Migration and agronomic simplification as part of the same picture

3. Studying agrobiodiversity-migration connections. Theoretical framework and research methodology

3.2 Theoretical framework

3.2.3 Migration and agronomic simplification as part of the same picture

and transformation, as well as their qualities. Migration and mobility in the Altiplano Norte are not exclusively the outcome of individual action. However, though responding to some structural trends, they are strongly shaped by decisions taken at the family level and based on the availability of opportunities, the exchange of information, and migrants’ networks operating within and beyond Bolivia’s borders. All three levels of analysis, therefore, are important. In this work I deal with them both separately and in combination.

In this thesis I do not restrict my focus to a specific type of migration. Different patterns - in terms of both destination and timing - are included in my analysis. All cases observed in the research area are discussed (rural-urban/internal, rural-rural/internal, international;

temporary/seasonal, permanent, return). In developing countries, however, out-migration from rural areas manifests with a movement of people within national borders more often than with international migration (Chiswick & Hatton 2003), and the Altiplano Norte is no exception. Because voluntary internal rural-urban migration is the most frequent pattern there, most of the analysis presented in this thesis concerns this type of migration, and some of the theoretical tools discussed below directly refer to it.

3.2.3 Migration and agronomic simplification as part of the same picture

Agronomic simplification in the framework of agrarian change

The phenomenon of rural-urban migration can be read through the lens of agrarian change.

The literature considers it as part of the transition from subsistence farming to capitalism, occurring in all countries that pursue development. Through this shift a “closed-loop agricultural system” that uses “green” and locally sourced inputs is gradually abandoned by farmers in favour of either an urban life and non-agricultural employment in sectors dominated by unbalanced power relations, or the integration into “agriculture” (Bernstein 2010a). “Agriculture” is understood here as a sector of the economy characterised by the same paradigms and forces - division of labour, technology, market dynamics - that are typical of capitalism. It does not only include farming, but also all the activities “upstream” and

“downstream” of it, alongside technological innovation for productivity increase. Today in the Global South, small farmers - it is argued - are increasingly pushed to abandon their land and livelihoods, and to migrate to cities in search of a monetary income and better living conditions (Start 2001). They either find a job in the city, often joining the ranks of the urban

poor, or get incorporated into low-wage labour for export agriculture (Rosset 2006). In this scenario agrobiodiversity is penalised in favour of high yields.

Looking at the connections between agrobiodiversity conservation and migration exclusively from the point of view of this shift is quite constraining. Firstly, doing so implies taking a point of departure as reference (subsistence farming), and outlining a post-transition scenario as the final stage (a world in which subsistence farming and on-farm agrobiodiversity no longer exist).

Within this framework the struggle currently brought forward by numerous activists, scientists, international organisations and farmers in order to avoid genetic erosion in agriculture is reduced to a mere form of resistance in the face of an inevitable transformation.

Secondly, this framework does not allow enough space to capture the complexity of the current Altiplano Norte. By echoing Marx, the literature identifies in the social division of labour between agriculture and industry and between countryside and town one of the main features of capitalism (Bernstein 2010b; Bernstein 2010a; Bryceson 2000). Livelihoods and spaces are tightly clustered into fixed categories, which are not adequate for exploring the fluid relationship between rural and urban (Ellis & Harris 2004) that is typical of today’s Altiplano Norte, and for understanding the formation of new identities that do not belong to either one of these realms. A binary vision, as Robins argues, “obscure[s] the complex realities of the culturally hybrid responses” that indigenous farmers develop when they are confronted with new challenges (Robins, 2003, p.267). In 3.2.4 I elaborate on indigenous responses to change further.

Thirdly, connections (chapter 1; 3.3.1) cannot be adequately analysed if the link between countryside and city, and between farming and other livelihoods, is only seen in function of a gradual shift towards a capitalist system. Doing so entails an intrinsic bias towards a given type of connection, based on a causal relation that perceives a) migration as responsible for the abandonment of agriculture and agronomic simplification in rural areas; b) migration towards urban areas and agrobiodiversity conservation as mutually exclusive. If taken to the extreme, such a position can lead to a “strong moral preference for village life and rural pursuits”, as if it was to be taken for granted that “rural people should remain in the countryside and in farming” (Rigg, 2006, p.187) to keep agrobiodiversity from disappearing completely.

Fourthly, within this perspective farmers’ agency is downplayed, as rural migrants appear fundamentally passive in the face of structural dynamics. Farmers, instead, engage, in a process of dialogue and negotiation with change (Yaro 2006). They do not only resist it by defending a static position, but they protect themselves and adapt to it by responding strategically to new circumstances.

The controversial relation between agrobiodiversity and rural poverty

Agrobiodiversity conservation is a possible strategy to tackle rural poverty. In their study

“Mobilizing neglected and underutilized crops to strengthen food security and alleviate poverty in India” Ravi et al. state that conserving and consuming neglected and underutilised crops, which have “high adaptive advantages under marginal agro-ecological […] situations”, is instrumental to enhancing the food and nutritional security of rural communities. It strengthens the traditional food culture; it provides farmers with an important means to respond to climate change; and, ultimately, it improves farmers’ income (Ravi et al. 2012, p.115). This argument - widely shared and demonstrated by a number of best practices around the world (PAR & FAO 2011; Sthapit et al. 2006; Pascual et al. 2011; Clawson 1990; PAR 2010) - is at the basis of numerous international organisations’ programmes and of NGOs’ activities in the Altiplano Norte and in other developing countries’ regions (Bioversity International 2012;

Padulosi et al. 2011; Rojas et al. 2010; Jarvis et al. 2000). The relationship between agrobiodiversity and poverty, however, is not unidirectional (Kontoleon et al. 2009a). On the contrary, it is extremely complex, especially when elements like rural-urban migration, livelihood diversification, and market participation are included into the picture.

Part of the literature considers agrobiodiversity conservation as necessarily related to a condition of isolation and poverty, afflicting conservationist farmers (Vira & Kontoleon 2010).

When households increase their wealth - it is argued - people devote less time and resources to the conservation of agrobiodiversity and concentrate their efforts on other activities (Jodha 1995; Cavendish 2000; Cavendish 1999). Agrobiodiversity is reduced or even lost when smallholders privilege modern varieties and shift resource use away from it; when they diversify their livelihoods and strengthen their connections with the market; and when - by choosing migration - they start working outside agriculture to increase their income. Decisions and behaviours that put agrobiodiversity at risk often derive from the application of international or government rural development strategies, which focus, among other things, on reducing rural poverty by intensifying agricultural production, producing high value crops, enhancing opportunities in non-farm activities, and promoting market integration of households through improved rural infrastructure (Wood & Lenne 1997; Winters et al. 2006).

The role of markets in agrobiodiversity conservation is a debated issue. The connection that smallholder producers establish with the market can affect their propensity and capacity to

conserve and use agrobiodiversity. Market forces tend to penalise minor crop varieties, and to favour mainstream high-yielding ones. Although smallholder farmers have preserved crop varieties and relevant knowledge until today because of a number of benefits they can draw from their use, nowadays incentives are often lacking for conservationist farmers, who constantly deal with new socio-economic challenges and transformations, occurring primarily as part of a market economy transition in developing countries (Pascual et al. 2011; Bellon 1996). Current markets and institutions can create strong incentives for farmers to “disinvest”

in agrobiodiversity as an asset (Pascual & Perrings 2007).

The consequences of farmers’ participation in the market, however, are not so linear. On the contrary, they are multi-directional, and - as some report - have not yet been articulated properly (Velásquez-Milla et al. 2011; Kontoleon et al. 2009b). Prabhu Pingali - in his foreword to the book “Agrobiodiversity conservation and economic development” by Kontoleon et al. - states that “agricultural biodiversity management involves necessary trade-offs with human aspirations for improved food security and improved livelihoods”. The same mechanisms and tools used for wild diversity conservation are not applicable to a framework in which farmers’

families actively preserve agricultural varieties by implementing specific practices that year after year grant their own sustenance, as well as the survival of genetic diversity (Kontoleon et al. 2009, p. xxi). Living conditions’ improvement and development are crucial stimuli for conservation in rural communities. They motivate governments, international organisations, and NGOs to action, and - most importantly - they incentivise the farmers themselves. Market-like mechanisms for agrobiodiversity conservation can encourage farmers to continue their conservation efforts (Pascual & Perrings 2007; Narloch et al. 2009; Pascual et al. 2011).

Therefore, payment or reward for providing an important ecosystem service have been introduced in poor rural areas with the aim to ensure that the protagonists of on-farm conservation are adequately compensated for what they do, and enjoy a condition of improved wellbeing.

Using the market to foster poor smallholder farmers’ conservation activities, though, can bring about the risk of unleashing forces that end up marginalising minor underutilised crops (Marglin 2000; Gowdy 1997; Zimmerer 2013). As Kontoleon et al. state, the “direction of causality” in the relationship between on-farm conservation and producers’ participation to the market is unclear: “Is on-farm conservation of agrobiodiversity merely a consequence of having been left out of markets?”, or “can markets develop in such a way that agrobiodiversity is supported?” (Kontoleon et al. 2009b, p.5). Generalisations are impossible, given the context-specific nature of the problem. Indeed, it is an arduous challenge to “develop agriculture to

improve food security and reduce poverty while at the same time protecting agricultural biodiversity” (Pingali in Kontoleon et al. 2009, p. xxii).

Relying on the preliminary assumption that market participation, and income generation through livelihood diversification and migration are incompatible with on-farm agrobiodiversity conservation in rural communities is counterproductive for the following reasons.

Firstly, it precludes the possibility of exploring the nature of farmers’ involvement in these phenomena, and the characteristics of their complex relationship with urban and market realities. The market, for example, generates multi-directional connections, and - as Bellon argues - “crop diversity is not necessarily or completely replaced by market integration and the availability of new technologies” (Bellon 1996, p.31). Farmers can not only resist pressures in favour of agronomic simplification, but also draw from the market new incentives for agrobiodiversity conservation, as I explain below (3.2.4), and empirically show in chapter 7.

Secondly, it leads to the conclusion that conservation unavoidably condemns farmers to low living standards - “an argument that has been made to reject in situ conservation by the early planners of the international system of germplasm conservation” (Bellon 1996, p.31) - which is not the case in numerous instances, as evidence demonstrates. In the Lake Titicaca region, for example, families characterised by different welfare and livelihood conditions maintain broad seed diversity, as the following data - retrieved through the archival research I conducted in Bolivia - show.

1) By using participatory methods, Mamani Alvarez estimated the welfare status of a sample group of families in the community Cariquina Grande, Mocomoco municipality, to compare it with their propensity to conserve agrobiodiversity²⁵. His study shows that in this village conservationist farmers owning more than 100 seed varieties (15%

of the total) have an intermediate welfare status and are encouraged to keep a broad agricultural diversity by factors, like the possibility to participate to agrobiodiversity fairs²⁶, which are not directly linked with their welfare situation. There are some very poor farmers (15%), mostly elderly people, who conserve a high number of agricultural varieties (between 76 and 100). However, while the majority of farmers maintains an

25 In the Altiplano Norte some scientists have elaborated a definition of welfare by working with the farmers of their target communities. They relied greatly on the principles of the “livelihood approach”, widely applied in the appraisal of rural development since the 1990s (Baumann 2002; Fieldnotes - Workshop held by Dr. Edson Gandarillas in PROINPA's offices in La Paz on 25 September 2012).

26 In chapter 5 I clarify what agrobiodiversity fairs consist of exactly.

intermediate welfare status and conserves between 25 and 50 varieties, residentes²⁷ - richer than the farmers who did not migrate - are the least prone to conserving agricultural diversity (they own below 25 seed varieties) and do not know any other use for it than consumption as food (Mamani Alvarez 2011).

2) According to Alarcon Vicente, the families of Coromata conserving most diversity are characterised by an intermediate to low welfare status. Amongst them there are families in which the main livelihood is not agriculture: heads of household are teachers, construction workers and carpenters (Alarcon Vicente 2011).

3) In Okola the highest concentration of genetic diversity can be found in the plots of families characterised by a high and intermediate welfare level. The heads of most households are middle-aged farmers, but poorer families with elderly components also show a marked propensity for agrobiodiversity conservation (IFAD, Bioversity International and Fundación PROINPA 2008).

Farmers’ inclination to conserve agrobiodiversity cannot be unquestionably linked with a condition of poverty and isolation. At the same time, welfare and multiple livelihoods cannot be considered as responsible on their own for agronomic simplification. On the contrary, a wide range of different elements comes into play in shaping the relationship of farmers with agrobiodiversity. For example Mamani Alvarez (2011) identifies other important variables besides welfare that play a role in agrobiodiversity conservation at the household level - i.e.

the composition of the household, farmers’ education, their participation in NGOs’ initiatives, their tendency to substitute native varieties with improved high-yielding seeds, etc.

Chapter 6 focuses on agrobiodiversity loss and identifies a series of factors, which, in the Altiplano Norte, determine it. However, the arguments and evidence that are presented must be regarded as just one part of the whole analysis, which chapter 7 completes, by looking at agrobiodiversity “reinvention”.

Deagrarianisation and livelihood diversification

The discussion above suggests that, indeed, migration is connected with agrobiodiversity through mechanisms that generate a loss of agricultural varieties. Several authors point out that in most developing countries a broad transformation involving rural areas, people and livelihoods is occurring (Rigg 2006; Rigg et al. 2008; Bryceson 1997; Kay 2008; Van Der Ploeg

27 Residentes are the urban migrants who maintain their residency in their community of origin, as well as their house and land. Residentes generally keep a strong connection with their family and village.

1994; De Grammont 2008). The Northern Highlands region of Bolivia is no exception. This process can be called “deagrarianisation”, as it leads to a depopulation of the countryside, an abandonment of agriculture and an increasing urbanisation of people and activities with a balance shift from the rural to the urban (Bryceson 1997; Bryceson 2000). It encompasses the processes of “occupational adjustment, income-earning reorientation, social identification and spatial relocation of rural dwellers away from strictly agricultural-based modes of livelihood”

(Bryceson 2004, p.617-618). It often goes hand in hand with depeasantisation, a phenomenon that, according to Bryceson, describes a situation in which the economic capacity and social coherence of peasantries is undermined, and peasant communities are unravelled by neoliberal forces.

A broad range of connections takes shape within this framework. Firstly, due to migration less people live in rural areas and work in agriculture. This challenges collective decision-making in indigenous villages, and the performance of a shared custodianship of agrobiodiversity at the family and community level. New generations of farmers, in particular, abandon their place of origin as teenagers, and opt for a future in the city. In spite of their upbringing as farmers, they do not conserve and transmit to their children seeds, knowledge and practices connected with agrobiodiversity. Their interests and aspirations - as well as their children’s - are entirely focused on urban activities and goals.

Secondly, not only because of depopulation but also due to livelihood transformation in rural communities, subsistence farming is in decline. Permanent migrants living and working in the city, while maintaining land and crops in their places of origin, are the most extreme example of this case. Residentes generally put in practice simplifying choices in their fields, as they regard farming as a secondary occupation, which they are not willing to devote too much of their time and resources to. In addition, they rely on risk management strategies based on their urban activities. In their eyes agrobiodiversity is not an important asset, but a superfluous burden. In line with the cholo-mestizo mentality that influences and shapes the decisions of rural people, today many non-migrant smallholders also attribute more value to productivity, technical knowledge and income generation than to the preservation and the use of agricultural diversity. While the market acquires more weight in their routine, their food consumption patterns change, and some native crops - although elevated in mainstream discourse by a celebrative rhetoric - are marginalised in actual eating habits.

As it is evident from this preliminary presentation of empirical findings, deagrarianisation and livelihood diversification are useful theoretical tools to analyse what is happening in the Altiplano Norte. However, in this specific context, additional bodies of literature - like those

concerning “new rurality”, in situ urbanisation and desakota regions - must be mobilised in support of those privileging a uni-linear transition perspective.

In situ urbanisation, new rurality and desakota to understand the Altiplano Norte’s rural-urban overlap

Several authors acknowledge that, with reference to Latin America, the rural-urban dichotomy is no longer relevant today, because the relationship between rural and urban spaces, lifestyle and people is much more complex and undefined than it used to be (Lazar 2008; Pérez et al.

2008; De Grammont 2008; Arbona & Kohl 2004). This is a consequence of the globalisation of capital, the shift to a neoliberal development policy in the entire region, and the growing interconnectedness between rural and urban areas due to improved transportation, communication and technology (De Grammont 2008). Indeed, in the Bolivian Highlands the deagrarianisation trend that is in place does not correspond to a simple shift of human and economic resources from rural to urban areas. Exchange between them is intense and boundaries are undefined.

Both rural and urban areas are involved in a radical transformation. In a setting like the Altiplano Norte and in general in deagrarianisation situations, typically urban non-agricultural livelihoods are no longer exclusive to urban areas. Rural households tend to diversify their income-generating activities, which increasingly become non-farm, due to migration and in situ urbanisation (Zhu 1999). In addition, urban areas - not immune to this process - also undergo substantive change with an expansion of residential areas, the transformation of entire neighbourhoods due to the settlement of rural migrants, and the affirmation in the urban context of a new indigenous, yet urban, economic structure and lifestyle. In the Northern Altiplano the so-called cholo-mestizo mentality and way of living (Tassi 2010) has taken over entire areas and segments of the urban population (4.5). Furthermore, the rural and the urban dimensions can no longer be considered as two distinct poles, which are geographically defined and face different development challenges. In both rural and urban spaces the typical characteristics of “rural-ness” and “urban-ness” increasingly overlap, as the

In document Indigenous farmers’ rural-urban migration and agrobiodiversity conservation : exploring connections in the Bolivian Altiplano Norte (Page 56-70)