Agriculture and Human Values最新文献

Recent decades have witnessed widespread agrarian transitions in mainland Southeast Asia. This paper examines how agrarian transitions are shaped by multiple drivers of change, and how these interwoven processes have triggered shifts in agricultural extension practices in three countries in the Lower Mekong Basin: Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam. Drawing on interviews with experts working on the fields of agrarian studies and rural development, this paper argues that agrarian transitions not only put a strain on agricultural extension systems in responding to evolving needs, but they also stimulate the co-production of innovative agricultural extension models to address gaps left by the limited presence of extensionists. The study gains insight into challenges faced by extensionists, including a lack of resources, skills, and capacities to meet growing needs, which simultaneously urged them to excel in their work performance. The paper highlights the proactive role of ‘champions’ in orchestrating collective efforts towards the co-production of innovative agricultural extension models (e.g. Metkasekor), and the formulation of pluralistic extension platforms in enabling such ‘co-learning-to-act’ practices. By translating these insights into the broader contexts of agricultural and rural development in the Mekong region and beyond, this paper aims to make a two-fold contribution. First, it will assert how the ‘business-as-usual’ extension model has failed to adequately address emerging needs as a result of agrarian transitions. Second, it will provide pathways for the recognition and legitimisation of the pluralistic extension approach that fosters stakeholders’ co-learning and productive engagement in extension practices.

This paper presents a novel perspective on an evolving policy area. The UK’s withdrawal from the EU has led to the creation of a new Agriculture Act and proposals for significant changes to the way farming subsidies are structured in England. Underpinned by a ‘public money for public goods’ approach, where public goods are those outputs from the farm system which are not rewarded by markets, yet which provide benefits to many members of society. New schemes include the Animal Health and Welfare Pathway, where certain aspects of farm animal health and welfare (FAHW) will be subsidised through government support, raising a much-debated issue in the literature regarding the representation of FAHW as a public good. For policy to be responsive to societal demands and accountable to citizens, understanding public attitudes and preferences towards FAHW as a public good, and how the public might prioritise this in relation to a wider suite of environmental public goods from farming, is important. An online survey of 521 members of the UK public was conducted and analysed with descriptive statistics and ordered logistic regression. Findings reveal low awareness of the changing agricultural policy context, but strong support for public money being used to provide public goods, particularly for FAHW. Findings also indicate a need for more effective public communication of farming and FAHW issues from farming stakeholders to ensure public policy in this domain is responsive and accountable to its citizens. Further work is needed to inform future debates and engagement surrounding FAHW, including through which combination of funding mechanisms (public or private) it is provided.

The sustainable development of rural areas involves guaranteeing the quality of life and well-being of people who live in those areas. Existing studies on farmer health and well-being have revealed high levels of stress and low well-being, with government regulations emerging as a key stressor. This ethnographic study takes smallholder farmers in two rural mountain areas of Italy, one in the central Alps and one in the northwest Apennines, as its focus. It asks how and why the current policy and regulatory context of agriculture affects farmer well-being. Interviews and participant observation were conducted with 104 farmers. Three common scenarios emerged that negatively affect farmer well-being. First, policies and regulations designed for lowland areas do not always make sense when applied in the mountains. Second, when subsidies are put into effect at the local level, the reality of their implementation can veer away from the original goals of the funding program and have unintended effects on farmer well-being, agricultural practices, and the environment. Finally, when regulations are implemented on farms in rural mountain areas, the primacy of a techno-scientific knowledge system over other, local and place-based knowledge systems is exposed. These three scenarios affect well-being by eliciting feelings of stress, frustration, and disillusionment; by reducing farmer control over their work; and by fostering the perception that farming is not valued by society. They also create conditions of inequality and insecurity. The ways in which government policies and regulations play out on mountain farms can erode trust in government institutions, lead to an us versus them mentality, and contribute to the further abandonment of agriculture and rural areas.

Organizations interested in food alterity, security, and justice are often governed as 501(c)(3) nonprofits. As such, they are required to fulfill missions beyond profit maximization. This study focuses on the role of nonprofits in the agrifood system. Looking at nonprofit farms as both farms and as nonprofits, we seek to understand whether nonprofit organizations, as an alternative mode of governance, creates the possibility of an alternative economic practice, set apart from the conventional food system. We constructed a national database of nonprofit farms and the characteristics of the counties in which they are located. Our findings indicate that nonprofit farms tend not to be in the places with the most need of the services provided, which we argue is due to the structure of nonprofit governance, namely that nonprofits, while not profit-maximizing, are dependent on external resources, particularly donations. While they do operate as an alternative economic practice, their nonprofit mode of governance renders them unable to repair the failures of the current food system. Nevertheless, these farms do contribute to their local communities, both in terms of meeting their mission and as members of a broader local food system infrastructure. This is true whether or not these farms specifically state that food system transformation is part of their mission.

The U.S. agricultural sector relies heavily on agricultural migrant workers, and Florida has a history of (im)migrant labor. However, this system is historically rooted in colonization, and its systems of oppression remain. Currently, migrant workers operate in various systems of oppression, including social, health, and environmental inequities, all of which have been worsened by the COVID-19 pandemic. The literature regarding decoloniality, muted group theory, and decolonial intersectionality has a strong history of uncovering how multiple oppressions overlap for vulnerable and marginalized groups in the US. We draw on this literature to ask: 1) how can examining participants’ stories through decolonial intersectionality help explore structural and institutional racism and the dominance of muting? and 2) how can participants recount how they resist oppression and/or unmute in telling their stories? To answer these questions, literary portraits were co-created with farmworkers and community liaisons about participants’ experiences. The authors used decoloniality, muted group theory, and decolonial intersectionality to analyze participants’ creative non-fiction stories. Farmworkers recounted through their stories that they were often devalued, had their humanity questioned, and negotiated their survival, especially during COVID-19. However, they were able to resist the oppressions of coloniality through their families, faith, pride, and love. Recommendations include using storytelling techniques to align with farmworkers’ wants in research as well as assist in communicating about issues regarding health and safety. Non-profit organizations, centers of faith, and universities can assist in serving the needs of agricultural migrant workers related to childcare, food security, and worksite and home safety issues.

In the last two decades, commercial crop production has boomed to meet global food and biofuel demands as well as produce industrial commodities, while also being promoted as an effective approach for poverty alleviation in the Global South. Despite possible new economic opportunities, scholars are concerned that crop booms could exacerbate vulnerability in farmer livelihoods. However, it is little known how local resilience can be built in the context of crop booms. Through mixed methods of combination of quantitative and qualitative approaches, this research conducted a multidimensional assessment of livelihood resilience by focusing on absorptive, adaptive and anticipatory capacities of local people in Southwest China. Unlike existing literature, this research found that farmers who adopted a hybrid livelihood strategy that was partially involved in crop booms under agriculture modernization while simultaneously maintaining some degree of traditional agricultural practices had a higher level of livelihood resilience. In contrast, those who were fully involved and put all of their capital into cash crop planting as well as those who did not participate in cash crop production and completely avoided crop booms both showed a relatively low level of livelihood resilience. The paper argues that crop booms might provide more possibilities for farmers to diversify their agricultural systems and livelihood strategies to strengthen livelihood resilience when they have better access to land and markets.

This study examines the strategies developed by Italian Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) initiatives to de-commodify, de-instrumentalise and de-monetise labour in their attempt to prefigure alternatives to dominant capitalist agri-food systems. To do so we answer the following research questions: What type of strategies do these CSA initiatives employ to that end? What insights can be gained as regards the potential and barriers to fuller and more accomplished post-capitalist labour management within CSA initiatives? Data were collected through a participatory action research project involving 16 Italian CSAs, participant observation in meetings of CSA initiatives and the Italian CSA Network, and official documents collection. Across the three crucial moments considered in this study, we observe substantial difficulties in realising post-capitalist labour management as the initiatives are constrained by external requirements (e.g., legislation) and also internally by members’ weakness in implementing the CSA model due to their remaining integrated in the capitalist system. These findings point to the importance for CSA initiatives of deepening the collective process of deliberate deconstruction of valuation logics and predefined roles, as well as legal frameworks to find ways to enable the realisation of post-capitalist labour management. In this regard, we also suggest that the Italian CSA Network could play a more active role in addressing some of the internal and external factors hindering the consolidation of CSA initiatives and the manifestation of their transformative role.

A reality-design gap in the conceptualization and practice of digital agriculture has been systematically reported in the literature. This condition is favored by the lack of understanding and inclusion of local worldviews around digital technologies. Informed by Amartya Sen’s capabilities approach, this study looks to bring stories of local appropriation to the spotlight. Based on a qualitative approach that included data collected through interviews with 73 households, the authors explored the way in which two selected communities of Colombian coffee growers are engaged in the use of digital technologies in material and symbolic ways. Three emergent themes—a relational way of farming, (dis)connected machines, and nurtured families and communities – articulate multiple interactions between farmers, farms, institutional programs, and technologies, that originate local forms of digitalization (and non-digitalization). This study points out the relevant role of situated ideas of development in positioning technologies in or out of the farm, and broader digitalization agendas in or out of farmers’ life projects. At the same time, it presents a critique of notions of universality that drive unquestioned quests for technification. In contrast, building on a relational perspective, this study calls for embracing a perspective of multiplicity within notions of development and innovation.