Rethinking family farming

 

The concept of family farming has recently entered the common lexicon, even though it is something ancient. As I have already explained in other contexts, an in-depth discussion about what it was and, above all, what its historical destiny was, developed at the end of the 19th century, within the European, and German in particular, social democracy movement.

 

The two opposing theses saw on the one hand the supporters of the inevitable historical demise of a mode of production that considered itself "capitalist" (I'm putting in quotation marks because you had to force the concept a bit to get it in there), while on the other hand it was argued that it was not so simple and inevitable and that therefore, social democrats should have taken more interest in it and tried to understand its underlying mechanisms.

 

To make a long story short, the former won and so, thanks to Kautsky, the "socialist" vision of agriculture was written in the sacred tablets of his text "the agrarian question", which would dominate the thoughts of leftist economists for decades. Even the growing evidence of the disasters that collectivized agriculture was producing in the countries where it was being imposed did not help to change their minds, so much so that when I began my career at FAO and in particular our program in Brazil, we found ourselves in a paradoxical situation: no policy or program offered any kind of help to a very large economic and social reality in the country and, even more inconceivable, no agrarian struggle movement, such as the Landless Movement (MST) or the Confederation of Agricultural Workers (CONTAG), offered political support. Family farmers were simply left to their own devices.

 

It took us a while, but gradually we succeeded in having the numerical and economic dimensions of this reality recognized and, from this basis, in exerting the necessary pressure to get the federal government to set up a national program for family agriculture (the PRONAF that all specialists know).

 

From that moment on, the grassroots movements and unions also began to discover this unknown world and to include it, by hook or by crook, in their pantheon. But the basic problem remained unresolved, since, as the historical evolution of Western European agriculture had shown, from small producers (as they tended to be considered worldwide: campesino, pequenho productor, peasant) many had become large producers, maintaining an essentially family structure, thanks to the development of increasingly powerful machines and technologies. So, the question of how to consider this "family agriculture", remained open.

 

In European countries, it was moderate parties, sometimes with strong Catholic backing, that immediately supported this front, because the central nucleus was considered the bearer of the same basic values as the Church: the family, with its head, the pater familias, below him a woman who supported him, the faithful mother and wife, and then the children. 

 

That's why even today the associations that promoted the International Year of Family Farming (IYFF-2014), are rather in the moderate camp. The others, those of the "left," have had to join in, but they are not the protagonists, in the same way that they have been late with several other issues, such as the indigenous question, the environmental question and even the question of women.

Let's make it clear right away that, despite a year of heated discussions during IYFF-2014, no unambiguous definition has been agreed at, so the conceptual margins vary from country to country and, above all, from language to language.

 

Over the years, the defense of this type of agriculture has taken shape from two themes, essentially economic: on the one hand, unitary productivity, and on the other, job creation. Today, even the World Bank has had to give up and recognize that FFs (which are diverse throughout the world) can have much higher productivity than capitalist agriculture, which benefits from financial and political support that would otherwise disappear. We see this very well in Europe, where the bulk of CAP subsidies are extorted by large-scale farmers, whose tendency is to become part of financial conglomerates whose only goal is the immediate rate of profit.

 

Little by little, the ecological argument has also become part of the armamentarium of FF defense instruments. Even though in strong expansion, agro-ecology still remains a largely minority option, due to the fact that in the plans of national, European and international politics, the lobbying against this evolution is very strong.

 

Summing up the situation, defending the FF (or FFs) is considered generically of the left or at least of the center-left, even if many supporters can be found in the moderate sectors of society. Let's say that the left-wing parties and movements, whether Italian, European or worldwide, have preferred to sweep under the carpet their previous wrong historical analyses, to pretend nothing happened, and to reconstruct a sort of virginity by associating themselves to a general worldwide trend. Those on the moderate side who supported the AF, did not need to move: they were there and remained there.

 

Therefore, discussing what is the core of the problem is of little interest to traditional political and social forces. On the left, because they have not historically understood what this FF was, opening this discussion would mean having to bring up the whole previous history of support for collectivization, while on the moderate side there is simply no point in discussing it.

 

The fact that these FFs are more and more marginalized, despite their global importance, does not seem to interest even the lambda citizen for whom all that matters is buying at the lowest possible price. So, if the large-scale retail trade treats family producers like loan sharks, forcing them to lower and lower prices, this doesn't offend anyone. What I save on food I can invest in the new iPhone coming out.

 

Yet, right now, I think it's time to go beyond that, and start thinking a little bit about what's behind this concept.

 

There is no doubt that, for us Europeans, the boom is linked to the miracles that our agriculture was able to do from the end of World War II to 1960, taking Western Europe from a situation of chronic food deficit to the first structural surpluses. It was possible to do so by copying the model offered to us by the United States: the Farmer, technologically advanced, with a tractor and all other newly invented or recently improved mechanical tools, chemistry and improved seeds. Suffice it to say that this Farmer was white, and Catholic (Protestant). In short, he had everything to like. The Farmer, individualist par excellence, worked hard all day long and his wife (and faithful mother) supported him in everything, taking care of the children, the house, the garden, the small animals, etc., etc.

If for the "communist" world this example was to be avoided at all costs, for others it was a perfect example. The mountain of money that came along with the "model", and the results obtained, convinced even the most skeptical of who was right.

 

But what seemed to be an immutable ancient world, modernized by technology but still traditional in its internal structure, began to have to deal with external realities made of societies in motion, slow, but sure. The end of the 60's and the following decades saw the emergence of the female figure as the bearer of an individuality that demanded to be recognized, both in the physical (who does not remember, in Italy, the slogan "the womb is mine and I manage it"?) and in law. Gradually, important reforms arrived, structural ones we would say today, such as the right to divorce, abortion and the reform of the family code. Important steps that, having started out in the Western world, against the obvious resistance of the Catholic hierarchy, are slowly finding their way elsewhere in the world.

 

It will take time, years and perhaps decades, but once in a while I would like to bet on the progressive sense of history: there is no going back!

 

Many sites are open today, but in the agricultural sector, a conservative matrix still seems to be confirmed. In some countries, land co-ownership has been introduced and, more generally, the possibility for children to inherit family property in equal parts regardless of gender. Remember that the Salic law, which provided for leaving everything to the male heir, was invented by the French, not by Martians!

 

The emergence of the women's question therefore seems inevitably destined to enter the circles of the associations and peasant movements that aim to fight for a better tomorrow. For my part, I'm trying, within the association of which I am a member and which deals with the governance of natural resources, primarily land. My fixed point for several years now is that we cannot propose approaches to rural or territorial development that do not touch the issue of power dynamics. For decades we have tried to pretend nothing happened, to empty the concepts of participation until they became manipulations with no other outcome than a worsening not only in the conditions of the poorest but also, and above all, a growing loss of trust by the people involved in the proponents, whether they are agents of the United Nations, such as the FAO, bilateral agencies, governments or NGOs.

 

The key point is there: power, its dynamics and the asymmetries that are created. If we don't make an effort to understand them and fight them, the end result will only be worse. An axiom, which needs no demonstration.

 

That's why we must open the family case, the historical seat of power asymmetries, built over centuries of male domination reinforced by religious and political powers that have impeccably structured, in language, culture, customs and habits, this lack of equality. Just to remind our dear French cousins once again, just read the proclamations of the revolution of '89, and you will see how woman was simply not considered.

 

So, we can no longer consider the "familia" as an acceptable common basis for analyzing FF. We must go beyond that. Asymmetrical power dynamics do not heal themselves. Defending the FF(s), without going further, simply means supporting the status quo. And that is no longer acceptable. So, dear friends, let's get to work!