RURAL EDUCATION FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND FOOD SECURITY: FOOD FOR FOOD

1. RURAL EDUCATION FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND FOOD SECURITY: FOOD FOR FOOD María Cristina Plencovich Facultad de Agronomía, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Argentina IAASTD CLA www.agassessment.org

2. This presentation will focus mainly on some specific aspects related to rural education for sustainable development and food security under the light of the IAASTD Reports Some successful cases of formal and non-formal educational initiatives for food security in LAC will be presented and discussed.

3. A critical framework Food security and education are closely bound. education nourish feed So is poverty and rural population.

4. Education is a golden way to empower people to improve their activities or diversify them, increase their income, get and interpret information and make decisions, as well as foster resilience, strengthen social cohesion and participation, and promote ethical values. • Formal and non-formal educational systems pursue these goals through the developing of core, basic and subject-specific competencies.

5. Education for Rural Development (ERP) contributes to rural development and well being, including food security, health, employment, protection of the environment and management of natural resources, thus encompassing a broad educational approach to meet effectively and equitably the basic learning needs of rural children, out-of-school youth and adults, in the perspective of reducing rural poverty (Gasperini and Maguire, 2001).

6. And yet, why has education for rural people been so much neglected as a tool for food security?

7. Who are the main actors of the AKST systems?(IAASTD Global Report, SDM and SR, 2009).Poor smallholders, farm workers- women and indigenous communities- with limited access to external resources and formal education, but rich in indigenous and local knowledge and increasingly organized and adept at sharing knowledge and innovating.

8. Education is a conditio sine quanon for a sustainable development and an important driver to reduce poverty and assure food security Figure 1. A framework for understanding food security • Source: Adapted from IAASTD Global Report, 2009 [ Webb and Rogers, 2003].

9. Source: IAASTD GLOBAL REPORT, 2009

10. Four basic assumptions to analyze the relationship between FS and ERP (i) Hunger is not always related to productivity problems. (ii) Education for rural people is more than agricultural instruction; it is about strengthening modern family farming opportunities, rural people´s culture and identity; developing persons, relationships and values; it is a real Agropaideia (Plencovich, 1998). (iii) The educational system cannot and should not be explained as a black box, input-output system. Nor is a panacea healing all injuries. Teachers need training; teaching, research and development need investment; in turn,educational organizations need to be more participatory, less rigid and open to societal issues. (iv) Achieving food security requires joint efforts to bring in different actors and institutional arrangements to learn together and explore options for action. It has to do with people, entrepreneurial skills, governance, commitment, equity, ethical issues. [Based on IAASTD Global Reports, 2009]

11. Constraints Contribution to FS Pedagogic Directions for Change include Building partnerships between different actors and IAs Synergiesand complementarities No single actor or institution has the capacity to bring about effective change in basic education. Teacher specific training and update programs in peer groups, experiential learning, micro-teaching. Constructivist pedagogy. School gardens, etc. to incorporate rural development and food security in the curriculum. Time-planning harvest period for rural families, accommodation to nomadic populations. Project-based learning (PBL), ICTs as powerful tools for multi-grade learning. • Illiteracy • functional illiteracy • dropping out, low attendance, poor retention rates, • children rural work, (engagement in hazardous labour) • gender issues. • economic present crisis forces families to choose food or school. • Subject-matter: food safety, basic skills: literacy and numeracy; social skills, enhancement of cultural and identity as a foundation for attitudes and skills necessary for rural development. Primary Level

12. Constraints Contribution to FS Pedagogic Directions for Change include • Teacher specific training and update programs in team work • Collaborative learning approaches • Teaching/training would need to be supported through accessing opportunities provided by newer methodologies, including use of ICTs. Building capacity and leadership Project-based learning (PBL)‏ School canteen gardens, community gardens interaction with peers • Adolescents´ work • early parenthood • gender issues • not many agricultural or just secondary schools in rural areas • low enrollment rates • non- participative approaches in curriculum design and implementation • Subject-matter: FS in the context of a sustainable production (farm level)‏ Agroecological practices, No-till farming (ZF), organic farming importance of FS, the new role of market oriented agriculture, entrepreneurial skills, management for small and medium enterprises sustainable management for land, water and the environment, technical aspects of food technologies and processing. Secondary Level

13. University Level Constraints Contribution to FS Pedagogic Directions for Change include • Inclusion of heterogeneous knowledge actors[not only from the academic field!] in curricula design, research, teaching and extension. • Collaborative learning approaches • Teacher specific training and update programs in team work • Teaching/training in newer methodologies, including use of ICT platforms • Assessment skills • Project-based learning, Problem Based Learning, Case methodology, Simulation Techniques, Territorial studies Building capacity and leadership interaction with peers and non peers Adopting a long-term view for any change process. No ‘quick fixes’ or panaceas are available. • Low enrollment rates • Gender issues • Academic “green” brain drain in non-industrialized countries • Elitist attitudes towards university institutions involved in agriculture • insufficient application of participative and collaborative approaches in curricular designs, research and extension • Productivist Models,disciplinary Views, Mode 1 of knowledge production (Gibbons, 1996) still in place • Subject-matter: FS in the context of sustainable development. FS policies development, food sovereignty issues • Ag curricula addressing the importance of FS, and the new role of market oriented agriculture [systemic, integrated views, interdisiplinary/ transdisicplinary, Röling, 2004] • Agroecological practices. No-till farming (ZF) organic farming • Good ag practices, fair trade, equity issues, territorial labelling and certification • Recognition of local and indigenous knowledge • Entrepreneurial skills • Participative extension and research (community-based research)‏

14. Education and Food Security within LAC [IAASTD LAC Report, 2009]

15. Collaboration between Education, Environment, Health, Labour, Food and Agriculture Ministries and CSOs

16. Pergamino Rural Schools, Buenos Aires, Argentina Resilience, social nets, ethical issues, cooperation

17. Escuelas de la Familia Agrícola (EFAS) Family Farming Schools (LAC)‏ • World Food Programme (WFP) in Honduras and Perú • FEDIAP-Fundación ArgenINTA agreements • FA-UBA university curriculum

18. In brief, options for action • Place family farming and rural families at the forefront, understand their needs, integrate as appropriate local and traditional knowledge with formal AKSTD in curriculum designs • Allow for the full engagement of rural actors in all aspects of the curricula design and implementation, as well as in extension and research

19. In brief, options for action • Recognize the critical role of women in rural education and FS and empower them (intellectual/communicative/entrepreneurial skills) to acces to intelelctual property rights, credits, modern agricultural practices • Increase public and private sector investment in rural teaching, research and development, and extension services

20. In brief, options for action • Most of today’s hunger problems can be addressed with appropriate use of current technologies, emphasizing agroecological practices. Incorporate ZF, or minimum tillage, IPM and INRM and other agroecological practices in curriculum activities • Articulate the different levels of rural education. Is it a real educational system?

21. In brief, options for action • Renew the social pact educational institutions have with society through critical self-reflection and consensus building

22. Thank you very much

23. REFERENCES Atchoarena, David and Gasperini, L. (coord. & ed.) (2004). Education for rural development: towards new policy responses. FAO and UNESCO. Bourdieu, Pierre (1990), The Logic of Practice, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press . Costantini, A.; Plencovich, MC.; Bocchicchio, A.; Ayala Torales, A.; Schindler, V. , Mella, A. and Zúcaro , G. 2008. PICTO Project Number 36407. Education, rurality, and territory in the Humid Pampas: actors and institutional arrangements. MINCYT-FAUBA. FAO 2007. Sustainable Development Department of the FAO, Sustainable Rural Development: Progress and Challenges. Education, Training and Extension (FAO, Rome, 2007). FAO Statistics Division,Equality of dietary energy consumption distribution, September 17, 2008. Available at http://www.fao.org/es/ess/faostat/foodsecurity/index_en.htm, access March 13, 2009. García-Marirrodriga, R., and P. Puig Calvó. 2007. Formación en alternancia y desarrollo local. Aidefa, Rosario. Gasperini, L.; Maguire, C. 2001. Targeting the rural poor: the role of education and training. Rome: FAO. Gasperini, L. 2000. The Cuban education system: lessons and dilemmas. Washington DC: World Bank. Hartwell, Ash; DeStefano, Joseph and Benbow , Jane ( 2004)Achieving EFA in Underserved Regions, EQUIP2, available at http://www.equip123.net/docs/e2- EFAregions_PolicyBrief.pdf, access March 21, 2009. IAASTD Global Assessment (2009). Agriculture at a crossroads. Island press: Washington. Moscovici, S. (1981), “On social representation”, en J.P. Forgas (Comp.). Social cognition. Perspectives in everyday life, Academic Press, London. Plencovich, María Cristina; Costantini, Alejandro O. and Bocchicchio, A. (2009), La educación agropecuaria, génesis y estructura, Buenos Aires, Ciccus. Röling, Niels (2004). La comunicación para el desarrollo en la investigación, la extensión y la educación, IX Mesa Redonda de las Naciones Unidas sobre Comunicación para el Desarrollo, Roma, FAO, l 6-19 September, 2004. UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS)/UNICEF (2005) "Children Out of School: Measuring Exclusion from Primary Education", Education for All by 2015. Will we make it?, (2008). Unesco- Oxford University Press. World Food Programme (2008). Rises in Prices, Markets and Food and Nutritional Insecurity in Central America” (October 2008). World Food Programme (2009). School Meals, available at http://www.wfp.org/school-meals, access March 13, 2009.