May 4th, 2023 at 10am – 11:30 am EDT / 16:00 – 17:30 EDT

BOTH ENDS

To kick off the EDGE Members’ Dialogues on Agroecology & Systemic Change, EDGE held Session 0 “Building movement resilience through agroecology funding in Latin America” in partnership with BothEnds and partners: Fundación CAUCE, Argentina and Forum Suape, Brazil. This session looks at how system change requires challenging the status quo and working towards a new paradigm!

Many of us fund groups and movements who are claiming their rights against powerful forces who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo (against hydropower dams, monoculture plantations, mining giants, etc). At the same time many of us also support movements who work on sustainable solutions which are key to creating the new paradigm (agroecology, food sovereignty, etc).

In this Dialogue Space we connected both: the struggle of movements against the vested (economic) interests and the agroecological practices of many movements which are the solution in creating a new paradigm. Through examples of movements from Latin America who combine both, funders exchanged experience and learnings on both approaches.

The examples showed a key challenge: how to ensure that movements, local groups and communities who are fighting against extractivist projects of powerful actors, also have the possibility to gain and/or expand their efforts for solutions for their livelihoods and food sovereignty? Where funding streams might focus on only one or the other approach, in reality both are intertwined. How do we address this gap as funders?

To inspire you to consider funding agroecology with a systemic change lens, below are some of the big takeaways from our conversations as well as extra resources to continue your learning and reflecting.

If you would like to be part of these dialogues and learn in community, become an EDGE member!

Lessons from the session on funding agroecology with a systemic change lens:

Remove funding from the harmful, intersectional narrative of apolitical conservation

Recognize and lift up conservation efforts that have existed for years and decades before the mainstream conservation movement and invest in spotlighting them and keeping them alive
Environmental preservation/conservation has been a tool of neocolonialism and erasure of communities that justified forceful removals, land grabs and “re-education” programs in the name of sustainability.
What is cool about agroecology is that it uses the same reasoning of conservation and sustainability but to center local communities and their sovereignty. In Brazil for example, the flag of agroecology was raised to preserve ancestral lands and practices and fight against companies and INGOs that are land grabbing.

Funding needs to go towards resistance to extractivism, solution building and reimaginations of alternatives as well as immediate survival needs

Agroecology stands against systems of extraction. Funding needs to go towards efforts of resistance. At the same time, to be able to change systems, money also needs to go towards efforts of reimagination and solution building that are happening within pockets of resistance for survival to make sure those solutions are sustained and replicated where possible.
Needs in the short, medium and long term need to be funded especially in areas where resistance is highly persecuted. Funders need to invest in legal and social structures of protection.

Flexibility is needed for funding streams that can work on whatever needs arise in the community. Multi-year flexible funding can help build infrastructure and find solutions

Violence is increasing against activists, having money on hand to spend on what is needed to stay safe is crucial.
In order for communities to have the capacity to experiment with solutions, they need infrastructures there. This can include material for farming but also community building spaces like schools.

Agroecology is not just a practice but a tool for movement building and needs to be funded as such

Agroecology is not just about food and farming, it intersects with trade, feminism, economies, climate, and land and water rights. Funders need to take a broader systemic perspective in what funding constitutes support to agroecology and stop treating issue-areas separately but rather fund across these different intersections.

Local communities need support in fighting for their immediate rights and safety

Some communities are just trying to keep their land and are not interested in the bigger movement of agroecology yet. Supporting them in keeping their land is still a step towards agroecology.

Money is needed for policy change and advocacy to preserve native crops and tp stop governments from signing harmful agreements

What is particular about agriculture is that it is somewhat top-down. No matter how innovative individual communities are, if governments are signing agreements that limit sovereignty, change will be slow.
Fighting agri-business, pesticide and chemical business and holding governments accountable to colluding with them needs to be funded.

Those funding agroecology cannot be apolitical

Where people can farm includes issues of policies, zoning and jurisdiction that can often also intersect with racism especially in countries like the US on reservations. Funding the defense of territories and sovereignty over land is important for a future where agroecology is more common.

Co-optation of language by corporations can lead to false solutions and harm. Funders need to invest in counter narratives

Climate Change narratives and fears can be used by companies and governments to push for false solutions. Tech, chemicals and other non community-led solutions that benefit corporations are advertised and pushed on the public as solutions towards food security. Philanthropy needs to invest in counter narratives to this trend.

Funders need to be allies in calling out co-optation or changes in funding trends by their governments or other streams of funding

When sitting with more traditional funders, fund allies can call out and disrupt green-washing narratives and stress the political and locally-rooted meaning of terms like agroecology or food sovereignty.
Funders can also support advocacy in their local governments to question funding streams abroad. The EU for example has restricted funding to Latin America for agriculture, let alone agroecology. Funders can hold their governments accountable.

Stop competing with other funders and thinking your funding areas are the key to a better future, we need diversity in solutions and therefore funding to flow everywhere

Some funders create dichotomies and pigeon-hole themselves in funding a particular area or a particular focus within the broader agroecology theme. They invest in justifying why that particular approach is better than other approaches. These efforts are not needed. What is needed is to move money to as many groups trying to defend their lands, push for sovereignty, reimagine agriculture and/or contribute to the agroecology movement.
In other words, funders do not need to know which solution is better than the other Um, rather than feeling like we have to have an answer on which approach to the above intentions are best, their partners know what is best for themselves.
Funders need to organize amongst themselves and support eachother.

Extend support beyond money and build networks

Global solidarity is needed. Funders have access to partners and networks that are larger than some of their grantees. Being able to connect and support grantee partners in enlarging their network of support is important.