Reference Document: THE DEMANDS OF AGRICULTURAL ORGANISATIONS

Co-ordinator: WORLD RURAL FORUM EXECUTIVE SECRETARIAT.

INDEX
1. - Contextualisation .................................................................................................................... 1 2. - Agricultural organisations and their demands......................................................................... 2 3. - Conclusions .......................................................................................................................... 11 4. - Specific proposals on the subject of demands of agricultural organisations ........................ 12 5. - Bibliographical references .................................................................................................... 13

1.- Contextualisation
Agricultural organisations are the primary representation of farming men and women and of country-people. As in all social sectors, farmer should be able to organise themselves freely in independent associations, which are legally recognised at diverse levels: local, national, regional and international, in order to both analyse their socio-economic situation and to allow for the effective defence of their rights and aspirations, conversing with their governments and with specialised international institutions. Bearing in mind the progressive abandonment, with notable exceptions, of agricultural policy and the scant investment in the Family Farming sector in many countries in the world, strong agricultural organisations that condemn these deficiencies and propose adequate policies for the sustainable development of the rural sector, seeking Food Security and Sovereignty for people, are increasingly necessary. At the present time there is a great variety of agricultural organisations with a considerable diversity of aims and means. In the agricultural sector, as at all other social levels, there is a multitude of options and approaches, applicable to democratic societies.

Some factors obstruct the positive development of agricultural organisations capable of assuming a strong level of political influence, these being, for example, unfavourable legislative frameworks, the lack of freedom of association, the political disinterest of governments to converse with civil society, rural exodus, the lack of material means to consolidate farmer associations, etc. The number of agricultural associations has increased in the last few years, although this growth was more quantitative than qualitative. The common problems which farmers' organizations are facing have already been highlighted by the most significant institutions of the sector, and studies over the last decade shows that they have not changed. In order to fully expand their possibilities of influencing and proposing political improvements for rural development, it is vital that they are endowed with sufficient human and material means to be able to fulfil their vital role in the agricultural and rural world, and in society overall. All of this refers to national, regional and international frameworks, in which they must establish their own strategies and the most appropriate alliances for their approaches and objectives.

2.- Agricultural organisations and their demands.

Types of agricultural organisations
Agricultural and producer organisations are independent, non-government organisations situated in the agricultural, coastal and rural spheres. They are geared towards the needs of improvement in the living conditions of their members, who are primarily family farmers, shepherds, traditional fish harvesters, landless farmers, women, small businesses and indigenous peoples. Various forms of agricultural organisations exist, beginning with formal groups that have a national legal framework, such as cooperatives and trade unions, to informal self-help and savings groups (SARD 2007, AGRITERRA 2011). In general, they may be oriented towards the market and the production of one or various 1 products, or towards the development of the community or both (AGRITERRA 2011). There are cooperative companies, trade unions that defend the social rights of farmers (men and women), federations that create networks etc. They operate locally, nationally and internationally and carry out very varied functions, such as political influence, representation before institutions, provision of technical, economic and training services, involvement in local development projects, the coordination of networks etc. They were promoted either through a top-down process by governments, cooperation programmes, etc. or from the base upwards depending on the farmers necessities (Wennink/Heemskerk 2006). The latter are often more

Inthisdocument,forpurposesofgeneralisation,nospecificdifferenceismadebetweenfarmers organisationsandproducersorganisations,exceptinparticularcases.

long-lasting and relevant since they emerge from specific realities and needs (SARD 2007, AGRITERRA 2011). As specific examples it is possible to mention, among others, movements at a national, regional or international level, such as the Panafrican Farmers Forum PAFFO, the five Regional Farmers Network that comprise it (ROPPA, PROPAC, UMAGRI, EAFF and SACAU), AFA (South-east Asia), CIFA (India) COPROFAM (extended MERCOSUR), the world movement Via Campesina, COPA-COGECA (Europe) and the World Farmers Organisation, more recently created (ActionAid/FoodFirst, Holt-Gimenez 2010, WRF/PROCISUR 2010, WF 2010). At the core of some of these organisations there are still differences in the level of representation of men and women farmers, their participation in decision-making and activities, gender equality, the condition of rendering accounts, strategic potential, professional capabilities, diversity of income and their focus on the development of their community (AGRITERRA 2011). Globally, agricultural organisations find themselves in diverse socio-economic contexts, which can create difficulties for mutual understanding, especially between industrialised countries and developing countries. All of this requires an intense process of dialogue and mutual knowledge, in the interests of advancing towards a more shared and united view of the present and the future of agriculture, as well as the legitimate aspirations of the rural world in all continents. In fact, a variety of documents, research and data about organizations has been published, stating their weaknesses and strengths, however, little has been translated into concrete actions in support over the past decades.

Practical and strategic work of agricultural organisations

On a practical level, organisation in groups is convenient for various reasons: Group work reduces the risk of being exploited by large buyers because it offers greater power of negotiation and reduces the risk of fluctuations in individual income. It also reduces the costs of access to resources (water, land, etc.) of transaction, transport, storage, processing, technology and quality control through achieving economy of scale (Abaru/Nyakuni/Shone 2006, SARD 2007, IFAD 2010a). The possibility to create common funds facilitates access to financial services such as credits. On occasions, the organisations themselves can provide financial services and in this way generate a certain economic autonomy. In addition, being organised opens up more channels of commercialisation, niches of production and therefore diversified sources of income (Abaru/Nyakuni/Shone 2006, IAASTD 2009, IFAD 2010a, AGRITERRA 2011).

It is also important to highlight that the majority of farmers' organisations provide services of extension, advice, training and research. They rely on the dissemination of information through networks and communication technology (IAASTD 2009, IFAD 2010a). On a strategic level, if we compare individual farmers (men and women) with the organisations, the latter have greater possibilities of exercising political influence in order to participate in the decision making processes at local and national government levels. The greater the representativeness of the organisations and their level of institutional development, the greater will be their level of impact, depending also in part on the predisposition of the government to their demands (Wennink/Nederlof/Heemskerk 2007, IAASTD 2009, IFAD 2010A, IFAD 2010b). In general, the majority of the organisations strengthen the cohesion of the rural community and contribute to rural development as they invest in the area and curtail rural exodus by providing better conditions for farmers and the community in general (health, education, infrastructures, etc.) (Abaru/Nyakuni/Shone 2006, Wennink/ Heemskerk 2006, IFAD 2010b). It should be noted that, for governments, a good development of agrarian organizations is convenient due to several reasons: At economical level. These organizations generate real wealth and rural development through economies of scale, the production of food that is consumed locally o sold, reducing the necessity to import food and, therefore, augmenting Food Security and Sovereignty. Furthermore, they support better techniques of commercialization, create local employment and develop human capital. Since farmers can pass over from informal to formal economy, they generate tax income and resources that benefit the whole community, such as infrastructures which could be used in projects of collaboration between the government and the organizations. At political level. Organizations with good operational modus represent a big share of the rural population and can articulate their desires much better than other interlocutors. Hence, these organizations can play a pivotal role in the intermediation between local o national governments and the rural population in general, since they focus on concrete demands and suggestions. They can be important interlocutors and advisers when elaborating rural policy and meeting rural needs. Thus, decentralized structures can be created which offer channels of articulation and participation of the population. At social level. Often, rural and agrarian organizations are involved in offering certain services such as education and health care which are not completely

developed in the locality. Therefore, governments can take advantage of already created structures and boost them in order to not duplicate efforts and guarantee a better distribution of these services. In short, agricultural organisations that work well not only provide technical and practical services to support farmers, they also create a dynamic approach to rural development through empowerment, strengthening cohesion and a sense of community (LEISA 2007). They are, in addition, the intermediaries throughout the production chain, for governments, etc. taking active part in decentralization processes (IAASTD 2009). For instance, at a workshop in Costa Rica, the members of some local agricultural organisations formulated the following criteria in order to carry out relevant work (Faure 2004): Generate income for a decent standard of living. Help to sell good quality products and generate added value. Stimulate autonomy to reduce risks. Generate rural employment. Strengthen the social fabric. Manage natural resources. Generate services for the society. Strengthen the processes of rural development. These and other criteria must be reflected in the work of the organisations and in policies of support to the same.

Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and restrictions

Organised men and women farmers are capable of analysing their problems and needs by themselves and as a result can propose innovative and appropriate solutions for endogenous development, promoting democratic forms of organisation (Abaru/Nyakuni/Shone 2006, IAASTD 2009). The participative focus and the search for alternative forms of agriculture mean that many of them are involved in the creation of concepts of sustainable agriculture, creating their own research and services of agricultural extension (LEISA 2007, IAASTD 2009). In diverse rural areas, agricultural organisations are practically the only actors who provide services to the poorest people, thus enabling them to earn a living (SARD 2007, IFAD 2010b). Those that have developed via a process of self-organisation are often strong, stable and more supportive than those that were initiated from the outside, in spite of the various difficulties and limitations which the former often face (SARD 2007). According to some analysts, informal groups are even more active than those officially recognised by the institutions and do not need external actors to detect their capacity of organisation (Meinzen-Dick/Raju/Gulati 2002, Mercoiret et al 2011).

However, there are also weaknesses, such as the lack of solidarity, of including women, young people, landless farmers or those without resources in the organisations themselves or in their decision making processes. In addition, many groups promoted from the outside do not take into consideration the social, cultural and economic context and therefore do not manage to consolidate themselves over time (Abaru/Nyakuni/Shone 2006, Wennink/Nederlof/Heemskerk 2007). There are outstanding differences of representativeness and in some cases their legitimacy, governance and transparency can be questioned (Diaz et al, 2004, IFAD 2010a, IFAD 2010b). One opportunity of peasant organisations is their power of change through political impact and improvements at a local level to increase the sustenance of a large number of farmers (IAASTD 2009, Rondot/Collion 2011). In spite of many internal and external problems, they represent the interests of poor men and women farmers better than any other external actor (IFAD 2010a). In Asia, the number of people who form part of an agricultural organisation is increasing, while in Latin America and Africa the number is at a standstill. However, it is possible to denote an improvement with regard to interrelations with other actors, the creation of networks, providing their own research and internal levels of democracy (SARD 2007, AGRITERRA 2011). Greater inclusion of more vulnerable actors could increase participation and representativeness in the core of the organisations and contribute to rural development and the reduction of poverty (Wennink/Nederlof/Heemskerk 2007). Social learning, social capital and collective action are the keys to facing up to these challenges (Kruijssen/Keizer/Giuliani 2007). In any case, current social, political and economic conditions such as the volatility of prices, the liberalisation of agricultural markets, etc. tend to restrict their power of influence and action and impede the transfer of successful experiences to other sectors or regions (Smith/Avila/Abdi 2004, IAASTD 2009, WRF/PROCISUR 2010, AGRITERRA 2011). Agricultural organisations that represent family farmers (men and women) still lack the necessary political, economic and social support at national and international level (HoltGimenez 2010).

Demands for governments and donors

On one hand, processes of democratisation and decentralisation have created new spaces of participation (IFAD 2010a). While on the other hand, international mercantile policies and the volatility of food prices do not promote prosperity and the development of family farming men and women. The lack of resources and the absence of favourable national and international political frameworks obstruct good organisation between farmers with less resources. Some of their demands are (SARD 2007, IFAD 2010b, Wennink/Nederlof/Heemskerk 2007):

Legislative guarantee and de facto liberty of association and participation. Their recognition as intermediaries who represent family farming men and women and their active participation in formulating agricultural and rural development policies through spaces for dialogue and consultation, as the case may be, at a local, national and international level. Give preference to the demands of family farmers. Recognition of the organisations of disadvantaged groups (family farmers, women farmers, indigenous peoples, the landless etc.) and their special involvement in the formulation of policies. Their support in terms of practical and strategic needs (training, involvement in networks, research, financial services etc.) to peasant organisations. Therefore, an explicit financial support to rural and agricultural organizations through national budget and cooperation. Their involvement through participatory budgeting and other forms of consultation and participation in decision making.

Demands for research

Men and women farmers have produced abundant knowledge about appropriate agricultural techniques, better adapted species, local environmental conditions, etc. Generally, farmers do not have the necessary resources to research systematically and reconcile modern and traditional techniques (Smith/Avila/Abdi 2004). Research into more sustainable and productive techniques is vital for the better development of the agricultural sector and the rural environment. Cooperation, therefore, between organizations, agricultural research institutions and the governments is necessary. In this context, a distinction between institutes of research and universities which do not directly work with farmers, on the one hand, and other research centres that intermediate between farmers and the research, on the other hand, is necessary. In the dialogue with the latter ones, farmers can contribute their knowledge and capacity of experimentation and, at the same time, research institutions can contribute their scientifictechnological inspection, their access to information and their capacity to obtain funds (Smith/Avila/Abdi 2004, SARD 2007). For governments, a better and more representative research which is applicable for farmers is important, since it offers more autonomy and efficiency in its decisions on agricultural policies. However, right now, the majority of research is done by private institutions which do not necessarily have in mind national interests or the interests of the rural population of their country.

Until now, in sub-Saharan Africa, only very few research- and agricultural training institutions have made a move towards the demands of ordinary farmers to review their research and education programme (IFAD 2010a). In Latin America the movement Campesino-a-Campesino began to create a network of selftraining in which innovative and sustainable techniques are taught by the farmers themselves (Hocde et al. 2000, Holt-Gimnez 2010, Rosset et al. 2011). Research centres, which are engaged in training, such as CIPCA (Centro de Investigacin y Promocin del Campesinado) in Bolivia, CATIE and IICA (Instituto Interamericano para la Agricultura) in Costa Rica, CEPES in Peru, RIMISP in Chile are closely linked to the needs to family farming men and women. On the other hand, there are universities such as the Universidad Pontificia Javeriana de Bogot en Colombia which promotes applied research (www.cipca.org.bo, www.catie.ac.cr, www.iica.int, www.cepes.org.pe, www.rimisp.org, http://puj-portal.javeriana.edu.co). In Asia, Farmer Field Schools showed very good results not only in terms of reducing the use of pesticides but also at a strategic level of generating a greater sense of control over life itself by the participants (Braun et al. 2007, IAASTD 2009, IFAD 2010a). In Europe there are various agricultural research centres that are directly linked to the needs of farmers, such as the FiBL (Switzerland, Germany and Austria), the Mediterranean Agronomic Institute, CIRAD (France) etc. At university level, the Polytechnic University of Valencia (Spain) is quite important. (www.fibl.org, www.iamz.ciheam.org, www.upv.es, www.cirad.fr).

Demands with regard to inclusion

Within the organisations, various groups find themselves at a disadvantage. Among them are women who see themselves as excluded either directly from the organisation for implicit criteria or from the processes of leadership and decision making within the existing structures, as a result of being women and being poor. The empowerment of rural women and the change in the structures of organisations are necessary to bring about changes (Wennink/Nederlof/Heemskerk 2007, IFAD 2010a, IFAD 2010b). Due to cultural and structural restrictions linked to traditional gender roles, organisations comprised exclusively of women limit themselves, frequently, to the local level and do not manage to establish a higher level of political impact due to lack of time, the work overload on women and the lack of recognition of their contributions. In mixed organisations, women do not occupy sufficient leadership positions either. Training on putting into practice the gender focus at the heart of the organisations is, therefore, necessary to ensure greater equity and a higher level of representativeness. Some

organisations have already taken action against this deficiency. In Rwanda , for example, there are organisations that have 50% presence of women in their governing bodies. However, the introduction of quotas does not resolve the structural problem of underestimation of the economic, social and cultural contribution of farming women, so, it is the rules of the game and the discriminating stereotypes that need to be overcome. In the case of the HIV/AIDS epidemic in Africa, women are taking over a variety of formerly male jobs and are occupying their posts in agricultural organisations (Wennink/Nederlof/Heemskerk 2007, IFAD 2010b). It is not only women who are not adequately represented but also the poorest farmers and those with fewer resources, young people, the disabled, the landless etc. who often do not form part of the agricultural organisations or who do not occupy leadership positions, generally due to the high costs entailed in such commitments and the low social prestige associated. Systems of quota payment might favour farmers with greater financial weight as they supposedly contribute more to the development of the organisation. (Wennink/Heemskerk 2006, SARD 2007). Not all organisations mention in their articles of association the reduction of poverty or social inclusion. Greater access of farmers, excluded up to now, would increase the capacity of innovation of the organisations and their contributions to the development of the community (Wennink/Nederlof/Hemmskerk 2007). Organisations such as Via Campesina at an international level, AFA (Asia), CONTAG (Brazil) etc. show a greater sensitivity in this matter.

Proposals for sustainability

Agricultural organisations have been pioneers in the development of practical, sustainable and ecological foci (IAASTD 2009). They experiment in agricultural techniques that are more adapted and less damaging to the environment, they recover indigenous seeds, they encourage the transmission of knowledge of innovative, environmentally-respectful techniques, they preserve and improve the soil, they preserve the quality of the water, undertake reforestation etc. They are concerned with the effects of climatic change and have drawn up proposals for the establishment of Food Security and Sovereignty (IFAD 2010a, Holt-Gimenez 2010). In many cases, the limiting factors are not of a technical nature but social and methodological, as demonstrated by Bunch (2010) and Rosset et al. (2011):

Countrywithoneofthehighestratesofgenderequality(SocialWatch2007).

Within the international institutions and also within the peasant organisations there is widespread debate on the most sustainable agricultural models in terms of the use of natural resources.

Supranational agricultural organisations that represent Family Farming

In Africa there are several regional peasant federations, such as ROPPA in West Africa, PROPAC in Central Africa, SACAU in South Africa, EAFF in East Africa and UMAGRI in North Africa. All of them have created the PanAfrican Organisation of Farmers PAFFO, (in the process of incorporation), to defend Family Farming. On the Asian continent, AFA (Asian Farmers Association) a regional alliance brings together agricultural federations and organisations of eight countries in Asia that represent around 10 million farmers. It is working to create a strong regional impact and dynamism for agricultural reform, sustainable rural development and the reduction of poverty ( http://asianfarmers.org ). In India, the Confederation of Indian Farmers' Associations - CIFA, brings together numerous farmers' associations in this country in defence of Family Farming and access to land. In Latin America, the main aim of COFROFAM (Confederation of Family Farmers Associations of the extended MERCOSUR) is to influence the formulation and harmonisation of public policies for Family, Peasant and Indigenous Farming, It consists of twelve national organisations from Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay and represents 35 million rural workers, family farmers, peasants and indigenous peoples. It was vital for the creation of REAR (see below) in the MERCOSUR (WRF/PROCISUR 2010). In the same continent, the Latin American Coordination of Rural Organisations (CLOC) which forms part of the Via Campesina is drawing up a strategy of Family Farming and Food Sovereignty for October 2011 (ibid). European organisations have joined COPA COGECA with the aim of influencing policy in the European Union and represent an ample variety of farmers (www.copa-cogeca.be). In the scope of traditional fishing there are also various organisations such as the African Confederation of Small-scale Fisheries Professional Organisations CAOPA, World Forum of Fisher Peoples and the World Forum of Fish Harvesters and Fish workers (www.aprapam.org, http://worldforumoffisherpeoples. blogspot.com).

10

Examples of policies in favour of agricultural organisations that represent FF

In the framework of the extended MERCOSUR (Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay, Chile and Bolivia) in 2004 a space for dialogue was created between representative Family Farming organisations and governments - REAF (initials in Spanish for Specialist Meeting of Family Farming). Here policy recommendations and actions favourable to family farming were discussed and formulated. There are various specialist work groups, among them one on access to land and agricultural reform, facilitating trading, finance, gender, youth, etc. In addition, member countries exchanged experiences (www.reafmercosul.org, WRF/PROCISUR 2010). Another example is PDRR (initials in Spanish for Regional Rural Dialogue Programme in Central America) inspired by the success of the experience of REAF (www.dialogoregionalrural.org, WRF/PROCISUR 2010).

3.- Conclusions
Based on successful experiences, there is a need to encourage self-organisation of family farmers (men and women) at a local (decentralised), national and international level in order to contribute to sustainable rural development and pressurise governments to implement better agricultural policies. In many rural areas agricultural organisations are the only instances of services provided for the local population. By creating an economy of scale, they contribute to an improvement in the economic conditions of their members, they offer training, advice and financial services, they contribute to greater cohesion, they curtail rural exodus etc. Furthermore, they are important actors for research and for achieving a change in focus towards sustainable agriculture: fair on people and friendly with the environment. These strengths and opportunities need to be exploited to the full. But the associations need support to strengthen their service- and operating structures, especially with regard to amplifying their social base as well as promoting inclusion, equity and professional capabilities. Faced with agricultural policies that are non-integrating and that obstruct the development of Family Farming at a local, national and international level, the agricultural organisations are appropriate actors to make a political impact and propose substantial improvements, but to do this they need more areas of recognition by the public authorities, through dialogue and influence in public decision making. There are many examples of successful and innovative organisations, and it is necessary to learn from them through the creation of networks.

11

4.- Specific proposals on the subject of agricultural organisations

For governments:
Legal and true recognition of agricultural organisations through laws, programmes, freedom of association and communication, as privileged intermediaries of the pubic powers so that agricultural and rural policies are formulated that defend Food Security and Sovereignty in every country. Legal and real recognition of socially, economically and culturally excluded persons or groups, such as indigenous peoples, ethnic minorities, etc. and its representation in organizations. Encourage a legal framework that ensures transparency in the sector. In this perspective, the definition, adaptation and regulation of mechanisms of ongoing dialogue between the political powers and independent organisations of farmers inspired by models such as the Specialist Meeting of Family Farming REAF in the Extended MERCOSUR. Recognition of the associative rural mix, renouncing the creation or imposition of organisations related to political power. Promotion of applied agricultural research at the service of national and local family farming, of its biodiversity and its genetic heritage, in close cooperation with the farmers associations in the country, rural NGOs, etc. Provide agricultural organisations with public services in training, technical and financial sectors etc., in accordance with the needs expressed by them. Include specific and participatory budgets for the promotion of rural and agricultural organizations.

For international organisations, donors etc.

Effective recognition of organisations of family farmers, in all their diversity, as an essential part of their intermediation in agricultural and rural matters in each country and, as the case may be, at a regional or international level. Require transparency in local agricultural organizations in the collaborative programs which are developed. Promote and support the convergence between farmers' organisations of a diverse predilection - such as the Farmers Forum under the auspices of IFAD - on particularly relevant themes such as monopolising agricultural land, support to sustainable rural development, gender equality, etc. and all this in the search for progress and fair and efficient solutions. Have sufficient impact, within their programmes and budget, on human and financial resources in order to strengthen the farmers movement overall at its various levels.

12

Develop programs in order to strengthen local organizations at national and international levels. Include special budget for all the points mentioned above.

Many agricultural organizations themselves are aware of the need to redefine their internal structures in terms of criteria of equity, participation, democracy, justice and sustainability and therefore the promotion of women, youth, landless farmers and indigenous peoples will be an important issue. The organizations will have to mainstream gender in all their activities for instance regarding the schedule, quotas for female representation, women's leadership and so on. Moreover, it will be necessary to ensure criteria of financial, technical and political transparency within the organizations, enhance coordination between them and provide spaces and resources for networking, demand and take advantage of opportunities of influencing through participatory budgeting, consultations policies etc. Finally, it should still improve communication so that all farmers know what is being done for them. Agricultural associations are and will be the great protagonists in the future of Family Farming.

5.- Bibliographical references

Abaru, Millie Biruma/Nyakuni, Anthony/Shone, Gideon (2006): Strengthening farmers organizations. The experience of RELMA and ULAMP, ICRAF Working Paper 23, World Agroforestry Centre: Nairobi. ActionAid/FoodFirst: Smallholder solutions to hunger, poverty and climate change, ActionAid/FoodFirst: Johannesburg/Oakland, without year. AGRITERRA (2011): Farmers Fighting Poverty -The strength of being organized, Agriterra: Arnhem. Braun, Arnoud R./Okoth, James Robert/Khaamala, Habakkuk/Khisa Godrick S. (2007): Building FFS networks in East Africa, in: LEISA Magazine Vol. 23, N 1, March 2007, pp. 18-24. Bunch, Roland (2010): Can promoters of development and activist for land reform unite?, in: The Journal of Peasant Studies, Vol. 37, N 1, January 2010, pp. 209-212. Diaz, Jorge et al. (2004): Building the capacity of rural producer organisations. Lessons of the World Bank experience, World Bank/Cirad-Terad: Washington D.C. Faure, Guy (2004): Characterization of a Collective Action between Farmers Organizations and Institutions in an innovative process to face liberalization in Costa Rica, en: Journal of agricultural education and extension, Vol. 10, N 3, pp. 121-131. Hocd, Henri/Vasquez, Jorge I./Holt, Eric/Braun, Ann R. (2000): Towards a social movement of farmer innovation: campesino a campesino, in: ILEIA Newsletter, July 2000, pp.2627.

13

Holt-Gimnez, Eric (2010): Grassroots voices. Linking farmers movements for advocacy and practice, in: The Journal of Peasant Studies, Vol. 37, N 1, January 2010, pp. 203209. IAASTD (2009): Agriculture at a crossroads. Global report, IAASTD: Washington D.C. IFAD (2010a): Rural Poverty Report. New realities, new challenges: new opportunities for tomorrows generation, IFAD: Rome. IFAD (2010b): Report of the third global meeting of The Farmers Forum, IFAD: Rome. Kruijssen, Froukje/Keizer, Menno/Giuliani, Alessandra (2007): Collective action for small-scale producers of agricultural and biodiversity products, CAPRi Working Paper N 71, October 2007, CAPRi: Washington D.C. LEISA (2007): How farmers organise, en: LEISA Magazine Vol. 23, N 1, March 2007, pp. 4-5. Meinzen-Dick, Ruth/Raju, K.V./Gulati, Ashok (2002): What Affects Organization and Collective Action for Managing Resources? Evidence from Canal Irrigation Systems in India, in: World Development, Vol. 30, No. 4, pp. 649666. Mercoiret, Marie-Rose/ Goudiaby,Bara/ Marzaroli,Silvio/ Fall, Diogou/ Gueye,Samba/ Coulibaly, Jean (2011): Documentos de discusin: Fortalecimiento de las organizaciones campesinas: desafos, objetivos y ambigedades, en: Rondot, Pierre/ Collion, Marie-Hlne: Organizaciones de productores agrcolas. Su contribucin al fortalecimiento de las capacidades rurales y reduccin de la pobreza, World Bank: Washington D.C. Rondot, Pierre/Collion, Marie-Hlne (2011): Organizaciones de productores agrcolas. Su contribucin al fortalecimiento de las capacidades rurales y reduccin de la pobreza, World Bank: Washington D.C. Rosset, Peter Michael/Machn Sosa, Braulio/Roque Jaime, Adiln Mara/vila Lozano, Dana Roco (2011): The Campesino-to-Campesino agroecology movement of ANAP in Cuba: social process methodology in the construction of sustainable peasant agriculture and food sovereignty, in: Journal of Peasant Studies, Vol. 38, N 1, 161191. SARD (2007): Farmers organizations, Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development, Policy Brief 12, SARD: Rome. Smith, Ola/Avila, Marcelino/Abdi, Nur (2004): Strengthening linkages between farmers th organizations and agricultural research institutions, GFAR, 26 World Farmers Congress of IFAP, 29 de Mayo - 4 de Junio 2004, Washington D.C. Social Watch (2007): Gender equity index 2007, in: http://www.socialwatch.org/es/node/9355 (last access 09/09/2011). Wennink, Bertus/Heemskerk, Willem (eds.) (2006): Farmers organizations and agricultural innovation. Case studies from Benin, Rwanda and Tanzania, Bulletin 374, KIT Publishers: Amsterdam. Wennink, Bertus/Nederlof, Suzanne/Heemskerk, Willem (eds.) (2007): Access of the poor to agricultural services. The role of farmers organizations in social inclusion, Bulletin 376, KIT Publishers: Amsterdam.

14

WRF (2010): Feeding the world, caring for the earth. Asia Continental Meeting, World Rural Forum/AFA/AsiaDHRRA/CIFA, 23 -25 Marzo 2010, New Delhi. WRF/PROCISUR (2010): Alimentar al mundo, cuidar el planeta. Encuentro continental de Amrica, Foro Rural Mundial/Ministerio de desarrollo agrario Brasil/ COPROFAM/ PROCISUR/REAF, 13-14 de noviembre de 2010, Brasilia, Brasil.

Web sites: http://asianfarmers.org (Last access: 09/09/2011). http://puj-portal.javeriana.edu.co (Last access: 09/09/2011). http://worldforumoffisherpeoples. blogspot.com (Last access: 09/09/2011). www.aprapam.org (Last access: 09/0/2011). www.catie.ac.cr (Last access: 09/09/2011). www.cepes.org.pe (Last access: 09/09/2011). www.cipca.org.bo (Last access: 09/09/2011). www.cirad.fr (Last access: 09/09/2011). www.contag.org.br (Last access: 09/09/2011). www.copa-cogeca.be (Last access: 09/09/2011). www.dialogoregionalrural.org (Last access: 09/09/2011). www.fibl.org (Last access: 09/09/2011). www.iamz.ciheam.org (Last access: 09/09/2011). www.iica.int (Last access: 09/09/2011). www.ileia.org (Last access: 09/09/2011). www.reafmercosul.org (Last access: 09/09/2011). www.rimisp.org (Last access: 09/09/2011). www.upv.es (Last access: 09/09/2011). www.viacampesina.org (Last access: 09/09/2011).

15