRATEGY

As a process of transition towards more sustainable agricultural systems, agroecology consists therefore essentially in designing and applying an adequate strategy for managing the transition. As a starting point for designing such strategy, agroecology implies proceeding to a comprehensive diagnosis of sustainability challenges and conditions specific to the given context (Berton et al., 2012). The question is: what are the priorities in this context for improving agricultural sustainability and how can they be concretely addressed? All relevant aspects of sustainability, whether linked to food security, environmental protection and/or to community well-being, must be taken into account, recognizing the multifunctionality of agriculture. This also implies identify all the actors (human and environmental), as well as the ways through which those elements interact with each other; and mapping all assets (natural, social, human, physical and financial) locally available. The relevance of making the best use of traditional knowledge for designing agroecological systems is obvious since this knowledge is intrinsically adapted to local conditions in a given environment. If a technology works to improve productivity for farmers and does not cause undue harm to the environment, then it is likely to have some sustainability benefits (Pretty, 2008). Relying first and foremost on traditional knowledge does not mean excluding modern science. In fact, agroecology combines scientific inquiry with indigenous knowledge, as well as farmers’ innovation and community-based innovation. Moreover, agroecology should not be seen as incompatible with the mechanization of agriculture. While a forced path towards a rapid mechanization of farming that does not meet peasants needs should be avoided, agroecological farming is perfectly compatible with a gradual and adequate mechanization of farming.

227

In this aspect also the change of mentality towards a new way of producing must reside. Agroecology was always seen as a retrograde method, of returning to ancestral methods. At one point, it can now be understood that it was also a defense tool against the threat it poses to large producers of industrial inputs. But agroecology shows every day more that it has all the necessary tools to be developed as a global change towards sustainable agriculture. The small scale of plots is not an obstacle. Decent living conditions could be reached for a family with a plot of good land of a size between 0.5 and 0.8 ha, with the appropriate mechanization and animal-crop integrated systems.

13.2

STAGES IN THE TRANSITION

Level 1: Increase the efficiency of conventional practices to reduce the consumption and use of expensive, scarce, or environmentally harmful inputs. Level 2: Replace conventional practices and inputs with sustainable alternative practices. Examples of alternative practices may include the use of nitrogen fixers to replace synthetic nitrogenous fertilizers, the use of biological control agents in place of pesticides, and the switch to minimal or reduced tillage. Level 3: Redesign of the agroecosystem so that it functions on the basis of a new set of ecological processes. The design and internal management and established times are considered instead of applying external inputs. Level 4: Change of ethics and values. A transition makes a culture of sustainability. Sustainability as a concept has the enormous potential to serve as a link between the two most important components of food systems. These stages are thought of sequentially, especially the first three (Reduce-Replace-Redesign).

Agroecological principles technically applied to large-scale industrial agriculture This is perhaps one of the most important points to consider when making an agroecological transition, since almost in a mode of myth, industrial agriculture producers affirm that using an agroecological method it is impossible to obtain the same (or higher) yield than through the industrial production of monocultures. This is completely untrue. Obviously it will be difficult to gain confidence to believe in a radical change in terms of production methodologies, mainly because in economic terms it is decisive to lose an annual harvest, for example. What must be understood is that an agroecological transition is a slow process, and the results are likely not to be seen immediately, but as soon as that progress in improving biodiversity begins to become visible, in some years the results may be equal in efficiency and then overcome. The challenge will notably consist in avoiding excessive decline of yields and land productivity that would result from a too sudden abandon of synthetic inputs. In such cases, it can take time before beginning to recover and build productivity again. As a consequence, the transition processes will need to be more progressive. Whether fully applying agroecological principles to large industrial farms is technically possible or not is an important question, since it gives us indications as to the feasibility of transitioning from industrial farming systems towards truly more sustainable farms. Answering ‘no’ would

imply that above a certain size, sustainability of agriculture will necessarily be restricted. The question is relevant.

The transition process requires gradual actions, not only to allow the producer to lose some prejudices and accept the proposal more calmly, but also to have the time necessary to begin to “detoxify” the production system and recover some of the ecological properties that allow progress

As a matter of fact, there is an ongoing debate on the nature of relationship between farm size and productivity of outputs like crop yields and biodiversity (Wibbelmann, 2013).

towards a more balanced system.

As an example, in Brazil, approximately 100,000 family farms have adopted agroecological farming practices today, showing increases in yields of 300% and 100% for black beans and corn (while increasing resilience to irregular weather patterns). And this is just one example among many others. An impressive body of scientific evidence exists which demonstrates

Some producers who are willing to begin the transition generally feel more secure if they begin the experience with the gradual replacement of chemical inputs with biological or less toxic ones. On the other hand, it may be that they are willing to start the process 228

in their entire establishment or they prefer to select a sector of the farm and “make it agroecological”. In this case, the best way to move forward with these actions is to choose an area of the property to test the different proposed and agreed changes. Redesigning implies the gradual recovery of the key components of the agroecosystem and thinking about their spatial and temporal distribution that enhances interrelationships and their positive synergies.

229

how significantly agroecological transitions can increase yields (thus also land productivity). In what might be the widest and systematic study on agroecological systems to date. Economic benefits resulting from agroecological transitions can also rely on reduced economic vulnerability of farmers to crop failures or food prices volatility. Indeed, diversification of the different activities that agroecology generally implies allows farmers to compensate for possible crop failures due to adverse climatic and other natural conditions by better results for other crops, or compensate market price reductions for one specific product by more remunerative prices for others. Increasing resilience Studies show that agroecological approaches improve recovery after such climatic disasters. For example, a survey conducted 40 days after Hurricane Ike hit Cuba in 2008, in the Provinces of Holguin and Las Tunas, not only found that agroecologically managed farms exhibited losses of 50% compared to 90 or 100% in neighboring monocultures, but also that they showed a faster recovery (80-90%) than monoculture farms. Resilience of agroecological farming to climate change relies on four main interconnected features: -increasing the level of biodiversity. -building healthier soils -improving water management and water harvesting -optimizing yields increases Scaling up truly agroecological transition processes would not only allow addressing the mitigation challenge of the agricultural sector. It would also significantly contribute to reducing current Green house gases total emissions of the industrialized food system as a whole, beyond its agricultural component. Another advantage is that groecology privileges local markets that shorten the circuits of food production and consumption, hence avoiding the high energy needs of ‘long-distance food’ (Altieri and Toledo, 2011). As another example, scaling-up agroecological approaches would also lead to stopping land clearing and deforestation for plantation, notably because of the significant yields/land productivity increases the adoption of agroecological farming implies. Historically, 75 % of deforestation worldwide has been associated with agricultural expansion, including for industrial animal feed and agrofuels.

230

13.3

SOCIAL ASPECT

Agroecological transition requires bottom-up processes in which farmers take the front seat. Collective movements are a fundamental tool to make this leap, since it is the motivating force, it is the way to obtain security through experiences and it is the way to find momentum to achieve solutions at the country level and with a participatory State. Since the 1970s the concept of agroecology has also referred to a number of collective mobilizations, originally in response to the Green Revolution. Agroecology as a movement has been particularly strengthened politically in the last 5 years through LVC (La vía campesina), the largest transnational peasant movement, as one of the key pillars of Food Sovereignty. When farmers undergo a transition from input-dependent farming to agroecology based on local resources, they are becoming ‘more peasant’ (Rosset and Martinez-Torrez, 2013) since they are gaining autonomy. The search for autonomy can also rely on the development of alternative agrifood networks (AAFNs) such as producer–consumer networks, collective producer shops, farmers’markets, box schemes and school provisioning schemes. Opportunities to promote change are, for example: » Appreciation of the deterioration of the soil due to the management carried out. » Appreciation of the lack of solutions to the problem of pests and diseases. » Serious poisoning problems with agrochemicals in the family or community. » The impossibility of setting prices for its own production due to the dynamic of the concentrating markets. » Increase in production costs due to the need to access the technological package.

231

13.4

REAL EXPERIENCES

Argentina Agroecological experiences, peasant movements, indigenous and family farming movements, in scenarios of rural territorial conflict (Argentina 2013 - 2017)

Throughout this research, various examples became visible in Argentina and around the world that demonstrate the possibility of a largescale agroecological transition. The main strategies are summarized as: -Rethinking and redesigning the production system -Systemic vision -Increase of genetic and functional biodiversity, through: crop rotation, use of cover crops, use of consociated crops (combination of grasses and legumes, example: wheat-clover, oats-vetch, sorghum-vetch, sorghumsoybean), use of biological slides, among other elements already developed in the corresponding chapter on “agroecological designs”. -Complementation between agriculture and livestock -Increased ground cover -Improvement of soil organic matter and biological activity -Nutrient balance -Integrated pest management -Progressive reduction of agrochemicals

Provinces with the presence of indigenous peasant movements Production areas and agro-ecological markets Rural territorial conflict areas Agroecological cooperatives Metropolitan experiences of agroecological transition

232

233

RENAMA Red Nacional de Municipios y Comunidades que fomentan la Agroecología | National Network of Municipalities and Communities that promote agroecology

LA AURORA 17 years of experience in agroecological transition Benito Juárez, Buenos Aires, Argentina

Pampean region The establishment “La Aurora” is located 400 km in the southeast of the Province of Buenos Aires, in the Benito Juárez district. Before the transition, production was carried out under the conventional model, cultivating mainly wheat and sunflower together with breeding cattle. To achieve the desired objectives (such as economic stability and productivity, lower costs and decrease the use of inputs, avoid the use and manipulation of toxic products, due to human and environmental risk, recover local biodiversity, among others), it was necessary to address and understand the functioning of the agro-ecosystem, with a holistic and

Experimental Farms Agroecological farms Agroecological initiatives Agroecological education and training centers Technical support in agroecological production

234

Source: prepared by the author based on CIRAA Argentine circle of agroecology https://agroecologos.wordpress.com/mapa/

systemic view of the establishment. Using the systems approach, they analyzed what factors were used (components), how they interrelated (arrangement of components) what were the inputs that came from abroad and what products were sold (outputs), as well as the existence of possible externalities. The following actions were carried out: Fuels: a lot of emphasis was put on using the least amount of labor possible. Seeds: progress was made in the harvest of own seed in most of the crops. Herbicides: during the first years, herbicide treatments were carried out in a “strategic” way: it was only applied in the wheat crop and the rest of the lots were handled with weeding by animals or with a weeding machine. The farmer decided to stop producing sunflower due to the high use of herbicides that its cultivation implied. The sowing of consociated crops was carried out, a cereal with a legume, in this case wheat and clover (legume of low competition with the cereal). The continued use of this polyculture scheme allowed a significant reduction in the presence of weeds in the system, achieving a gradual decrease in the use of herbicides, until they were not required in recent campaigns. Fungicides and diseases: these issues were addressed taking into account the use of biodiversity and the theory of Trophobiosis, that maintains that a “healthy” plant is less attacked by insects, nematodes, viruses and bacteria than a “sick” plant . 235

Agroe Conv

300 250 200 150 100 50 0 1990

1999

2012

Evolution of the direct cost for wheat in conventional systems (with high inputs) and in the “La Aurora” establishment between 1990-2012.

Source: Agroecología: bases teóricas para el diseño y manejo de Agroecosistemas sustentables; Sarandón; 2014

kg/HA 6000 5000 4000 3000

Agroe Conv. average

2000 0

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

1000

Average annual wheat crop yield in kg/ha for the Southeast area of Buenos Aires and yields in the “La Aurora” establishment between 2000-2012

Source: Agroecología: bases teóricas para el diseño y manejo de Agroecosistemas sustentables; Sarandón; 2014

236

conventional model, predominant in the area, as it depended on external inputs, had costs that have constantly increased since the analysis began (1990), until today. In all the years, the agroecological system had lower production costs than the current high-input system. The agroecological model, unlike the conventional model, allowed a stabilization of costs (at lower values than those of conventional systems), a stabilization of gross margins and a lower economic risk for the producer. It is important to be aware that many inputs currently used in agriculture can be replaced with natural processes through strategies such as including in the rotation those crops that are most adapted to the area, which allow to fix the highest amount of nutrients and carbon and maintain biodiversity avoiding the application of chemical synthesis products that could alter the natural functioning of the system. The replacement of input technologies with process technologies made it possible to reduce the use of energy and money without compromising producer satisfaction. The results obtained in “La Aurora” show the potential of this approach to

are not harmful to crops due to population control mechanisms. This is achieved due to the strategies of polyculture, strip crops and biological slides.

be applied in extensive temperate climate systems such as those of the Argentine Pampean Region.

RESULTS OBTAINED

Direct cost

U$S/HA 400 350

To improve the nutrition of crops, the contribution of manure and produced by livestock was very important. For this, the division of the lots was improved and the water troughs were moved, to distribute the animal manure strategically. It was considered of high importance to begin to rebuild the weakened biological processes of the soil, providing the favorable conditions for the development of soil organisms involved in nutrient cycling. A ground cover was maintained with controlled animal grazing, to protect the soil organisms from insolation, low temperatures and desiccation. The use of agrochemicals was avoided to reduce the aggression generated by the use of toxic substances for this fundamental component of the soil subsystem. Insecticides and antiparasitics: they stopped using insecticides on crops, as they were considered very harmful to the entire system. A more diverse insect population allows pests to be kept at population levels that

The application of the Agroecology approach in “La Aurora” establishment allowed generating a totally different management from the conventional management of the area and a substantial modification of the system’s operation in relation to its situation at the beginning of the process. Soil quality Physical and chemical quality of soil Agroecological management improved the quality of the soil. A much higher level of porosity was achieved than systems working in a conventional way. Agroecological management improved the soil structure and, especially, the level of macropores, which improves water accumulation. The available phosphorus, for its part, has remained at very high values and notably higher than the batches worked in a conventional way. Results on biodiversity In samplings carried out with net traps, it was confirmed that in the system with agroecological management there were more individuals of beneficial species within the lots than in the semi-natural environments (borders or repaired places such as fences). In the fields with conventional management the data were reversed (few beneficial species in the lots and an increase in the places without working). Economic results Changes in the functioning of the Agroecosystem had economic consequences. The agroecological model kept costs stable while the 237

INTA EXPERIMENTAL AGROECOLOGICAL FIELD Tres Arroyos, Buenos Aires, Argentina

The INTA -National Institute of Agricultural Technology- has been developing experimental farms for the agroecological transition since 2011. They are located in the Tres Arroyos district, province of Buenos Aires.

238

The objectives of these experimental farms consist of evaluating an extensive production system based on agroecology in order to provide an alternative to the current predominant model dependent on inputs in the central south of Buenos Aires, to compare both systems in productive and economic aspects, and to compare energy demand and energy efficiency.

a current agricultural system. From the beginning of the comparison, direct costs were lower in the Agroecological model, this type of production being more viable for family farmers with smaller capitalization. Therefore the producer assumes less risk. This experience allows to demonstrate that the gross margin by crop and global was higher in the agroecological model, this result being masked if only net income is observed. The partial and short-term vision of the CURRENT model based on the search for high yields, has raised production costs, dependence on

In January 2011, a 10-hectare module was established within a production lot of the Barrow Experimental Farm. On the “AGROE” module, an agroecological management of extensive mixed crops is carried out, having as central axes the principles of Agroecology, among them, systemic vision, increase in biodiversity, balance and cycling of nutrients, use of cover crops and integrated pest management This work was based on the comparison of two extensive production models: the one based on agroecology and one of predominant production in the area that still supports livestock, the purely agricultural approach not being disseminated in recent years. The AGROE model showed acceptable grain and meat yields during the first years and after stabilizing, it was possible to obtain yields similar to

chemical synthesis inputs and the risk of contamination by agrochemicals. The principles of the AGROE model are based on the strengthening of biological processes, the interactions of the different components of the system, the increase in biodiversity, which reduce the need for the use of chemical synthesis products. To replenish nutrients, this model uses resources generated in the establishment (such as nitrogen fixed by legumes) and / in the area with local resources (by-products of the milling industry). Currently, INTA provides accompaniment and technical support to 30 producers seeking the path to an agroecological transition. These have approximately 1000 HA per producer, which is equivalent to 30,000 HA of field in agroecological transition.

U$S/HA 1200

1093

1000 800 600

499.8

480

400 200 0

22.9 Agroe

Actual

Work

Agroe

153.9 Actual

Herbicides

278.9

Agroe

Actual

Fertilizers

239

Zaytuna farm Permaculture New South Wales, Australia

Zaytuna is a sixty-six acre (27 hectares) property. It contains 800m of creek frontage, numerous swimming holes and abundant wildlife. The landscape is diverse, covering high frost-free hilltops, ridges and valleys containing both cleared paddock and forested areas. The farm is under continuous development and with ever changing and evolving on ground research in practice; work is consistently in progress to develop more efficient and productive systems. Zaytuna Farm went into development in 2001 with earthworks for the mainframe water system. The oldest, largest swale on the property supports a well-established food forest, which includes jackfruit, mango, custard apples, Brazil cherries, pecans, and more. The productive forest is designed to mimic a natural forest, and the swale helps to hydrate the property. The farm have been in continuous production for over 12 years. They grow the main volume of vegetables on the farm, and their soils are constantly revitalized with compost. An integrated water harvesting system of multiple roofs, tanks, dams, ponds, and swales are incorporated in the mainframe design of the

property. These elements have all been placed out in a harmonious way following the contours and patterns of the landscape. Gravity irrigation is accessible throughout the property and can be used at any time of the year. The irrigation water is enriched with natural nutrients provided by our fish, duck ponds and animal systems. Animals are used to cycle nutrients, fast track the succession of degraded land in to forest, sequester carbon to the soil and to provide services that they naturally enjoy doing and is a part of their intrinsic characteristics.

2002

2012

240

241

APRICOT LANE FARMS Agroecology land transformation Moorpark, California, USA

A family transformed desolate farmlands into a regenerative oasis. The farm is treated as a microecosystem, managed through methods that are best described as biomimetic, since the biological balance found in the earth’s ecosystem allows for a less destructive and healthier farm. The methods improve the land, wildlife habitat and the lives of those who work it and the food they grow, by managing biodiversity and applying cultivation methods on regenerative soils. “We use regenerative soil methods that cycle the nutrients, to feed the plants, inform the flavors, and heal the environment. Keeping our soils covered with grasses and legumes feeds the microbes, holds in moisture and, as an added bonus, sequesters atmospheric carbon which heals the environment. The foods raised and grown on our farm are nurtured without the use of pesticides, soy, hormones or other chemical inputs. The animals live on wide-open pastures full of grass and are humanely treated”. (apricotlane farms.com)

2012

2020

242

243

CONCLUSIONS

the aim is to create a continuous flow, without interrupting nature, taking advantage of it, therefore it will also give quality to closed spaces. agroecological cultivation as a fundamental and primordial center, as the basis for a need for change in the way we treat the earth and the environment. Therefore consider the architectural space as part of that system, including the principles of permaculture to integrate the social aspect into the whole design. The cultivation My interest is to think of

In this volume the changes towards the industrialization of agriculture reflected in Argentina are visualized, being demonstrated in the severe environmental impacts, the loss of biodiversity and the numbers expressed by the last National agricultural census, which put in evidence the strong use of agrochemicals and fertilizers, the concentrated production of monocultures, mainly in the pampean region and the social impacts caused by this impulse of agribusiness.

A catalog of native vegetation was made, which is currently almost disappearing and I consider that replanting them is a fundamental

element in order to achieve a possible transition and recovery of native natural ecosystems.

In Argentina, thoughts are beginning to emerge towards alternatives for agroecological change, but the groups that lead these ideas live in the struggle to achieve public policies that endorse an agroecological transition, support small farmers and develop agroecological trade spaces, confronting ideology of the strong entities that lead agribusiness, which is managed by a few dominant heads. What is important and transcendental is that these thoughts of change are reaching more citizens, not only in the agricultural sector, but also that people are beginning to be more aware of the foods that are choosing for consumption, there is an increasing communication and distribution of information in this regard and, at the same time, the growth of diseases and parasites generated in industrial spaces for animal husbandry is imminent. The last chapter attempts to understand the processes of land recovering and agroecological transition, understanding that these are complex and long, but are feasible and possible, being demonstrated with local examples that encourage a possible sustainable transition in the country.

I believe that achieving the best understanding of nature, local vegetation and fauna will facilitate knowledge in order to create relevant designs for each situation, taking advantage of the site geograpphy, the wind directions, the maximum capacity of the soils and thus achieving a complementary integration with the architecture. I think 244

spaces will no longer be a grid divided according to owners and human needs, but the shape is a convenient design for that part of the world is designed, for the vegetative species that will be born and planted in that place. In turn, architecture will help that design fulfill its final purpose, providing income, housing, facilities

to carry out parallel activities such as compost, permaculture structures, animal and plant consociation, etc. And in addition, have a direct connection with other communities to establish local markets. After studying the possibilities of vegetation and fauna management to establish correct agroecological designs, I think it is extremely important to start thinking about an urbanization that is born from the need to conserve biodiversity and natural flows and not from the need of man to subdivide a plot for each one to clarify the sense of ownership. Think what is best for the environment, create a less structured urbanization that always respects a certain percentage of the productive area, green belts, forest curtains, leisure and natural spaces. Finally, reflecting from my perspective as an architect, I think that interdisciplinary design is a union of forces and is potentially more effective than when it is thought from the particular area. In the current context in which we live, a spiritual war where freedom of movement and thought is increasingly restricted, where we feel more and more controlled and dominated by certain powers, where the land and natural resources are getting sick to their last limits, I firmly believe that it is

time to act from another side, to think in community, and as architects we have the potential to help create a healthier environment, where individual thought dissolves and is put in the balance the health of ecosystems as the main objective. It is in the change of consciousness where we are going to achieve the resilience of the planet and recover the present to leave a better future for the generations to come.

245

Bibliography

- Anderson Colin, Pimbert Michel and Kiss Csilla. 2015. Bulding, defending and strengthening agroecology, a Global Struggle for food sovereignty. Declaration of the International Forum for Agroecology.

Sustainable Food Systems, 37:1, 45-59. Sevilla, Spain.

-Bisang Roberto. 2007. Crisis recovery and new dilemmas. The Argentine economy 2002-2007. Chapter VI, Agricultural development in recent decades: to believe again? United Nations, CEPAL Office in Buenos Aires.

-INDEC National Institute of Statistics and Censuses, Argentine Republic. 2020. National Agricultural Census, 2018. Ministry of Economy, Presidency of the Nation.

-Boeraeve Fanny, Dufrêne Marc, Dendoncker Nicolas, Amandine Dupire and MahyGrégory. 2020. How Are Landscapes under Agroecological Transition Perceived and Appreciated? A Belgian Case Study. Sustainability.

-INTA (National Institute of technology and agriculture). 2012. El camino de la transición agroecológica, región Pampeana [The path of agroecological transition, Pampean region]. IPAF Publications.

-Carrasco Andrés E., Sánchez Norma E., Tamagno Liliana E. 2012. Agricultural model and socio-environmental impact in Argentina: monoculture and agribusiness. AUGM-Environment Committee.

-INTA (National Institute of technology and agriculture). 2019. Mapa Nacional de Cultivos campaña 2018/2019 [National Crop Map campaign 2018/2019]. Proyecto Mapbiomas (Convenio 26121) Red JECAM-GEOGLAM, Argentina.

-Dalgaard Tommy, Hutchings Nicholas J., Porter John R. 2003. Agroecology, scaling and interdisciplinarity. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 100 (2003) 39–51.

-Martinez Dougnac Gabriela and Tort María Isabel. 2002. The struggle for subsistence: notes on Pampean family farming in the 90s. University of Buenos Aires (UBA).

-Dominguez Diego I. 2019. Cartography of agroecology and territorial disputes in Argentina. Rev. Nera v. 22, n. 49, pp. 297-313.

-Mateucci Silvia D. , Rodriguez Andrea F. y Silva Mariana E. 2017. La vegetación de la Argentina. Revista Fronteras, Buenos Aires, Argentina.

-FAO, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2014. Agroecology for food security and nutrition proceedings of the FAO International SymposiumRome, Italy. Rome, Italy.

- Miles Albie, DeLonge Marcia S. & Carlisle Liz. 2017. Triggering a positive research and policy feedback cycle to support a transition to agroecology and sustainable food systems. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems.

-FAO, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2018. World food and agriculture, statistical pocketbook. Rome, Italy. -Frampton Kenneth. 1983. Towards a critical egionalism: six points for an Architecture of Resistance. Perspecta.

-Ministry of agribusiness (Ministerio de agroindustria). 2016. Reporte Nacional sobre el estado de la biodiversidad para la alimentación y la agricultura en la República Argentina [National Report on the state of biodiversity for food and agriculture in the Argentine Republic]. Argentina.

- Giraldo Omar Felipe & Rosset Peter M. 2017. Agroecology as a territory in dispute: between institutionality and social movements. The Journal of Peasant Studies.

-Nelson Erin, Scott Steffanie, Cukier Judie and Leyva Galan Angel. 2008. Institutionalizing agroecology: successes and challenges in Cuba. Agric Hum Values (2009) 26:233–243.

-Gliessman Steve. 2018. Romper con los sistemas agrarios y alimentarios industriales: Siete experiencias de transición agroecológica [Breaking with industrial agricultural and food systems: Seven experiences of agroecological transition]. IPES food, International panel of experts on sustainable food systems.

-Nogar María Luciana, Nogar Ada Graciela and Jacinto Guillermina P. 2013. Transformations and environmental fragilities in the Argentine pampas. Latin American History Magazine. La Plata, Argentina.

-Gonzalez de Molina, Manuel. 2012. Agroecology and Politics. How to Get Sustainability? About the Necessity for a Political Agroecology. Agroecology and 246

-Henk De Zeeuw and Pay Drechsel; Cities and agriculture: developing resilient urban food systems; 2015; Cambridge.

-Parmentier Stéphane. 2014. Scaling up agro-ecological approaches: what, why and how? Oxfam organization, England. 247

-Robinson Guy M. 2008. Sustainable rural systems, Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Communities. London. -Rosset Peter and Miguel Altieri. 2018. Agroecology, science and politics. Latin American Scientific Society of Agroecology - Sabourin Éric, Le Coq Jean-François, Fréguin Gresh Sandrine, Marzin Jacques, Bonin Muriel, Patrouilleau Maria Mercedes, Vázquez Luis L., Niederle Paulo. 2018. Public policies to support agroecology in Latin America and the Caribbean. Cirad, agricultural research for development.

Websites -Gobierno de la Provincia de Buenos Aires. Programa provincial de promoción de la agroecología [Provincial program for the promotion of agroecology]. Accessed 15 November 2020. <https:// www.gba.gob.ar/desarrollo_agrario/programas/ab> -Ministerio de agricultura, ganadería y pesca Argentina [Ministry of agriculture, livestock and fishing Argentina]. Accessed 12 November 2020. < https://www.magyp.gob.ar/sitio/areas/ministerio/ delegaciones/> -Ecología Austral, Asociación Argentina de ecología. Unidades de vegetación de la Argentina [Vegetation units of Argentina]. Accessed 10 October 2020. < http://ojs.ecologiaaustral.com.ar/ index.php/Ecologia_Austral/article/view/399> -Guía de forestación con plantas nativas [Reforestation guide with native plants]. Accessed 15 October 2020. <https://www.pilar.gov.ar/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/06-fichas-arbolespte3_2.pdf> -Circulo argentino de agroecología. [Argentine circle of agroecology]. Interactive map. Acessed 15 November 2020. < https://agroecologos.wordpress.com/mapa/> -Bichos de campo. Notice of approval of the agrochemicals law. Accessed 17 November 2020. < https://bichosdecampo.com/>

-Facultad de ciencias agrarias y forestales, Universidad Nacional de La Plata. National University of La Plata. Accessed 4 December 2020. < https://www.agro.unlp.edu.ar/novedad/se-crearala-direccion-de-agroecologia> -INDEC. National Institute of Statistics and Censuses. Accessed 15 November 2020. <https:// www.indec.gob.ar/> -Vientos de Argentina blogspot [Winds of Argentina]. Accessed 12 November 2020. < http:// argentinaventosa.blogspot.com/> -Meteorología en red [Network meteorology]. El Pampero, el zonda y la sudestada. Accessed 12 November 2020. < https://www.meteorologiaenred.com/pampero-zonda-sudestada.html> -Infocampo. Argentina productiva: qué departamentos concentran la actividad agrícola del país [Productive Argentina: which departments concentrate the country’s agricultural activity]. Accessed 22 November 2020. < https://www.infocampo.com.ar/argentina-productiva-quedepartamentos-concentran-la-actividad-agricola-del-pais/> -INTA General Villegas. La histora de las conquistas de una feria agroecológica y sus participantes [The history of the conquests of an agroecological fair and its participants]. Accessed 20 October 2020.<https://inta.gob.ar/sites/default/files/la_historia_y_las_conquistas_de_una_feria_ agroecologica_y_sus_participantes.pdf> -La red del campo CHACRA. Confirman que el trigo es rentable en el modelo agroecológico. [They confirm that wheat is profitable in the agroecological model]. Accessed 25 November 2020. <https://www.revistachacra.com.ar> -Espacios agropecuarios. Los sistemas agropecuarios argentinos [Argentine agricultural systems]. Accessed 25 November 2020. <https://sites.google.com/site/223espaciosagropecuarios/tiposde-agricultura-1/los-sistemas-agropecuarios-argentinos> -Isuu. Altieri-Toledo. La revolución agroecológica en Latinoamérica [The agroecological revolution in Latin America]. Accessed 18 October 2020. < https://issuu.com/lecuervo/docs/la_revolucion_ agoecologica_en_latin> -Bichos de campo. En Barrow comprueban que bajo agroecología los ataques de plagas ceden porque

-FAO, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Centro de conocimientos

la población de insectos es más diversa [In Barrow they verify that under agroecology pest attacks

sobre agroecología [Agroecology Knowledge Center]. Accesed 20 November 2020. < http://

subside because the insect population is more diverse]. Accessed 12 November 2020. <https://

www.fao.org/agroecology/database/detail/es/c/1295997>

bichosdecampo.com>

-RENAMA Red Nacional de Municipios y Comunidades que Fomentan la Agroecología [National

-Our world, United Nations University. Food Crises: Architects Needed. Accessed 13 November

Network of Municipalities and Communities that Promote Agroecology]. Accessed 2 December

2020. < https://ourworld.unu.edu/en/food-crises-architects-needed>

2020. < http://www.renama.org/> 248

249

VOLUME III Proposal for an agroecological transition

250

251

INTRODUCTION

The last volume seeks to overturn the theories mentioned in the previous volumes on a feasible agroecological transition process in a real site. An existing farm located in the province of Buenos Aires, within the Pampeana region, is selected and it is chosen since it currently has all the areas of industrial agricultural development: Production of milk in industrial dairy, planting of monocultures and raising livestock for the sale. The objective is to understand how a transformation process can be developed, where to begin, how long it would take, therefore at the same time new techniques of agroecology and permaculture begin to be applied, understanding the site and its context, geography, soils , the wind and weather, developing the design of a project that exploits the potential to the maximum. The proposal also seeks to develop the site as a community space for housing, encouraging change in the social aspect, trying to break with individuality and centrality and achieve a collective objective of benefit from natural resources.

252

253

THE SELECTED AREA “El Plato” countryside Buenos Aires Province Argentina

254

255

14.1

LOCATION

Case study “El Plato” countryside Province division Principal roads Principal cities-villages 50 km

256

257

258

259

E 1:25000 260

261

262

E 1:10000

263

2865

al 1

264 25

princ ipal a

1660

N SILOS

SOY 226 ha

CORN 296 ha

Water tank Shrubbery

Upper soil level

Employer house

Garage, barbacue place

SILO Bags

Principal house

Garage

Butcher shop; engine room; deposit

Employer house

Vet supply deposit (old horse boxes)

Machinery barn

eucalyptus tree

Poplar tree (álamo)

1 COLD TANK

Carob tree (algarrobo)

280 cows for milk in function (total 700 cows)

Employer houses; workshop; horse gear room

The industrial system

Bathrioochloa laguroides

Seeds DEPOSIT

6000 l milk / day 200.000 l/month

Watermarks

MILK PRODUCTION Every day

ccess

TAMBO

Lower soil level

LANDSCAPE

tot

SOY 230 ha

livestock-pastures 400 ha

14.2 Vet supplies come from Buenos Aires Capital

265

14.3

Operation of industrial chains on site

AGRICULTURAL INPUTS

MILK PRODUCTION

SEEDS HERBICIDES FERTILIZERS FUNGICIDES

Minnesota

Santa Fé

AGRIBUSINESS MEGA-COMPANIES

280 cows for milk in function (total 700 cows)

2 3

DAIRY ROOM

6 4

Storage MILK PRODUCTION

PRODUCTION IN THE FIELDS

VETERINARY SUPPLIES

490 Ha CORN 550 Ha SOY

HARVEST Santa Fé

8 Feed the animals

1 COLD TANK

TRANSPORTATION

Every day 6000 l milk per day 200.000 l per month From Santa Fé according to the harvest season, NORTH-SOUTH DIRECTION The SOWING WORK is outsourced | HARVESTER MACHINES SEEDING MACHINES 266

267

14.4

The time of industrial agriculture

14.5

The time of industrial Feed-lots

in em Ins atio

ell s To 0kg 30

FEED-L OT

TT FA

e cow

chang

E AC PL

ilk m ys da 5 W 30 CO 1

y l /da /30

2-3 Years

Born 30kg

120

268

269

Images of the structures of the countryside “El Plato”. Source: made by the author. 270

271

Peanut plantation field on site. Source: made by the author. 272

273

Alfalfa plantation field on site. Source: made by the author. 274

275

Corn plantation field on site. Source: made by the author. 276

277

Horses field. Source: made by the author. 278

279

Pond currently drying. Source: made by the author. 280

281

View of the plain with absence of trees. Source: made by the author. 282

283

View from the main area towards the corn plantation Source: made by the author. 284

285

FLOODS 15.1

286

Footprints on the territory through time

1986

1991

1987

1997

287

288

1999

2002

2001

2008

289

2011

15.2

Lack of public works

One of the causes of frequent flooding in the area is the lack of public works. In 1985, the “Committee of the Northwest Hydraulic Region of the Pampean Plain” was created, which included the provinces of Buenos Aires, Córdoba, San Luis, La Pampa and Santa Fe. Together they agreed to carry out works to channel their courses of water to help the channels reach the Rio Salado basin so that in this way it reaches the ocean. All the provinces complied, except Buenos Aires. Therefore, the area is not prepared to receive all the water that comes from the north and the south. In addition, we must add the growing climate change.

2016

290

291

15.3

Flood interpretation map

f-f

e-e

d-d

c-c

b-b

a-a

Principal towns/ villages

deeper

higher

Site location Principal roads

292

293

f-f

e-e

d-d

c-c

b-b

a-a

deeper

higher

Site location Principal roads

294

295

Images of the last floods in 2017 in the General Villegas party 296

297

INTERVIEWS 16.1

TOMAS MACKINLAY

29 years old. Agricultural engineer, graduated from the University of Salvador, Buenos Aires, Argentina 1- Do you think that the current agricultural production model is adequate? Why? Do you think this model is friendly to the environment? T: The current production model does not seem adequate to me. It seems to me that it is wrong and it is not friendly with the environment, at all. Even reducing the doses of agrochemicals, it does not seem adequate to me either. 2-Do you know agroecology? Do you think it is possible for Argentina to make a transition? Do you think that an agroecological model and plan could be possible as a transformation in Argentina? Why and how? T: I do know agroecology and if a transition in Argentina seems feasible

“Please open your head and listen, ask yourselves, can it be produced without agrochemicals? Yes it can, let’s find the how all together. It is beneficial for everyone.”

to me, it seems feasible as a response to many problems that society is having. I don’t have so much faith on the political side. L: don’t you think an agroecology plan can be created with laws that support agroecological producers? T: with the corruption that the State has today in Argentina specifically, it seems to me not, it seems to me that mega-companies and money will always beat politics. L: So do you think that it will always end up being a struggle on the part of producers to want to produce in a non-industrial way? Without any kind of support? T: I believe that once they know and feel that the change can be made, nothing is needed, it is not necessary to ask anyone to make that change. Therefore, it seems to me that the change is going to be more in the particular, in society than on the political side. 3-Do you think that a change in vision and lifestyle oriented towards production and not just consumption could be part of the answer to a sustainable future? T: It seems to me that it goes on that side of knowing where food comes from, one goes to the supermarket shelf and has no idea where it comes from, how it was produced, what it is. That is why it would help a lot to have your own garden, because you begin to know where it comes from, times, how food is produced. 4-What other changes do you think are necessary in addition to the production model? Do you think it is necessary to raise awareness and disseminate information among agricultural producers to understand other production

298

299

16.2

EVELINA FOGLIATTO

30 years old. Salesperson of external inputs for agricultural production at MS Insumos Agropecuarios, Emilio Vicente Bunge, Buenos Aires, Argentina

alternatives and also generate knowledge to achieve lifestyle changes? T: EDUCATION, AWARENESS, more information available. Once I began to get involved and become aware, I began to investigate and investigate and I was able to uncover, opening many doors, of things that I had no idea were happening and that involve each of us. So the information management, I don’t know if they try to hide it or what, but it is not enough at all. I want to clarify that I am an agronomist and in absolutely none of the courses that I studied in the agronomic engineering career is mentioned or taught agroecology, I discovered it later once I experienced jobs of absolute industrial exploitation and I wondered if there could be alternatives. Therefore, this information management should also be available in the universities and then oneself have the option of choosing how to produce. They simply impose the industrial model on you as the only possible one. L: And the issue of public policies, doesn’t it seem fundamental to you so that this dissemination of information can be carried out? T: Yes, totally fundamental, I don’t think it will be done, due to a matter of trust that the Government has shown me in these 30 years of life. 5- At a technical level, could you say that an agroecological production could equal or increase the economic performance of an industrial production? T: Yes, totally. It is a tremendous reduction in costs and inputs and it is something relatively new, where the great scientific force has not yet put the focus. I believe that once it is accepted as an answer to saving agriculture and food sovereignty, and it really focuses on this, it will be an explosion of increased production, of research in new technologies. L: Yes, until a development of specific machinery for this type of agriculture, which facilitates work and does not damage the soil or crops.

“It cannot be produced on a large scale without external supplies. Perhaps the use can be improved, but today we need them, we cannot eliminate them, we need them all in order to be productive and efficiently get a profit from what we are doing.”

Anything else you would like to add to incentivize producers for a change? T: please open your head and listen, ask yourselves, can it be produced without agrochemicals? Yes it can, let’s find the how all together. It is beneficial for everyone. That is what surprises me the most, for you individually and for your neighbor, the person next to you.

300

301

1-Do you think the current agricultural production model is adequate? Why? E: There are many models or ways of producing, but I would say NO, it is NOT the right one. The implementation of a better model is being sought, but it is a very gradual and slow process. 2- Beyond the sale, what do you think of the use of external inputs such as herbicides, fungicides, fertilizers in agricultural production? Do you think its use should be modified? E: On this subject, for me, WE NEED THEM, IT CANNOT BE PRODUCED ON A LARGE SCALE WITHOUT EXTERNAL SUPPLIES. I do not know much about new technologies or I imagine that they are very expensive. Perhaps the use can be improved, but today we need them, we cannot eliminate them, we need them all (it refers to herbicides, fungicides, fertilizers, and transgenic seeds), to be able to be productive and efficiently get a profit from what we are doing. Because the investment is very large, to later not produce what is necessary to cover expenses and continue working. 3- Do you think there is something that should change in agricultural production methods? E: Yes, you can undoubtedly improve and make things better. I hear from the producers that the biggest problem is that not everyone owns the fields, they rent them for a certain time, so it is impossible for them to implement things that are good for testing, such as cover crops or taking care the soil. Because they certainly know that that would improve quality and performance in the long term, but usually it is rented for 2, 3, 5 years and from that side I understand the producers. But perhaps those who are owners, who have more time and can think about a long-term project, there are many things that can be done to improve, remain efficient at work and also be friendly with our land. 4- Do you think a more sustainable production alternative would be possible in Argentina? E: Yes, everything is possible. Things already exist and will continue to be implemented. For me, agricultural producers are very tough and quite structured and it costs them a lot to change, they have a little book and it is difficult for them to open up from there. But I do see that a new generation of the sons of producers is coming and they are looking for new technologies, to do things 302

better. A change is coming, but it is not fast and not right now. 5- Do you know the term agroecology? Do you think it is possible to carry out an agroecological transition in Argentina? E: I can imagine, I don’t know if I can have a definition. L: That interests me, since you, being in the field on a daily basis, do not know its definition either and the same happens with agricultural producers, since not all are agronomists and as you said, they act and produce with a little book and without thinking on what they are doing. E: As is, a large part of the producers work in one way because all life was made that way. It is cyclical, the crops are 3, 4, so there is not much new in that. Many years ago the same molecules were invented and they are being modified within the same methods.

6- Do you think that the agricultural sector could put in the first place the effects caused in the environment to achieve a restoration of the same and in second place the economy? E: No, it would never be possible. 7- Do you know the term food sovereignty? Do you think that the production models could focus on achieving food sovereignty in Argentina? E: I don’t know the term. L: Food sovereignty, has a definition that was first made by La via campesina, a group that fights and accompanies to achieve the rights of agricultural workers, it is a little broader than food security, it talks about eating as a political act, and we have the right to know where food comes from, how it is produced and when. Agroecology pursues that right as well, to seek food production and that exploiting the field is not only the production of grains for export that contributes to long food chains. E: you are right, I see it from the example of milk, how much the field producer charges for milk and once it reaches the supermarket shelf the price is tripled, there are many people in the middle and not counting the State who they keep a large percentage, so the product is very expensive for the customer. For this reason, as you say, it could be produced closer, at less cost and we are all still productive. L: and the problem seems to me that it is as you said, that people rent the 303

304

fields to produce, they do not have land, there is no land, there are very few land owners, so it is difficult to give more work to other people who can produce. E: the rental issue is difficult, I totally understand the producers who rent, and the people who rent to you want to charge. Therefore, if you do not sell anything, you have a lot of debts to pay at the end of the year, you invest a lot of money, and they are very large numbers. There are people who work better and always have a rest. L: you made me think of something that I had never thought of as the root of the problem and that is that people do not own the land, in the highest percentage, therefore how they can think about changing the production method

definition for each thing. So I understand what you mean to change your mind. There are people who have plenty, which has many hectares and they can afford to try. But those who have a few hectares or rent, I also understand that they cannot do so.

if they really rent for a few years. E: Yes it is! Unless the owner sets certain conditions, but they don’t because they only think about money and that’s enough. L: Furthermore, an agroecological transition process is not short. I was listening to the experiences of an Agronomist from Tres Arroyos, who has been accompanying a field in transition for 17 years and shows the results in numbers and statistics of the yields and the truth is that the results are seen after five years, where it equals industrial production and begins to exceed it in profit since the investment cost is much lower. E: Nearby there is an example of an engineer who consulted with INTA, he committed himself to his field to make this difference and start working on it differently. And it’s true, from the sixth year on he began to see the differences. People who rent for 3, 4, even 5 years, do not think about making a change, because it is a process of much investment to risk losing. When I heard this engineer, he washed my head and said to my dad: we have to do this! But of course it paints a world for you that is not easy. For example, you put cover crops that serve to put less product, but a flood comes and it culminated with everything, then your perspectives change. You have a project and it is not going to be carried out to the letter because there you have a dry year or a lot of water. L: it is to start raising awareness to have a broader mind and to be able to see that in the end the floods, droughts, everything that begins to happen is also the fault of the gases we emit, the erosion generated by producing in a certain way. E: the field is conditioned by the weather, for everything. The producers themselves, no matter how much they have an idea, later during the same campaign they reduce hectares, they add one thing, another, there is no specific

talk about what we do, I am not going to put factories, smoke and many other things that also affect us. But yes, we must begin to reduce the damage we do, because it cannot be repaired, if we continue like this, the change will be much more difficult and we don’t have more time.

8- How do you see the future of soils, waters and other natural resources if it continues to be produced with the industrial model? E: I do not want to blame only our model that will affect everything else, because there are a lot of other variants that also affect soils, oceans, etc. But, yes, there are a lot of things that we are doing wrong, I mean, we are going to

305

16.3

“We are used to always planting the same: corn, soybeans, wheat, and we do not leave these types of crops. Perhaps there are other kinds that are specific to our area, but we do not know them and we do not use them and mybe they are as profitable as the ones we are planting. ”

MARÍA CAPPONI

57 years old. Small farm producer in the area without specific studies in the field of agronomy 1-Do you think the current agricultural production model is adequate? Why? M: It depends on the situations. There are people who take advantage of the industrial model well, because it has a lot of money input capacity and there are producers who do not because the cost is very high. L: But what do you mean that they take advantage of it well? M: That they can invest more money, they make good use of industrialization to get the best results and there are other people who do not have the resources to take advantage of what the agricultural industry offers. L: then do you think it is adequate? If everyone had enough money to invest in the field, is the model adequate?

M: It depends on which side you look at it, if it is the side with the highest

production, yes. Then if it is ecologically appropriate or not, we are not taking it into account. But if everyone could take advantage, perhaps it would be a good production model. If everyone had the economic scope, yes, then if it is good or bad is something else.

2-What do you think of the use of external inputs such as herbicides, fungicides, fertilizers? M: If they are used well as the leaflet says, I think it is fine. L: I mean, do you think they are strictly necessary? M: in some cases, yes, well used, advised by the corresponding technician. 3-Do you think it is necessary to make some kind of change in the production model? M: Maybe yes. As much as I agree with the use of herbicides, I believe that resources can also be used again but more ecologically, there are possibilities. What happens is that perhaps people are not advised on how to use them or what natural elements are that can replace those that are chemically synthesized. 4-Do you know more sustainable production alternatives? Do you know the term agroecology? Do you think a transition is viable in Argentina? M: I know the term agroecology and I see that, for example, some viciatype pastures are being used that serve to provide nutrients to the soil and become richer for the sowing of other pastures, in addition not only richness of nutrients but also wealth of microorganisms. L: So you don’t think that a large-scale agroecological production would

306

307

308

be possible, for example combining oats and vicia? Which is the most common association that agronomists who are already making an agroecological transition in their fields are starting to use, and they are eliminating almost entirely the use of glyphosate. What happens is that it is a process that takes five years to see positive results in performance. M: Of course, for example, in our area vicia is just being imposed or promoted now. I do believe it is possible. L: one of the things I talked about with Evelina (a seller of agricultural inputs) is that the great problem was rooted in the fact that a large percentage of producers must rent the field to produce and do not own it. Therefore, it is

5-Do you know the term “Food Sovereignty”? M: I don’t know it. L: in short, food sovereignty is a definition made by La Vía Campesina and it says that we should fight for the right of food sovereignty, taking into account eating as a political act, knowing where food comes from, who produces it and how. Agroecology accompanies this concept, which seeks to say that “let’s start producing and not just consume”.

impossible for them to think about a change of model if they have to think about being able to cover all the investment and rental expenses without having losses. M: When someone goes to rent for harvest, they are not interested in the conditions in which the land is left to the owner. If he took the nutrients from the soil, he is not interested, because after 3, 4 years old, he is leaving and he was not interested in the land, he was interested in what he produced. Egoism plays a lot, it is an economic and selfish question, you are not interested in someone else’s field, it is enough that you can produce and get money. L: One of the things that Eduardo Cerdá (promoter of agroecology in the province of Buenos Aires and now National Director of Agroecology) said is that nowadays no one does the measurement of nutrients lost in the soil once the harvest season is over. Therefore, awareness is not created that resources are being exploited and that they are not regenerated. M: who perhaps does it to that awareness is the owner of the field, because he is interested in not losing nutrients from his soil for the next sowing. Hence the State or someone should encourage this conservation of the soil. L: it is real, I from all the research I have been doing on how to make a transition, seeing examples of producers that have already started or provinces that encourage the agroecological transition, such as Entre Ríos, show that it is necessary that the State in some way begins to support them because if not, you cannot make the decision to make a change. For example, in Gualeguaychú they prohibited the use of glyphosate, obviously accompanied by an agroecology plan, available information, technical support, but necessarily with the accompaniment of the State. M: that’s why people don’t do it, because they aren’t advised.

future?

6-Do you think that a change in vision of lifestyle oriented towards production and not just consumption could be part of the answer to a more sustainable

M: Yes, I think so. Those small producers should be encouraged. Advice in

how to produce is always lacking for those who can produce. Because perhaps they are not producing because they do not know they can produce with alternatives that help to generate food. 7-what changes do you think can be made from the agricultural production sector to achieve a more environmentally friendly future and still obtain economic profit? M: Controlling more the use of fertilizers and herbicides, it could be changes in the type of plantings that are done, that out there we are used to always planting the same, for example in our area: corn, soybeans, wheat and we do not leave these types of crops. Perhaps there are other kinds of crops that are specific to our area, but we do not know them and we do not use them because out there they would not seem profitable but mybe they are as profitable as the ones we are planting. Alternatives of combining crops with others and that favor the crop itself and also favor the environment, are not so aggressive with the place where they are being used. L: and yes, in general what is seen the most is the lack of dissemination and information that exists to find out about other alternatives.

309

16.4

“The State should give subsidies to support producers in these new techniques. You need to produce because if you don’t, you go bankrupt. Think on starting to do an agroecology without knowing well how it is, is impossible to afford it. Therefore, I do believe that public policies are absolutely necessary in order to make a change.”

310

HORACIO DANIEL PASCUAL

59 years old. Member of the Deliberative Council of the municipality of General Villegas, province of Buenos Aires and also producer of some hectares in a field in the area 1-Do you think that the current agricultural production model is adequate? Why? H: Argentina is applying the same strategies and methodologies that all the countries of the world use. Argentina is very advanced in that sense, because in its international role of work, the country was led to produce grains. We are destined to produce raw materials for the world. I believe that we have achieved an important technology, now if it is suitable with the environment or not, it is a difficult issue to say. For example, in the municipal area of the General Villegas party, certain ordinances were approved that go towards improving the environment, such as what has to do with the way of using phytosanitary products, how the remains are handled, the distances with respect to feed-lots populations. L: Of course, but they do not fight the root of the problem, they say a feed-lot can be placed at a certain distance from a population, without saying that in reality the problem is the existence of a feed-lot, which is not sustainable under any circumstances. The same with the distances to carry out fumigations. H: I’m going to talk to you specifically about livestock, it is widely accused of attacking the environment due to the famous methane gas, but I don’t know if it is a reality, because they do not take into account the pastures that are planted for livestock, which favors to the environment. L: but the feed-lot is not sustainable in any way, in the case as you mention of the free cows in the field, rotating and feeding on the pastures, just in that case it is beneficial for the environment. 2-What do you think of the use of external inputs such as herbicides, fungicides, fertilizers? H: Argentina unfortunately had to resort to that to maximize its production. Some people say, and it is not well explained, the issue that agroecology could be the replacement for these types of activities, but the truth is that the producer has these products on hand and uses them because they maximize performance, although the opposite can be proven. But still the producer does not trust other techniques other than those that come from the first world. And it is also imposed on them, they are told that those are the best solutions, which with that they will obtain total yields and it may not be true, but we are not aware, nobody teaches us, trains us. They just sell the product to us and we use it.

311

3- Do you think that climatic disasters such as floods or droughts are influenced by the current production model? H: I am not in a position to affirm it. Because catastrophes have always occurred in the history of humanity. L: Yes it is true, but it has been shown that they began to occur more frequently in the last 10, 20 years and the causes that would be related could be soil erosion generated by industrial agriculture, loss of biodiversity. In turn, in an industrial model of agriculture where the producer invests large sums of money initially, if a catastrophe occurs, the losses are more drastic than in an agroecological model, where the initial investment cost is lower and at the same

side. Not in the case of corn production, which I planted with the industrial and conventional method. However, it is necessary to think about what we are going to feed the animals in the winter. If they would come and teach us about agroecology, maybe we could implement it. L: So do you think an agroecological transition is possible? At this time, the lack of information dissemination is a major problem. For example, speaking with Tomás, an agronomist, he said that even in his university career, agroecology is not taught as an alternative, they are only taught the industrial model as the only possible one in Argentina. There are many case examples in the Province of Buenos Aires that are

time the ecosystems become more resilient. H: it is a very difficult issue, worldwide agreements such as the one in Paris, where great powers such as the United States with a government decide to abandon the agreement, change government and enter again. Here we are in the third world and we can have little influence on that, it depends more on the great world powers. Perhaps limiting themselves, they would invite all other countries not to use products that are not beneficial to nature. L: In Europe there are already several types of herbicides and fertilizers that are prohibited because they are very harmful and in Argentina they are allowed. H: Well, that’s why we are third world, they send us what they have and they no longer use and it doesn’t matter what happens to us. I also think that now there is a little more awareness. For example, the Deliberative council of the municipality issued an ordinance imposing only 40 meters of distance from a population to fumigate, where from my side i asked for 300 or 400 meters as a minimum. But hey, it is seen that the influences are many to put conditions of that type. Because the argument is, if 400 meters of distance are imposed, a lot of land will be left out of production, there will be many producers who are going to have economic problems and we are going to condemn producers to the crisis.

beginning with a large-scale transition. For example, the case of Tres Arroyos, a field that has been producing with agroecology on a large scale for 17 years and they demonstrate the yields as they were equating them to the industrial model, and after five years they were able to establish a difference and saw greater profits than with the conventional model. But they are advised of what to sow, how to combine crops. When in general in Argentina the same 4 or 5 crops are simply planted. H: what is lacking there is the participation of the State. Because if you have to wait five years to see a profit, small producers cannot afford it. The State should give subsidies to support producers in these new techniques. What happens is that in Argentina there are no subsidies for producers, on the contrary there are retentions, taxes. So, you need to produce because if you don’t you melt. Think on starting to do an agroecology without knowing well how it is, is impossible to afford it. Therefore, I do believe that public policies are absolutely necessary in order to make a change. The large companies or planting pools that come to the field, harvest and leave, they do not care about the environment, they come from outside. The issue is complex and the central countries want us to produce, but one day we will have to become aware. Because everything is self-destructing. I had been reading it for a long time: “The human being is the only animal that threatens itself”, how we destroy the earth, we pollute the oceans, it has been known for years. But in the desire to produce and to make a profit, this world is going towards self-destruction.

4-Do you know the term agroecology? Do you think that an agroecological model and plan for Argentina is possible? How could it be implemented and supported by public policies? H: I am speaking to you now from my point of view as a small producer. I raise farms with only natural grass, I made a pasture 4 or 5 years ago, letting it recycle. Maybe I do it for a cost issue, but I am close to agroecology on this 312

5-Do you know the term food sovereignty? Do you think that production models could change to achieve food sovereignty in Argentina, with a law on access to land and protection of ecosystems? 313

H: These kinds of things are not yet up for debate, I don’t listen to them. In

itself, they are working on the issue of withholdings, in not harming small producers so much, a differentiated retention for them compared to large producers. But about access to land there is nothing defined yet. There are social movements that are trying to move that issue, but from there to being recognized by law I think it is very far. Any such attempt will be quickly aborted by the national media, “La Nación” that defends landowners and “Clarín” that defends the Status quo, so these issues are very difficult to occur in Argentina because whoever tries to do something of that has no chance. L: and if, for example, in the municipality of Villegas the same thing happened that is beginning to happen in other provinces, such as Entre Ríos, where the mayor of Gualeguaychú proposed an agroecological plan, supporting agroecological producers, and as a first measure what he did was to prohibit the use of Glyphosate (commonly used herbicide), therefore it is a way to encourage the transition. H: well, note that just you are telling me that, it does not spread anywhere. There is no dissemination of that type of information. You have to do your own research, google. And while you’re doing that, the grower calls the fumigator and asks him to fumigate the entire field. That is why I tell you that the role of the State is fundamental, to subsidize, so that the producer pays attention. Because I tell you, for example, I have to chop corn when it is a certain height, otherwise we lost everything. We have to sow the pasture before the end of March, otherwise it is not the same. So it is a matter of time and no one encourages us to do anything else. 6-Do you think it is necessary to raise awareness and disseminate information among agricultural producers to understand other production alternatives that are also economically profitable and also generate knowledge to achieve lifestyle changes? H: Yes it is necessary. INTA is there for that, but there is not so much dissemination yet. If groups were created where producers were associated, they would use the same machines and they would not have to each have their own tractor, etc. Forming a kind of cooperative, it could work. It is necessary that we associate ourselves and that they make us see other ways of producing, because we do not know them, so we opt for the conventional. 314

315

316

THE STRATEGY

317

318

319

320

321

322

323

324

325

Site strategies Recalling Kenneth Frampton in “Towards a critical regionalism: six points for an architecture of resistance”

The objective is not to think about the countryside as a periphery or summer houses, disconnected from those who work it and from its own owners, but as a new place to live and self-produce. “How to become modern and go back to the sources” Is not about the creation of isolated houses, is a matter of developing community areas and shared spaces and activities.

1. Culture and civilization Create facades that can coexist with the nature, with the production of food. Spaces that can have privacy but also livable common spaces. A society where they can share productive spaces for own consumption and the rest for sale. TECHNOLOGY Combine the rural technology with AGROECOLOGY. Think in the improvements that can be useful foor developing agroecology and facilitate the activities. It is not a matter of going back to the past. Use technology to create spaces for sharing experiences with other communities. Start reducing the external NEGATIVE INPUTS (after thinking in a progressive and changing strategy for the area). Respect the times of NATURAL RESOURCES

2. The rise and fall of the Avant-garde Stop of being a GLOBAL VISION and REPETITIVE IMAGE of the countryside. This project must be UNIQUE for these specific world coordinates. 326

3. Critical regionalism and World Culture Bring all the local characteristics to start thinking in the new design without falling into the vernacular or historcial aspects of the place. It will be a design that cannot be repeated in another part of the world. The changes should look for a FUTURE SUSTAINABILITY of the whole SYSTEM.

4. The resistance of the place-form The architecture should not represent FREE-STANDING OBJECTS. No LIMITS of Physical space. No limits demarked between BUILT/ NATURAL LANDSCAPE. Circulations, entrances and FLUIDITY should be correctly defined. Agriculture is also architecture and must be correctly designed. COMPLEMENTATION-EQUILIBRIUM-COMPOSITION

5. Culture versus Nature: Topography, context, climate, light and tectonic form Geographical characteristics and cultural legacy are key components in this aspect. It should be a PLACE-FORM BALANCE. In this site it is important to consider the topography, it is almost a plane site. All the cultives in this area of the country were always grew with rain water irrigation, so it is a design that contemplates the periods of rain, the more dry times and ahte natural humidity of the soils. LIGHT-ORIENTATION / TIMES OF THE YEAR

6. The visual versus the Tactile Think in the materiality- The tactile perception of the place. Combine local materials and future sustainability, duration of materials. Take into account the climate, the rain and light. HOMOGENEITY between BUILT and NATURAL LANDSCAPE. 327

N PR EV A

I LI N

S CE AC T

B EST WI

NTE

SU MME

R SU

UPP

S W

S ER

4 S

N W

SUMMER

S W

WINTER

LO WE

R LE VE

L 328

329

S CE AC SU

B EST WI

NTE

SU MME

R SU

UPP

S W

R TE

LO W

ER LE VE

L 330

331

zone 1

zone 2

zone 3

zone 4

N 332

333

phase 0

phase 1

phase 2

phase 3

N 334

335

E 1:15000

1- Community-houses +herb orchards 2- Community orchards 3- Poultry area 4- Community fair 5- Community centre 6- Compost buildings 7- irrigation pond + domestic animals 8- Fruit trees plantation + cover crops 9- Principal crops with rotation 10- Principal pond 11- Cover crops for animals. Strips division. Rotation for animals 12- Cows free space 13- Wood forest

8 9 10 7 6 3

5 12

336

337

E 1:4000 ZONE 1

338

339

340

341

342

343

Housing system, orientations, openings and community space couples

young generation

big family

pri

ind

pa nci

cti

e dir

guest house

communal herb orchard

greenhouse

lig

344

solar panels

rainwater tank

345

Community space between houses 346

347

Circular economy

agro-ecological fair / market

fru

i ts

a s te

3 ic w

houses

org

an org

2 ani cw

ast

communal orchards principal crop fruit orchard

3 ma

348

compost building

349

Agroecological market and Food Court 350

351

Agroecological market 352

353

CIRCULATIONS

COMMUNITY AREAS principal road secondary road pedestrian path

semi-public areas public areas

354

355

Community center and playground 356

357

The time of AGROECOLOGY

5 YE ARS PL AN | 1 F I E L D Until 5 years the MAIN CROP is not repeated in the same field.

R 358

Combination of PRINCIPAL CROP+ COVER CROP+ LEGUME 359

360 361

cover crop - grasses

three types of fruit trees

COMMUNAL ORCHARD

LEGUME strip

Fixation of nitrogen

oats-vicia

CROP CONSOCIATIONS

wheat-clover

CROP CONSOCIATIONS

pollinator attraction strip

FOREST CURTAIN

PIXEL FARM

sorghum-soy

CROP CONSOCIATIONS

Fruit cultivation, with legumes and vegetation strips 362

363

Communal orchards, greenhouses and poultry area 364

365

Agroecological strategies, vegetation strips, crop consociation, pixel farm 366

367

368

369

Politecnico di Milano Leticia Pascual

926305

Supervisor: Arian Heidari Afshari Academic Year 2020/2021 Master of Science degree Architecture and urban design 370