*3.1. Neo-Colonialism in Agriculture*

Indigenous and smallholder farmers around the world are crucial food providers and their food systems have been essential to create and maintain biological diversity [25]. Farms that rely mostly on family labor are the majority of farms and produce more than 80% of the world's food [26]. Crop diversity has been stewarded through farmer's ongoing selection and breeding of varieties, as well by conserving a relationship with the wild relatives of domesticated crops [27]. Biodiversity in farming is valuable because it reduces

risks of crop failure and because varieties have different desired qualities that respond to culinary, ecological and storage needs [28]. By planting locally adapted varieties that farmers select and harvest themselves, households reduce the cost of agricultural inputs and grow a variety of foods which improve family nutrition as well as maintain crop diversity. Farmers' seed systems continue to provide for the majority of smallholder seed requirements in the global South ([29,30] (p. 50)).

Despite several international conventions and treaties that value and recognize these contributions and enshrine farmers' rights, smallholder farmers around the world continue to face economic and political hardship 5. Indigenous farming communities in Latin America, for example, were already forced on marginal lands through colonialism and continued dispossession of prime lands by elite landholders and corporations. These processes continue today as Indigenous territorial defenders face high rates of threats and murder [31]. Due to trade liberalization, the dumping of lower-priced agricultural products depresses prices at the local markets that smallholders primarily sell to [32,33]. Cuts to public rural extension programs decreased support to farmers [34] (pp. 5–6) 6. Climate change is now significantly exacerbating hardship and instability. For example, in Central America, crop failures due to climate change and the lack of livelihood opportunities are among key factors motivating emigration [36].

Another push factor has been the industrialization of agriculture. Beginning in the 1960s, under the "Green Revolution", international research centers and governments promoted farmer access to hybrid seeds and their chemical inputs, along with monocropping and specialization, in order to increase production. Many local varieties were displaced by these external seeds [27]. Smallholders in many regions of Latin America, facing competition from industrial agriculture and unable to pay for the new technologies, were forced to leave the countryside [37]. Land concentration and monocrops often came to replace once biologically and culturally diverse lands. In recent decades, seed laws in many countries have placed restrictions on farmers' use of seeds developed by companies, which limits their ability to save, select, exchange and sell seeds as needed [38]. Rising use of chemical inputs have led to land degradation, water contamination, and pesticide resistance [39] (p. 18–20). Destructive agricultural practices and their colonial expansion have also impacted the diverse traditional harvesting systems of Indigenous communities [40,41].

The Green Revolution was characterized by a "technology transfer" approach which mainly advantaged large-scale operations, in part because the experiment settings of research stations have generally not been attuned to the conditions of smallholder farms [42,43]. Such technology transfer or "blueprint" models are harmful since they simplify what are complex and adaptive systems [43] (p. 240). According to Altieri, "agricultural diversity results from local variations in climate, soils, economic relations, social structures and cultural history, making it very difficult for developers to claim that there is only one unique agricultural development strategy able to deal with such complexity" [42] (p. 113).

Today, the technology transfer approach based on industrial inputs, including seeds, is strongly influenced by collaboration between influential philanthropy and private sector collaborations, which also fund and influence intergovernmental agencies and NGOs. For example, the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) is an initiative founded in 2006 with support from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Many farmers' and civil society organizations in Africa have critiqued AGRA for going against food sovereignty by working to influence national agricultural policies and promote dependence on external inputs, including introduced and transgenic seeds along with the high level of agrochemical inputs they require (e.g., [44,45]; see also [46]). The organization GRAIN has documented that the majority of the funding from AGRA has gone to organizations and research centers in the global North (including NGOs), and there is little evidence of support to farmer-led research [47].

AGRA promotes "agro-dealer networks" linked to chemical and seed companies [48]. In many cases, the promotion of agrochemical and seed inputs has been supported with public programs from African governments [45]. A related initiative with reach in several

continents, Gates Ag One, continues in this path, stating they will work with public- and private-sector partners and governments, "to enable the advancement of resilient, yieldenhancing seeds and traits globally and facilitate the introduction of those breakthroughs into specific crops essential to smallholder farmers." Navdanya International has called these efforts the "recolonisation of agriculture", as public agricultural research centers and programs are increasingly directed by private sector interests and farmer dependency is being promoted [49].

#### *3.2. Food Sovereignty and Agroecology*

Agroecology in its present form is often described as a science, practice and movement of sustainable agriculture [50] 7. Agroecology is increasingly considered the best approach for food system resilience by leading agricultural experts (see [51–53]). Rather than promote dependence on external and often toxic synthetic agrochemicals, agroecology is ideally about strengthening smallholder's own local resources and valuing their knowledge. Central to agroecology is the importance of farmer's own decision-making. As noted in a recent publication about funding for agroecology: "Agroecology, in its transformative form, is deeply attuned and emergent from particular people in particular places (territories) with their languages, cosmovisions and lifeworlds. Agroecology is fundamentally about respecting and enabling this and programmes and development must not force peoples into cookie-cutter approaches driven by the Global North" [54] (p. 11).

Agroecological methods are diverse, but a central principle is to promote crop diversity and the recycling of nutrients in agroecosystems for long-term sustainability [55]. Conservation of soils and water is done through time-tested and locally adapted techniques such as live barriers, composting, and terracing. Many practices have multiple purposes, such as agroforestry where diverse perennial plants produce products for food and income, generate organic matter, maintain moisture in the soil, moderate temperatures, cycle nutrients in the soil, provide shade for animals, and reduce erosion from water and wind [56] (p. 244–248). As part of agroecology, promotion of agrobiodiversity provides numerous benefits for food security, income diversification, and farm management (e.g., intercropping to reduce pest infestations) [56].

A growing number of research and community experiences indicate that agroecology can be a pathway for women's empowerment–essential for more just and sustainable food systems–and that more feminist agroecology is needed [57–60]. Agriculture is an important source of livelihood for women and, in some regions, it is women who provide most of the agricultural labor [61]. Women are often responsible for small livestock as well as the management of diverse, critical crops for household food security [61]. Yet, rural women face many barriers and inequalities, including constraints to social and political participation, infringements on rights, sexual- and gender-based violence, lower wages and higher care responsibilities [62]. Women farmers around the world have far less access to agricultural resources and services than their male counterparts and are disproportionately affected by the climatic and economic pressures facing smallholders [61,62]. For these reasons–and to benefit from women's knowledge and approaches–women should be prioritized in agricultural programs, particularly for agroecology [57].

Agroecology is also closely associated with the concept of food sovereignty. La Vía Campesina developed the latter concept in 1996 to counteract trade dumping and propose an alternative treatment to food and agriculture in opposition to the World Trade Organization. Women were key definers of food sovereignty, particularly for its holistic and ecological approach [63]. Food sovereignty is most often defined as: "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" [19].

Food sovereignty gained in popularity among diverse social movements. The International Forum for Food Sovereignty in Nyéléni (Mali, 2007) brought together organizations from around the world, for example. They identified six "pillars" of food sovereignty: Focuses on food for people, Builds knowledge and skills, Works with nature, Values food

providers, Localizes food systems, and Puts control locally. "Food is sacred" was added as a seventh pillar by members of the Indigenous Circle of the People's Food Policy process organized by Food Secure Canada in 2008–2011 [64]. According to the Nyéléni gathering, a system based on food sovereignty would ideally prioritize local food production and consumption, produced through ecological methods, and institute genuine agrarian reform that also "defends and recovers the territories of indigenous peoples" [19]. Dawn Morrisson notes "The food sovereignty approach provides a restorative framework for identifying ways that social and political advocates from the settler communities can work to support Indigenous food sovereignty in a bottom-up approach to influencing policy, driven by traditional practice and adaptive management" [40] (p. 104). Indigenous food systems and food sovereignty are essential to community health and well-being, cultural identity and self-determination [41].
