¿Who learns from whom? Social networks of knowledge exchange …elikadura21.eus/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/85-Oteros... · 2017-04-22 · around the principles of Food Sovereignty

www.elikadura21.eus

ELFUTURODELAALIMENTACIÓNYRETOSDELAAGRICULTURAPARAELSIGLOXXI:Debatessobrequién,cómoyconquéimplicacionessociales,económicasyecológicasalimentaráelmundo.

THEFUTUREOFFOODANDCHALLENGESFOR

AGRICULTUREINTHE21stCENTURY:Debatesaboutwho,howandwithwhatsocial,economicandecological

implicationswewillfeedtheworld.ELIKADURARENETORKIZUNAETANEKAZARITZARENERRONKAKXXI.MENDERAKO:Munduanork,nolaetazer-nolakoinplikaziosozial,ekonomikoetaekologikorekinelikatukoduenizangodaeztabaidagaia

¿Wholearnsfromwhom?Socialnetworksofknowledgeexchangebetweennewand

localpastoralists

ElisaOteros-Rozas,KarinRüde,IsabelDíaz-ReviriegoPaper#85

Apirila–Abril–April24,25,262017

Elfu

turodelaalim

entación

ylaAgriculturaenelSigloXXI.

1

¿Wholearnsfromwhom?Socialnetworksofknowledgeexchangebetweennewandlocal

pastoralists¿Quiénaprendedequién?Redesdeintercambiodesaberesentreganaderos/asnuevos/asylocales.

ElisaOteros-Rozas,KarinRüde,IsabelDíaz-Reviriego

Pleasenotethatthisisaworkinprogress:someinformationhasyetnotbeenprocessedandtheaimofthiscommunicationistosharepreliminaryresultsandreceivefeedbackfromtheICAScommunity.Othercolleagueshaveparticipatedintheresearchandwillco-authorafinalversionofthisresearchthataimsatbeingpublished.WearehencegratefulifthedistributionislimitedtotheICAcolloquiumparticipants,andnotpostedonline.

Resumen

El desarrollo de proyectos agroecológicos ganaderos presenta dificultadesespecialesrelacionadasconlagestiónsocialdelosrequerimientosdelmanejodeganado, las normativas higiénico-sanitarias que regulan la producción ycomercializacióndeproductosdeorigenanimal, elmenor consumocotidianodelosproductosderivados,olasdificultadesparaaprendereloficio,entreotros.Sinembargo,enalgunaszonasdemontañalaganaderíaextensivaestásiendounadelas actividades recuperadas por el nuevo campesinado emergente bajo losprincipios de la agroecología y la soberanía alimentaria. La recuperación eintegración de diferentes saberes ecológicos es un concepto central en ambosparadigmas.Alhilodeestasreflexionesnospreguntamos:¿cómoeslaganaderíaextensiva hoy enuna zonademontaña cercanaa una ciudad comoes la SierraNorte de Madrid?; ¿cómo y de quién aprenden los/as nuevos/as campesinos acriarganado?;¿jueganlasmujeresyloshombrespapelesdiferentesenelflujodesaberes? Para abordar estas preguntas analizamos las redes de intercambio deconocimiento ecológico entre ganaderos/as a través de una aproximaciónmetodológica mixta, integrando datos y análisis cualitativos (entrevistas) ycuantitativos (métrica de análisis socio-céntrico de redes sociales) y conperspectivadegénero.Enconcreto,exploramosdiferenciasenfunciónde1)eltipode ganadería; 2) las características de los/as entrevistados/as (sexo, edad, añosviviendo en área rural, educación formal y ocupación principal), 3) las áreas deconocimiento (manejo del rebaño, sanidad animal, partos, esquileo,administración y burocracia, adquisición de insumos y comercialización deproductos)y4)lasfuentesdeconocimiento(ej.personas,libros,cursos,internet).Los resultados nos muestran cómo existen dos modelos ganaderos claramentediferenciados: quienes manejan vacuno de carne en circuito convencional, contradiciónganaderafamiliaryorigenenlazona,yquienes,llegadosenlosúltimos5-15 años y sin tradición familiar, suelen compartir en cooperativa rebaños decabrasuovejas,amenudoderazasautóctonas,apartirdelasquecomercializandiversosproductosatravésdecircuitoscortos.Mientraslosprimerosintercambianinformaciónsóloensucírculomáscercano,lossegundosformanunareddensaen

Elfu

turodelaalim

entación


2

casi todos losámbitosdeconocimiento.Losúnicosnodosqueunenambasredesen todos los casos son mujeres, nuevas campesinas. Los resultados pueden serútilespara identificar tantoactoresclavesenel flujodeconocimientoecológico,como vacíos en estas redes que puedan estar limitando el intercambio deinformación. Asimismo, los resultados permiten visibilizar el papel clave de lasmujeres en la ganadería, así cómo reflexionar entorno a discursos feministas yprácticasdelnuevocampesinadoemergente.

1.Introduction

1.1Industrialisationoffarmingandlandabandonment

AgroecosystemsoftheMediterraneanBasinarethreatenedbytwomaindriversof change: rural abandonment of mountainous and less productive areas, andland-use intensification of fertile areas (e.g. Caraveli, 2000). Both trends arejeopardizingtheMediterraneanmultifunctionallandscape,whichoriginatedfromhistorical co-evolution of human societies and the natural environment (e.g.Blondel, 2006), endangering the high biodiversity of the Mediterranean Basin(Zamora et al., 2007) as well as rural livelihoods and economies Theindustrialisationoffarmingcametogetherwithintensification,simplificationandspecialisationoflandusepractices,aswellaswithanoverallculturalcontemptforwhat is considered “rural”,what caused the abandonmentof extensive farmingpracticesandtheexpulsionofpeoplefromtheland.Theparadigmofmodernity,speedandurbanidentitieschangedrurallifeandsucceededindecouplingpeoplefrom their environment (Monllor 2013). Public policies, both national andEuropean,sofarhavelargelyfailedtohamperthistrends(Beaufoyetal.,2012).

In Spain, cities host 80% of the population, above the European average. Thisunbalancecreatesunequal relationsbetweencitiesandcountryside.Behindthisprocess,laysaseriesofsocio-economicandpolitic-institutionalprocessesthatarelegitimatedbythesubjectedinvolvedandbythesymbolicandculturalmatrix inwhich they are embedded (Entrena, 2008). By the 1960s, Spain had entered aperiodofrapideconomicdevelopmentthatledtoamassiveruralexodusandtheintensificationofagriculture(Pineda,2001).TheintegrationofSpainintheEUandthe introduction of the Common Agricultural Policy accelerated this process byprovidingincentivesforintensification(Caraveli,2000).Theruralexodusandtheconsequent and progressive abandonment of traditional resource managementpractices with technification and sedentarisation fostered the replacement oflocal/traditionalecologicalknowledgewithnewformsofknowledgeandpractices(Gómez-Baggethun et al., 2012). Nevertheless, the description and analysis oftraditional farmingpracticescanserveasreferencepointtothedevelopmentofnew agroecosystems and identify possible avenues for local endogenous ruraldevelopment(AcostaNaranjo,2002).

In the case of Spain, agricultural intensification started later than in the rest ofSouthern Europe, so many traditional farming practices have survived and arerelatedwithsocalledHighNatureValueSystems(Caraveli,2000).SincethelargedeclineofruralpopulationinSpainbetweenthe1960sandthe1990s(Gómez-Saletal.,2011),ruralpopulationhasincreasedinabsoluteterms(MAGRAMA,2010).

Elfu

turodelaalim

entación


3

However, in relative terms, the shareof thepopulation leaving in ruralareasofSpain has been decreasing and agricultural employment continues to decline(Burgaz,2009;Gómez-Saletal.,2011).

1.2Thechange:newemergentpeasantries

Luckily, not all farmers turned into producers or disappeared but a good shareresistedandreclaims itspeasantcondition (Ploeg,2008),also inSpain (Monllor,2011, 2013). This resistance, together with a new generation of peasants,understands social-nature relations as a social-ecological compromise, andbelievesinsocialcommitmentforequitableandsustainableagrifoodsystemsthatconstitute political devices for transformation. This so called new emergentpeasantries are blossoming all over the world and building a new paradigmaroundtheprinciplesofFoodSovereigntyandAgroecology.InSpaincurrently,asin previousmoments of economic crisis, a back-to-the-countryside, neo-rural ornew peasants movement (e.j. Rodríguez Eguizabal and Tabada Crende, 1991;Monllor,2011)istakingplace.Initiatives(mostlygroupsofyoungurbandwellers)aiming at the revitalization of abandoned-low productive land or abandonedtowns,andatre-establishingamodelofagricultureforthegenerationofsocial,cultural, economic andecological richnessunder sustainabilityprinciples (SevillaGuzmán and González de Molina, 1993), have been developing all over Spainparticularlyinmountainousregions.

The food sovereignty movement is playing a critical role in the articulation ofdiscourses and spreading of practices, including rhe setting up of consumers-farmers networks. Monllor (2013) defines the so-called “agrosocial paradigm”around 8 components: local scale, diversity, the environment, cooperation,innovation, autonomy, social commitmentand slow focus. Thenewparadigm isrooted in the recoveryof traditional farmingpractices thatarebasedon:1) therotation of uses and the combination of agriculture, livestock rising and forestmanagement; 2) forms of resource extraction that require a great amount oflabourforcebutlittlenutrient,pesticideandmechanicalinputs;3)anorientationtowards the production for subsistence and local markets; and 4) culturaltraditionsandnormsthatevolveandadapttomaintainagroecosystems,includingtraditional ecological knowledge and diversity of formal and non formalinstitutions(Berkesetal.,2000;Fischeretal.,2012).

1.3Pastoralismanditssocial-ecologicalfunctions

Aparticularlyrelevanttraditionalfarmingpractice,bothintermsofsustenanceoflivelihoodsandintermsoflandscapemanagementispastoralism.Theexpansionofpasturelands in theworld since the industrial revolutionhasbeen the largestlandusechangeintermsofsurface(Ellisetal.,2010)sothatpermanentgrasslandsmaintainedbypastoralismoccupy26%of terrestrial surface in theplanet (FAO,2013) and approximately one third of the farming area of the EU. Pastoralismsustains ca. 200 millions households (FAO, 2001) and its socio-economicimportanceatagloballeveliswidelyrecognised(e.g.Rodríguez,2008).Pastoral

Elfu

turodelaalim

entación


4

traditional farming practices are particularly relevant in mountainous and ruralareas (Hatfield et al., 2006) and in the Mediterranean context they are alsoacknowledgedfortheirroleinbiodiversityconservation(Oppermannetal.,2012).

Beyondeconomicandecologicalimplications,pastoralismisoftenreferredtoasaculture on itself, comprising: a pull of adaptations to environmental conditions;the use of consuetudinary regulations and traditional institutions; communalmanagement of land (as a tool to minimize risk in front of the large spatialvariabilityofprimaryproductivityatsmallscales);thecultureofmonitoringoftheconditionsofpasturelands; the specializationofwomen,menandyoungsters indifferenttasksrelevantforthewholecommunity;theconfidenceinthevalueofeldersasrepositoriesofknowledgeandwisdominfrontofrecurringdisturbance,amongothers(MARM,2011).

Pastoralism-relatedagroecosystemsprovidecriticalfunctionsbutarethreatenbyaseriesofdriversofchangesuchasland-usechanges,intensivemanagementandabandonment (Gibon, 2005; Beaufoy et al., 2012). In fact pastoralism isconsideredamong themost vulnerable life strategies in theworld (e.g.Altieri yKoohafkan, 2004; Fernández-Giménez y Le Febre, 2006; Dong et al., 2011),affected by integration in the global market, sedentarisation policies, landspoliationand landgrabbing,and institutional limitationshinderingmigrationofnomadic populations (Davies y Hatfield, 2007; Galvin, 2009; Sulieman, 2013).Pastoralists have beendisplacednot only geographically, but also economically,socially and culturally, in a process that has exacerbated during the XX century(Ruiz,2001).

1.4Local/traditionalpastoralism-relatedecologicalknowledge

In the same fashion, pastoralist knowledge, as all othertraditional/local/indigenous knowledge (hereby LEK) have tended to erodewithmarketintegration,mechanization,technologicalchangeandtheenforcementofsanitary regulations (e.g. Ruiz and Ruiz, 1989; Barrios et al., 1992; Gómez-Baggethunetal.,2012;Oteros-Rozasetal.2013).LEKandhasindeedbeen,sincethe industrialization of farming, disregarded and displaced by other forms ofknowledgesuchas the scientific.Definedas thecumulativebodyofknowledge,practices, and beliefs regarding the relationships of living things to theirenvironment that evolves by adaptive processes and is handed down throughgenerations (Berkesetal.2000),LEK isat thecoreof traditional farmingand itsidentitiesandcultures,includingpastoralism.

Assuch,LEKcanplayarole intherevitalisationof local traditions inthefaceofglobalisation trends (Pardo de Santayana and Gómez Pellón 2003). Its recoveryand adaptation is a current challenge acknowledged within agroecology: it isembeddedinthelocalcultureandenvironment;itisdynamic,constantlyadjustedandadaptedtonewsocialandenvironmentalcircumstances,evolvingthroughacombinationof long-termecologicalunderstandingand learning fromcrisesandmistakes (BerkesandTurner2006;OlssonandFolke2001); and it increases thecapacity of socialecological systems to deal with crises and maintain resourceflowsinchanginganduncertainconditions(Berkesetal.,2000;Folkeetal.,2003)what is critical in the current moment of agriculture. Previous works ofpastoralism-related LEK (hereby PEK) have explored the relation of its

Elfu

turodelaalim

entación


5

transmission and use with transhumance along a Spanish drove road (Oteros-Rozasetal.2013);Valipouretal. (2014)gatheredthecomponentsoftraditionalsilvopastoralmanagement in oak forests of Iran and investigated the effects ofthesepracticeson forest stand structure; Fernández-GiménezandFillat Estaque2012exploredtheapplicationsofLEKtoresourcemanagementandadaptationintheSpanishPyrenees;Knappetal.(2011)analysedhowranchersontheWestofthe USA acquire their knowledge and how this knowledge varies within theranching community; Dabasso et al. (2012) explored herders’ knowledge ofassessingandmonitoringrangelandqualityatlandscapelevelinnorthernKenya,amongothers.

1.5Socialnetworkanalysisofknowledgeexchange

Integrating LEK with other forms of knowledge such as technical and scientificknowledge is a central concept within agroecology. In fact, the need to bridgescientific knowledge and LEK has been indicated as an important step for thesuccessfulgovernanceandmanagementofsocialecologicalsystems(e.g.Tengöetal., 2014) and knowledge transmission might be even more important thanknowledgeperse.AusefulmethodologicaltoolfortheexplorationofknowledgeflowsisSocialNetworkAnalysis(SNA).SNAfacilitatestheunderstandingofpowerstructureswithinanygroup,hencehelpingtodisentanglethelinksbetweensocialcapital and collective action in natural resourcemanagement and within socialmovements(e.g.Gould,1993;BorgattiandFoster,2003;Siegel,2009;BodinandPrell,2011;).SNAcontributesto identifysubgroups innetworkstructures,whichcomplementstheunderstandingofintra-communitypowerrelationsandpossiblespecializations(GirvanandNewman,2002).BodinandCrona(2009)reviewedtheresearchonSNAandnatural resourcemanagementand identified theexistenceof social networks as a common and important denominator in cases wheredifferent stakeholders have come together to effectively deal with naturalresource problems and dilemmas. In agriculture and agroforestry, information,both from an external origin (e.g. new techniques in using pesticides inagroforestry), as well as generated within the network (e.g. which species aremost suitable for the local ecosystem), flows through informal social ties (e.g.Isaac et al. 2007). However, networks of knowledge exchange betweenpastoralistshaveyetnotbeenstudied,northeLEKflowsbetweennewpeasantsandotherfarmers.

1.6Agenderperspective

Another key issue in environmental research, also central to the agroecologyparadigm, is the issue of gender,which unfortunately remains rarely addressed(e.g. Banerjee and Belell, 2007; Reed and Christie, 2008). As environmentalmanagement, biodiversity conservation, migration patterns between the citiesandthecountrysideandsmall-scalefarming,alsothegenerationandtransmissionof LEK is clearly gendered (e.g. Zweifel, 1997; Leach, 2006; Reyes-García et al.,2010; Pérez Soriano, 2013; Díaz-Reveriego, 2016). The lack of women inpastoralism has been a critical issue compromising generational renewal in thisfarming practice and further fostering agrarian and rural masculinization(Fernández-Giménez and Fillat Estaque 2012, Oteros-Rozas et al. 2013).

Elfu

turodelaalim

entación


6

Moreover,theuseofLEKisdefinedbythesexualdivisionoflabourandthisaffectthelearningandsharingprocess(Díaz-Reveriego,2016):forinstance,womenareoftenmore linked to small-scale and/or agroecological agriculture (Reyes-Garcíaet al., 2010; Flament-Ortun et al. 2017). Yet,women’s knowledgewasprobablythe type of knowledge thatmost suffered in Spainwith the industrialization ofagriculture (Siliprandi and Zuluaga, 2014). This supports the application of atransversalgenderperspectiveinthestudyofnewpeasantries.

Within the above-mentioned context, the main aim of the present paper is toexplore the flow of PEK between farmers of the Sierra Norte ofMadrid.Moreprecisely,weaddress the following researchquestions:1)What farmingmodelscurrently exist in the Sierra Norte of Madrid? 2) Are there differences in thefarmingmodelaccordingtothesocio-demographiccharacteristicsoffarmers?3)Whatarethemostimportantsourcesofinformationforlivestockfarmers?and4)How does PEK about livestock management, animal health and administrativeissuesflowbetweenfarmers?

Elfu

turodelaalim

entación


7

2.Studyarea

This studywas conducted in the regionSierraNorteofMadrid,north-east fromthecapitalcityofMadrid,inthecentreoftheSpain(IberianPeninsula,Fig.1).Theregion comprises 42 municipalities covering 1,253 km² and hosting more than26,000 inhabitants (population density of 32 inhabitants/km2).We selected forthe present study all themunicipalitieswere newpastoralist had established inthe last 15 yearswithouthavingany family relationshipwith theactivity. Thesewere:Bustarviejo,Berzosa,Madarcos,Montejode laSierra,Pueblade laSierra,RobregordoandValdemanco).

Fig.1. Study area: seven municipalities within the Sierra de Norte de Madrid,Madrid(centralSpain).

The Sierra Norte of Madrid is divided in a mountainous area (siliceous) andagricultural lowlands (calcareous), and it is crossed by the Lozoya river,interruptedby5dams.Thealtituderangesfromcirca800mto1,900m.Thestudyarea is located in the Mediterranean ecoregion characterised by cold andhumidityinthesummits,withupto1,000mmofrainfallperyearandvalleyswitha fresh and sub-humid climatewithup to600mmof rainfall per year (PAMAM,2001).Theaveragetemperatureisbetween8ºCand11ºC.Themostrelevantwildspecies,particularly intheupperareas,aretheoak(Quercuspyrenaica)andtheash tree (Fraxinus angustifolia). Several protected areas cover the study area,including the Man and Biosphere Reserve “Sierra del Rincón” (UNESCO), theNationalPark“SierradeGuadarrama”,theNaturalPark“PeñalarayelValledeElPaular”,severalSPAsandSCIs(HabitatDirective)andprotectedforests.

Accordingtothethroughoutreviewofthesocial-ecologicalhistoryoftheareabyAceituno (2010), in spiteof the relativevicinity to thecityofMadrid, theSierraNorte,inthemountainouspartoftheregion,hastraditionallybeenaremoteand

Elfu

turodelaalim

entación


8

inaccessible region,with a steeporography, poor soils and a harsh climate thatproduceda largedependenceon localnatural resourcesandhence justified thedevelopmentofasubsistenceeconomy.Thiswashoweverastrategicpointinthenaturalconnectivitybetweenthenorthernandthesouthernregionsofthecentralplateau(Somosierramountainpass).DuringtheIXandXcenturytheSierraNorteof Madrid (Al-Sharrat in Arab) was the border between Christian and Muslimterritories and the region where Bereber pastoralists lived (Vías, 2002). It wasprobably under the Arab influence that the irrigation network of “caceras” and“regueras”wasbuilt(Aceituno,2010).Sincethere-occupationbyAlfonsoVIintheXcentury,thesubsistenceeconomywasbasedlargelyonpastoralismgrazingonpasturelands under common forests, allowing seasonal movements of livestock(transterminance) (FernándezMontes, 1990). Around the XVII century commonland represented more than half of the mountainous parts of the area (SaénzPombo,2000),whathasacriticalroleevenintoday’sdevelopmentopportunities,asithashistoricallyallowedinhabitantstodeveloptheonlyactivitiesadaptedtothe harsh environment: pastoralism and the exploitation of forest resources(FernándezMontes,1992;SaézPombo,2000).IntheModernAgetranshumancewaspracticedtotheareatoExtremaduraandtransterminancewasdonetothemountain summits, both through and extensive network of drove roads.Pastoralism,mostlyofmerinoandchurrasheep,wasindeedthemainlivelihood,economicactivityandlanduseinthearea:thewoolwasawell-paidproductthatwasexportedpriortotransformation(FernándezMontes,1990). IntheXVIIandXIX centuries the socioeconomic structure of the region fell in crisis due to thecollapseofthefeudalregimeandthebreakdownofthewoolmarketandMesta(acenturies-old institution of livestock farmers) (Fernández Montes, 1990). Thepowerful oligarchy controlling livestock disappeared from the region, leavingmixedcrop-livestockfarmsforsubsistence.IntheXIXcenturytheareafellunderthegovernanceofMadridprovince.Naturalresourcemanagementwassincethenincreasingly influenced by the requirements ofMadrid city: firstmainly for theprovisionofwaterandcharcoal.Atthistimetwolandconfiscationsendupinthetransformationofmanycommonlands(exceptthedehesasboyales) intoprivateproperty, bought either by foreign enterprises or by local dwellers, eitherindividuallyorinassociations(PAMAM,1990).

IntheearlyXXcentury,tourismandsecond-homehousingdevelopmentstartstodevelop in the area due to the increase in mobility. However, this trend wasstronger in the “Sierra rica” (rich mountains), i.e. the most western area, withbetteraccessibilitybyroadandrailway.TheSierraNorteofMadridisinfactalsoknownas“Sierrapobre”(poormountains).

Thistransitionwashoweverinterruptedbytheestablishmentofthebattlefrontinthisareaduring thecivilwar inSpain in the1930s.The fratricideconflictwithintownswas lighterthan inotherregionsbutthosetimesarestill rememberedashard. Itwasnotuntil themidXXcentury that roads,waterandenergy facilitiesweredevelopedinthearea.

Inspiteofallthepoliticalandsocioeconomicchangesinthearea,thetraditionalfarmingsystemwasmaintaineduntilthe1960s,whenFranco’spoliciesaimedatfosteringmigration,particularlytothecities.Thisincreasedwagesinfarmingandforcedtomechanizeagriculturetoachieveeconomicprofitability(Naredo,2004).Thosewithnocapacitytoacquiremachinerywerehencedisplacedfromfarming.The forced rural-urban exodus changed also the traditional socio-economic

Elfu

turodelaalim

entación


9

model:fromonebasedontheuseoflocalnaturalresourcesforself-sufficiency,toa market-oriented model. With the crisis of the traditional farming systemsagriculture,forestmanagement(e.g.theimplantationofbutanegastriggeredtheabandonment of charcoal production) and pastoralism (Fig.2) were largelyabandoned.Inthesevenmunicipalitiesofthestudyareathenumberoflivestockunitshasoverallbeendecreasingsin1989(Fig.3)

Fig.2. Livestock census in the region of Madrid between 1985 and 2015 (inthousands of animal heads) (Source: Instituto Estadístico de la Comunidad deMadrid).

Fig.3.Numberof livestockunits inthesevenmunicipalitiesselectedforthestudybetween1989and2009(Source:InstitutoEstadísticodelaComunidaddeMadrid).

Landscapeswerelargelytransformedduetothesechangesand27%ofpopulationmigratedoutfromtheareabetween1958and1972(PAMAM,1990).Amongthesocio-cultural consequences of this crisis, two are regarded as particularlyrelevant: there was an interruption of the bidirectional flow of ecologicalknowledgewith theoutside, so thatmany traditional farmingpractices fell intodisreputeandweresubstitutedbymoderntechnologies(Aceituno,2010);andasaresult,adisregardofthelocalcultureandtraditionswasgenerated,hencede-rootingpeoplefromtheirland(AcostaNaranjo,2002).

Incontrastwiththetrendinotherregionsofthecountry,afterthelossof18.7%of population during the rural exodus between 1900 and 1981, the populationincreasedin145.8%between1981and2016(Fig.4).Aceituno(2010)explainsthedemographicrecoveryintheSierraNorteofMadridsincethe1980sinrelationto

Elfu

turodelaalim

entación


10

fourphenomena:1)anincreaseinthelabourmarketdotoboththedevelopmentofthetertiarysector,particularlyinrelationtorecreation,andthepossibilityforcommutingtothecityofMadrid;2)toareturnofemigrantstotheirhometownsafterretirement;3)totheregistrationasresidentsof“sonsofthetowns”thatstillhave their secondhouse in theareaandconstitutea floatingpopulationduringweekendsandsummer;and4)tothearrivalofnewcomers,withnorootsintheareaorevenintheruralworld,butwhochosetheregiontolivebecauseoflowerhousing prices, amore relaxedway of living, a healthy environment and/or, insomecases,opportunitiesforthedevelopmentof farming initiatives.Withinthelastgroup,twocategoriescouldbedistinguished,foreignimmigrants(ca.20%in2009)andsocalled“neorurals”(Aceituno,2010).However,therapidincreaseinthe population shown by the statistics is somehow fictitious, given that on onehand most of the newcomers only actually reside during summer but, on thehand, they largely influence local political decisions. Therefore, the region hassomehow become a sub-urban area, what entails certain socio-economicimplications.

Fig.4.EvolutionofthepopulationoftheSierraNorteofMadridduringtheXXandearlyXXIcentury(Source:InstitutoEstadísticodelaComunidaddeMadrid).

To a certain extent, due to the above mentioned socio-demographic trends,traditionalfarmingpractices,suchasgardeningandpastoralismhavesurvivedintheareaandadaptedtonewconditionsandrapidchanges.Anexampleofthisistheappearance, inthelastyears,ofwhatcouldbeidentifiedwithnewpeasantsthat have started or are currently in the first steps of developing farminginitiatives. The two best known examples are “La Troje”, a cooperative that isrecovering local agrobiodiversity by reproducing and commercialising locallandraces; and “LosApisquillos”, a pastoralist cooperative and living communitythatwasthefirstgroupofnewpeasantsarrivingtothearea15yearsagoandthathashenceactedas a sortof “pastoralism school”.Other initiatives relatedwiththedevelopmentof theagroecologicalmovement in theSierraNorteofMadridare “LaMora” (a community of exchangewith a complementary currency), the“UniPoSiBLE”(apopularuniversityorganisedonavoluntarybasisbyandforlocalinhabitants,largelyneorurals),andseveralresponsibleconsumptioncooperativesthataimatshorteningcommercialchainsbetweenproducersandconsumers.

Inparallel,theagroecologymovementhasseenaboomintheregionofMadrid,particularly since the creation in 2012 of the platform “Madrid Agroecológico”that is contributing to the coordination of producers, for instance for thedevelopment of a participatory certification systems and the organisation ofpeasantmarketsinthecityofMadrid.

Elfu

turodelaalim

entación


11

3.Methods

Thisstudyispartofalargerprojecttitled“REVERDEA-Navigatingtherural-urbancontinuum under a socialecological perspective” (www.reverdea.com), anAndalucíaTalentHubpostdoctoralgrant (fundedbytheMarieCurieprogramoftheEurpeanResearchCouncilandtheAndalusianKnowledgeAgency).REVERDEAexploresthesocial-ecologicalimpactsofthe“backtothecountryside”movementand the relatednewemergent ruralities andpeasantries, its challenges and theopportunities they entail for socialecological sustainability and resilience. Theprojectemergesastheresultofthreeprocessesandrelatedreflectionsdevelopedbythefirstauthor:apersonallivingchoicetomovetoanareanearbytheSierraNorte of Madrid, the Sierra de Guadarrama (2009-2011); an active role in theagroecology and food sovereignty grassrootsmovement inMadrid (2008-2012)andataSpanishscale(2008-currently);andanacademicinterestforthestudyofsocial-ecological systems under mixed-lenses of political (agro)ecology,environmentalanthropologyandfeminism.

3.1Datacollection

The results presented in this paper are based on a mixed methods approach(Domínguez and Hollstein, 2014) including: 1) participatory observation(December-March2016),2)indepthface-to-faceopeninterviews(N=34),and(3)face-to-facestructuredinterviewswithlivestockfarmers(N=49).Ourfocuswasonall pastoralists from the municipalities were someone had installed as newpastoralistinthelast15yearswithouthavinganypreviousconnectiontotheareaand/ortofarming.Tocreatethecensus,weusedthesnowballsamplingmethodand we counted on the collaboration of an officer from the Delegation OfAgricultureAndLivestock(agrarianoffice)intheareathatpre-contactedmanyofthem.Wereached90%ofallactivelivestockfarmersinsevenmunicipalitiesand73%ofthemagreedtobeinterviewed.Theinterviewslastedbetween40and90minutesandwereconductedintheirfarm,orinthefarmer’stownofresidency.

The structured interviews were organised in 6 modules: personal socio-demographicinformation(Table1);characteristicsofthefarm(Table1);networksfortheexchange(givingandreceiving)ofecologicalknowledgeinthepastandthepresent,aroundsixdomains(livestockmanagementincludingherding,farrowing,animalhealth,shearing,collection/buyingandstorageofinputs,administrationofthefarmandproductselling);networksfortheexchange(givingandreceiving)ofhelp inthepastandthepresent,aroundthesamesixsamedomains;sharingoftools;andsourceofinnovations

Table1.Listofvariablesextractedfromthestructuredinterviews(excludingnamegeneratorsforthesocialnetworkanalysis).

Socio-demographics Descriptionofthefarm

Age %ofincomefromfarming

Gender %offarmingincomefromsubsidies

Elfu

turodelaalim

entación


12

Socio-demographics Descriptionofthefarm

Yearslivinginthearea Daysperweekdedicatedtofarming

Householdsize Hours/daydedicatedtofarming

Single/Non-Single Number and each type of livestock:cows,sheep,goatandpoultry

Occupationofpartner Numberofdifferentproducts

Fatherwaslivestockfarmer Productionofmeat

Motherwaslivestockfarmer Productionofmilk

Yearsinfarming Productionofcheese

Farmingasmainoccupation Productionofyogurt

Participation in associations (tradeunion, cooperative, hunting,environmental)

Productionofeggs

Schooling Destinationàselfconsumption

Incomeperpersoninthehousehold Destinationàdirectsale

Destinationàwholesale

Destinationàbarter

Number of rustic/autochthonousbreeds

Organicfeeding

Communalgrasslands

Leasedgrasslands

Owngrasslands

Rentedgrasslands

Inordertobetterfocusandaddresstheobjectivespresented,inthispaperwearepresentingpreliminaryresultsonthreeofthenetworksofknowledgeexchange:livestockmanagement,animalhealthandadministrationofthefarm.The“namegenerators” for the SNA were “Who do you share your knowledge about “…”with?” and “Who shares his/her knowledge about “…” with you?”. We useddistinguished name generators and domains to ensure as much relations aspossiblewererevealedbutwehaveanalysedthedataasabidirectionalnetwork,for three of the domains. Hereby, within the network, we will refer to theinterviewees as “egos” and to the people or elementsmentioned by them butwhohavenotbeeninterviewed,as“alteri”.

Elfu

turodelaalim

entación


13

3.2Dataanalysis

Inordertoanswerthefirstquestion“WhatfarmingmodelscurrentlyexistintheSierraNorteofMadrid?”weranaprincipalcomponentanalysis(PCA)withallthevariablesdescribingthecharacteristicsofthefarm.Thenumberofaxesretainedfor thenext stepwasbasedon theKaiser criterion (eigenvalue>1). To identifypotential groupsof farmerswe carriedout a hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA),basedontheEuclideansquaredistanceandWard’sagglomerativemethod,withthestandardizedcoordinatesofthefirstaxesfromthePCA(Ward,1963).

Weaddressedthesecondquestion(“Aretheredifferences inthefarmingmodelaccording to thesocio-demographiccharacteristicsof farmers?”) throughMann-Whitney and Chi2 tests with the socio-demographic information. In order toexplorewhatarethemostimportantsourcesofinformationfordifferenttypesofpastoralists(thirdquestion)wealsousedMann-WhitneyandChi2tests.

FortheSNAweadoptedasociocentricapproach.Weusedtheopensourceandfreetool“R”,particularly“igraph”,“sand”and“NetIndices”packagesfornetworkanalysis and visualisation. In order to tackle our fourth question “How doespastoralistknowledgeflowbetweenfarmers?”,wecalculatednetworkmetricsofnode centrality and network density. There are various ways to define andmeasure centrality in social networks butwe focused on the twomost distincttypes of centrality: degree and betweenness (Bodin and Crona 2009). We alsodepicted the network graphs. Given that standard inferential statistical toolscannotbeappliedtoSNA(HannemanandRiddle,2005),weusedWilcoxontestswith random permutations to test potential differences in node centralitybetweendifferenttypesoffarmersandbetweenmenandwomen,combinedwithaqualitativeanalysisofthegraphs.

4.Results

4.1Characteristicsoffarms

SevenfactorsfromthePCApresentedaneigenvaluehigherthatonebutonlythefirst three factorsaccounted formore than82%of thevariability (Table2). Thefirstfactorwaspositivelyrelatedtohighernumbersofsheep,goatsandpoultry,aswellasanoverall largerdiversityof livestock; frequently fromautochthonousor rustic breeds; production ofmeat,milk, cheese, yogurt and eggs; only usingorganic feeding; oriented to self-consumption, direct sale and/or barter. In thenegativesideofthefirstfactortherewerefarmerswithmorecattlethatselltheirproducts through wholesale chains. The second factor related with morehours/weekdedicated topastoralism in thepositive side,andpasturelands thatareowned,inthenegativeside.Thethirdfactorwaspositivelyrelatedwithhigherincomeandlargersharesofthisincomecomingfromsubsidies(Fig.5A).TheHCAclearly showed two groups of farmers according to the characteristics of theirfarms(Fig.5B).

Elfu

turodelaalim

entación


14

Table 2. Factor loadings derived from principal component analysis (PCA) tocharacterize farmers. Bold numbers correspond to the largest values in eachfactor.

F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7

Eigenvalue35,01

1 8,099 7,056 2,956 1,667 1,605 1,344

Variability57,50

613,30

311,59

0 4,855 2,738 2,637 2,208

%variabilityaccumulated57,50

670,80

982,39

887,25

389,99

092,62

794,83

5

Factorloadings

Income

-0,154

-0,200 1,196

-0,485

-0,626

-0,245

-0,502

Shareofincomefromsubsidies

-0,514

-0,853 1,356

-0,381

-0,107 0,042 0,219

Days/weekforpastoralism-

0,098 0,070 0,939-

0,155 1,066-

0,060-

0,293

Hours/weekforpastoralism 0,829 2,546 0,823-

0,124-

0,086 0,238 0,100

Numberofcattle-

1,635-

0,480 0,782-

0,241 0,051 0,558 0,275

Numberofsheep 1,716-

0,202 1,005 1,178-

0,084-

0,348 0,106

Numberofgoats 2,023 0,044-

0,372-

0,858 0,020-

0,361 0,360

Numberofpoultry 1,103-

0,213 0,054 0,395-

0,157 0,653-

0,098

Diversityoflivestock 3,136-

0,435 0,318-

0,120 0,032 0,158 0,449

Rusticorautochthonousbreeds 0,945

-0,217 0,303

-0,041

-0,053

-0,033

-0,013

Meatproduction 0,365-

0,115 0,084 0,089 0,071 0,122 0,170

Milkproduction 0,670 0,048 0,063-

0,140-

0,096-

0,111 0,108

Cheeseproduction 0,719-

0,082-

0,010-

0,112 0,075-

0,043 0,083

Yogurtproduction 0,716-

0,117 0,015-

0,081 0,056 0,015 0,101

Elfu

turodelaalim

entación


15

Eggproduction 0,372-

0,070-

0,018 0,151-

0,063 0,213-

0,075

Organicfeeding 0,431 0,049-

0,186 0,043 0,005-

0,007 0,011

Commonpasturelands-

0,013-

0,073 0,055 0,078 0,115-

0,045 0,131

Leasedpasturelands 0,031 0,022-

0,067-

0,074-

0,062 0,067-

0,136

Ownedpasturelands 0,032-

0,233 0,196-

0,021 0,076 0,027 0,067

Rentedpasturelands-

0,224-

0,130-

0,085 0,117 0,080 0,075 0,117

Self-consumption 2,193-

0,151-

0,235-

0,149 0,001 0,286-

0,406

Wholesale-

0,353-

0,009 0,197-

0,068 0,021 0,108 0,032

Directsale 1,733-

0,166 0,122-

0,031 0,151-

0,279-

0,372

Barter 1,564-

0,349-

0,246-

0,239 0,040 0,457-

0,315

A

Elfu

turodelaalim

entación


16

Fig.5.A)Scatterplot fromthe first twoaxesof thePCA.Reddots correspond tofarmersthatwereidentifiedintheHCAas“newpeasants”(NP),whilegreendotscorrespondto“locals”(L).Browntrianglescorrespondtothevariablesdescribingthe farm (active variables in the PCA). Blue squares represent the socio-demographic variables (inactive variables in the PCA). B) Cluster with thecoefficientofdissimilarity(Yaxis)oftheHCAfromthefirst7factorsofthePCA.

4.2Characteristicsoffarmers

When exploring the socio-demographic and farming characteristics of the twogroups of pastoralistswe clearly identified one thatwe herby call “locals”, andanotheroneidentifiedas“newpeasants”.Ononehand,fromasocialperspective,locals tended to be older, have been living in the area longer, have beenpastoralistssincemoretimeorevenalways,theirparentsandgrandparentshadmorefrequentlybeenpastoraliststoo,theywerecommonlypartofatradeunionandtheytendedtohaveahigherincomepercapita.Thefarmingmodeltypicaloflocalswassothatalargershareofthehouseholdincomecamefromfarminganda larger share of this income came from subsidies; it implied more days/weekdedicated to pastoralism; it was based on raising cattle for meat that aremarketedthroughconventionalchains;anditcountedmorefrequentlyonrentedpasturelands.

Ontheotherhand,newpeasantstendedtoliveinlargerhouseholds,holdhigherdegreesofformalschoolingandparticipate inassociationsorcooperatives.Newpeasants dedicated more hours a day to herding, probably because they raisemostly sheep and goats as well as some poultry; theymost frequently farmedautochthonousorrusticbreeds;theyhadamorediversifiedproduction,includingmeat,milk, cheese, yogurt, eggs and sausages that tended to be used for self-consumption,directsaleorbarter.

Table3.ResultsfromtheMann-WhitneyandChi2testsaswellasaveragevaluesfor the socio-demographic characteristics and the farm characteristics betweenthetwogroupsof farmers identified in theHCA.Numbers inboldand* indicatewhenthereisastatisticallysignificantrelationat95%confidence.

Variable\Test Mann-Whitney

Chi2test Average p-value U p-value Chi2 Locals New

peasantsSocio-demographiccharacteristics

Age 0,000 116,0 3,854 3,573Gender 0,59 0,29

B

Elfu

turodelaalim

entación


17

Yearslivinginthearea <0,0001

100,0 3,395 1,891Inacouple 0,29 1,12 Householdsize 0,043 400,0 3,146 5,600Degreeofformalschooling 0,002 447,0 2,375 3,240Income/capita 0,005 159,5 7,962 5,209Pastoralismasmainactivity

0,47 0,52 Yearsinpastoralism <

0,000170,0 3,083 1,450

Alwayspastoralist <0,0001

22,33 >* <*Partnerpastoralist 0,18 1,83 Fatherwaspastoralist <

0,000122,33 >* <*

Motherwaspastoralist <0,0001

18,43 >* <*Grandparents 0,00 12,65 >* <*Participatesinanassociation

0,824 311,0 1,208 1,400Participatesinatradeunion

0,00 8,32 >* <*Memberofacooperative 0,03 4,75 <* >Memberofahuntingassociation

0,14 2,17 Memberofanenvironmentalassociation

0,16 2,00

Farmcharacteristics %ofhouseholdincome

frompastoralism(logtransformed)

0,05 200,5 4,00 2,73

%oflivestockfarmingincomefromsubsidies(logtransformed)

<0,0001

80,0 3,72 1,19

Daysperweekdedicatedtofarming

0,02 202,5 6,56 5,78Hoursperdaydedicated

tofarming0,01 425,0 6,04 7,82

Agroecologicalproduction <0,0001

41,612 <* >*Numberofcattle <

0,000137,5 3,58 0,00

Numberofsheep 0,00 455,0 0,25 2,74Numberofgoats <

0,0001548,0 0,13 3,70

Numberofpoultry <0,0001

479,5 0,35 1,98Autochthonousorrustic

breeds<

0,0001518,0 0,17 1,48

Numberofdifferentproducts

<0,0001

590,5 1,25 6,08Meatproduction 0,00 442,5 1,00 1,52Milkproduction <

0,0001538,5 0,13 1,20

Cheeseproduction <0,0001

564,0 0,00 1,20Yogurtproduction <

0,0001540,0 0,00 1,12

Eggsproduction <0,0001

478,5 0,13 0,72Productionforself-

consumption<

0,0001572,0 0,58 4,32

Productionforwholesale <0,0001

75,0 0,79 0,00Productionfordirectsale <

0,0001532,0 0,33 3,16

Productionforbarter <0,0001

510,0 0,21 2,64Useofcommon

pasturelands 0,672 0,18

Useofleasedpasturelands 0,413 0,67 Useofowned

pasturelands 0,195 1,68

Useofrentedpasturelands

0,006 7,58 >* <*

4.3Whatsourcesofinformation?

Some differences are found in the sources of information on pastoralistknowledgereportedbylocalsandnewpeasants(Table4).Localsrelyonthelocaltradeunion,theagrarianoffice,andtheveterinaries.Amongthealterimentioned

Elfu

turodelaalim

entación


18

intheirnetworksofknowledgeexchange,26%onaveragewerefamilymembers(incontrasttothe18%reportedbynewpeasants).Newpeasants,instead,tendtorefermorefrequentlytobooks,fellows(41%onaverageincomparisonto4%forlocals)andfriends(55%incomparisonto33%forlocals).

Table4.ResultsfromtheMann-WhitneyandChi2testsaswellasaveragevaluesforthealterimentionedinthenetworksofknowledgeexchangebetweenthetwogroups of farmers identified in the HCA. Numbers in bold and * indicate whenthereisasignificantrelationat95%confidence.

Variable\Test Mann-Whitney Chi2test

Average

p-value

U p-value

Chi2 Locals Newpeasants

Internet 0,456 0,556

Courses 0,157 2,002

Books 0,010 6,564 <* >*

Localtradeunion 0,004 8,507 >* <*

Agrarianoffice 0,002 9,959 >* <*

Veterinary <0,0001

27,116 >* <*

%ofalterithatarefamily 0,026 173,0 26,548 17,846

%ofalterithatarefellows(cooperative)

<0,0001

471,5 3,877 41,010

%ofalterithatarefriends 0,034 375,5 32,728 54,894

%ofalterithatareknownpeople

0,067 333,5

%ofalterithatareprofessionals

0,051 197,0

4.4Socialnetworksofknowledgeexchange

The network of knowledge exchange about livestock management was thelargest,with134nodesand428edges(links).Afterdiscardingallnodesthatwerenot an individual person and converting it to an undirected network, it wasformed by 123 nodes and 143 links (Fig.6), with a mean degree of 2.32 and aconnectedness of 0.02. The Wilcoxon tests showed no statistical differencebetween genders in the degree (W = 218.5, p-value = 0.561), nor in thebetweenness (W = 219, p-value = 0.571). However, there were differencesbetween farmers both in the degree (W = 142, p-value < 0.001) and in the

Elfu

turodelaalim

entación


19

betweenness (W = 165, p-value < 0.010) with new peasants showing highercentralitythanlocals(Table5).

Fig.6. Graph of the network of exchange of information about livestockmanagement with the node sizes proportional to their betweenness. Squarescorrespondtowomenandcirclestomen.Greendotscorrespondtolocalsandredonescorrespondtonewpeasants.

Table 5. Mean degree and betweenness values for the two domains for whichtherewere statistically significant differences between the sub-samples of localsandnewpeasants.

Domain Typeoffarmer Meandegree Meanbetweenness

LivestockmanagementLocals 2,667 134,000

Newpeasants 5,120 530,305

SanitaryissuesLocals 1,208 1,250

Newpeasants 3,040 45,988

Thefullnetworkofknowledgeexchangeaboutsanitaryissueswasformedby90nodesand135links.Theundirectedgraphincluded80nodesand74links(Fig.7),with a mean degree of 1.85 and a connectedness of 0.02. No statisticallysignificantdifferenceswerefoundbetweenmenandwomenonthedegree(W=217,p-value=0.535)orbetweenness(W=244,p-value=0.991).However,alsointhis case therewere statistically significantdifferencesbetween farmersboth inthedegree(W=146.5,p-value<0.001)andinthebetweenness(W=106,p-value<0.001)andnewpeasantshowedhigherscoresthatthelocals(Table5).

Elfu

turodelaalim

entación


20

Fig.7.Graphofthenetworkofexchangeofinformationaboutsanitaryissueswiththenode sizesproportional to theirbetweenness. Squares correspond towomenand circles tomen.Greendots correspond to locals and redones correspond tonewpeasants.

The network of exchange of knowledge about administration of the farm(bureaucracy and paperwork) is the smallest,with 69 nodes and 198 links. Theundirectedgraphhad63nodesand29 links,withameandegreeof0.92andaconnectedness of 0.01. The Wilcoxon tests showed no statistically significantdifferencesinrelationtogenderforthedegree(W=267.5,p-value=0.598),northebetweenness(W=237.5,p-value=0.810).However,inthiscase,therewerealso no differences between farmer types in the degree (W = 264.5, p-value =0.448),norinthebetweenness(W=247,p-value=0.103).

Elfu

turodelaalim

entación


21

Fig.6.Graphofthenetworkofexchangeofinformationaboutadministration,withthenode sizesproportional to theirbetweenness. Squares correspond towomenand circles tomen.Greendots correspond to locals and redones correspond tonewpeasants.

5.Discussion

Pastoralism in the Sierra Norte of Madrid is an interesting example of twoprocesses: on onehand, the social-ecological resilience that pastoralism relatedsystemsshowinfrontofdifferentkindsofdisturbancesandtherolePLKplaysintheir adaptation (Oteros-Rozas et al. 2012, 2013); on the other hand, theemergenceofnewpeasantriesthatbybridgingfromtraditionaloverconventionalfarming models, hybridize PLK with new technologies and the politics of foodsovereignty.

5.1PastoralismintheSierraNorteofMadrid:threegenerations

Several clear differences emerged between the locals’ and the new peasants’farmingmodels:wewill here reflect on the typeof livestock and the economicmodel. As has been found in other studies on new peasantries in Spain, thegenerational turnover in farming is not coming from the local youngsters, wholargely prefer not to continue the family tradition and/or to migrate (Monllor,2013). Instead, newpeasants in livestock farming in the SierraNorte ofMadridmost frequently do not come from a family tradition of pastoralism, but ratherfrom an urban background, and they frequently hold a university degree. Newpastoralists in this area shift the paradigm of the pastoralist as an isolatedindividualwhoworksalone,towardsacollectivemodelsof2-11peopleorganizedinshifts,includingdaysoffandholidays,andparticipatinginanextendednetworkofsupportandsociabilityconnectedthroughnewtechnologiessuchasnetworksforinstantmessaging.

Elfu

turodelaalim

entación


22

Whilelivestockrisingintheareahadtraditionallybeenbasedinsmallruminantsuntil the 1950s, the rural abandonment and decadence of farming transformedpastoralism to cattle rising, first formilkproduction, and then (since the1990s)for meat. Cattle rising however is not the preferred farming system by newpeasantsinthisarea,whoinsteadareraisingmostlysheepandgoats,frequentlyfromrusticorautochthonousbreeds,suchasdeGuadarramagoat, fordifferentreasons. Themost citedargument is the suboptimal adaptationof cattle to thismountainousareawheresoilsandpasturelandsarenotrich,theweatherisharshand the orography is steep for their movement. Sheep and goats instead, andparticularlyrusticbreeds,arewelladaptedtothelocalenvironmentandtoprofitfrom land that can only by grazed and otherwise could not be cultivated. Inaddition,cattleneedalargerinvestmentatbeginningandhencealsoentailmoreeconomic risks:makingmistakes in the learningprocesses isquite frequentandwith cattle, lossesmightnotbeaffordable.A typical incorporationprocesswithsheep/goatsmightinsteadstartwith20-50animalsthatturnintoasufficientherdin 3-5 years. Cattle need a complementary feeding, either with compounds orwithcerealsorforage,whatalsoinvolvesaninvestmentandstoragespace,whilethis requirement is more limited for small ruminants. Livestock management,particularly in certain processes such as sanitation or moving between areas,requires an expertise that most new entrants, without previous experience infarming,donothaveatfirst.Someintervieweesmentionedinfactthefactthatitis more challenging or frightening to handle cattle than smaller animals, as areasonfor theirchoice.Moreover, the farmingmodelofnewpeasants is largelybasedonsellingadiversityofproducts,whatconstitutesanotherrelevantreasonfortheinterestforsheepandgoatsfromwhichdairiescanbeprocessed.

There are interesting social-ecological implications of the choice to raise smallruminantsinthearea,suchastheroleincontributingtofireprevention,astheyconsume inflammablebiomass fromthewoodpastures; thecontrolovershrubsthatobstructother forestuses suchas firewoodextraction; the conservationofautochthonousbreeds; the recoveryof PEK focusedon sheep/goats and is holdalreadyonlybytheelders.Infact,therearetwointervieweesthatwereclassifiedbytheHCAunderthe“newpeasants”categorythathoweveraretwoeldersthatareretiredbutstillmaintainsmallherdsofsheep.

In relation to the economic arrangements, new peasants and locals show alsodifferences, as the former are closer to the food sovereignty principles or the“agrosocial profile” (Monllor, 2011). While locals tend to work individually orwithinthecloserfamilynucleus,theytakecareofthecattlebetween6and7daysaweek;whilenewpeasants tend to farmcollectively, thereforeorganisingdaysoff and dedicating 5-6 days a week to farming. However, probably becausesheep/goats in the area need active herding, new peasants dedicate almost 8hours per day (2more than the locals). Yet, the intense need of labour of theagroecologicalmodelbynewpeasants,isnotreflectedintheshareofhouseholdincome that comes from the pastoralist activity, what on the long term mightconstituteachallenge for thesocioeconomicsustainabilityof the initiatives.Thelower income obtained from farming by new peasants is probably relatedwiththeir significantly lower access or dependence on subsidies.When asked aboutthereasonwhytheyreceivefewersubsidiesthanlocals,severalideasemerged:apreferenceforindependencefromtheState/Europeansupportsothatthefarmiseconomically profitable in itself, a mistrust in the mid/long term availability of

Elfu

turodelaalim

entación


23

subsidies, an inclination to avoid paperwork and controls from the publicadministrationandthedifficultiesintheaccess(theanimalrightsforsubsidiesaresometimes not soldwith the herd but retained by the former farmer). Instead,newpeasantsintheareatendtoorganisetheirhouseholdandfarmeconomysothat,ononehandtheyneedas littleaspossibleto live(alsobyfarmingforself-consumptionandbartering)andtheyshareresources,andontheotherhandtheytry to maximize profitability through direct selling and diversifying theirproduction.Whiletheeconomicmanagementofnewpeasantsiscoherentwithacertain political positioning, there is a relatively unspoken tension between thepolitical will, and the sacrifice and precariousness. To what extent isprecariousnessintrinsictonewemergentpeasantriesornot,andtheimplicationsofthis,iscurrentlyamatterofdebate.

5.2Agenderedlookintonewpeasantsinpastoralism

WhatinsteadisnotsopresentinthecurrentdebatesonnewpeasantriesinSpain,butemergedduringfieldwork,isthegenderdimensionofthistension.Thereareseveral cases in the area in which the incipient (1-5 years old) pastoralists areyoungmenwhosepartnersareemployedinlocalprivateorpublicservices,e.g.asdoctor,teacher,socialassistant.Someofthesewomenexpressedadisconformitywiththefactthat,whenemergentpeasantriesaresociallyportrayed,itisonlythefarmerswhoappear.Theunderlyingnetworkoffamilysupport(alsofromparentsinsomecases),withoutwhichfarmingwouldbeimpossiblebecauseofitsreducedeconomic profitability, remains invisible.Moreover,many familymembers fromthecontextofthepastoralistcontributeworkifnotonadailybasis,inmomentsofparticularlyheavyworkload,whatiscriticalalsofortheviabilityofthefarm.

In this sense, another two conflicts emerged from the gendered division ofreproductiveandproductive labourwithinnewpeasants (whenmen farmwhilewomenhaveanotherjob,studyorraisethechildren):first,incaseswhenthemanfarms and the woman has another occupation, the lack co-responsibility inhousework due to the large amount of labour time required by livestock; andsecond,theunequalsocialconsiderationofreproductivetasks(particularlythoserelatedtomaternity) in relationtoproductive tasks, so that,asawomentakingcareofachildandababysaid“itseemsasif,attheendoftheday,Idonothavethesamerighttobetiredasmycolleaguesthathavebeenoutshepherding”.Eveninspiteofanexplicitlyfeministdiscourse,insomecasesevendevelopedinlocalcollectivespacesfordiscussion,genderissueslikethisemergedintheinterviewsandduringinformaltalks.

Another relevant reflection is themutualdependencebetween theexistenceoffarming and social services: not only because people living in rural areas needsocialservicesandinfrastructures,butalsobecausesocialservicesentailjobsthatmightalsobesustainingfamilyeconomiessothatfarmingcanbecomplementedandpastoralismisnotnecessarilyafamilychoice.

5.3TheexchangeoflocalpastoralistknowledgeintheSierraNorteofMadrid

Elfu

turodelaalim

entación


24

Theabove-mentioneddifferencesbetweennewpeasantsandlocalsinfluencethekindofknowledgethatflowsalongthenetworkandthewayPEKisacquiredandhybridized.ItisevidentthatthetypeofPEKacquireddependsonthesources,sothe fact thatnewpeasantsdonotuse the same sources as locals gives an ideaaboutthedifferencesintheirfarmingmodels.Theagrarianofficerepresentsthemain relation of farmers with the regional government, so it is also somehowsymbolicfortheshiftofparadigmthatnewpeasantsdonotrelyinitasmuchasthey do on their peers. In fact, the SNA revealed that there is an on goingcampesino-a-campesino dynamic both for the incorporation of newcomers andformutual support and PEK exchange between new peasants. The cooperativeandlivingcommunity“LosApisquillos”(PuebladelaSierra),hasplayedaspecialroleinthissenseinthearea.Itwasthefirsttobeestablished,andcurrentlyhasaherdofsheepandoneofgoats.In2016therewere11members(and3children),fromwhichonlyonehasparticipatedsincethebeginning:however,mostofnewpastoralists in theSierraNorteofMadrideitherhave spent some time thereorhaveaclosecontactwiththem.

The domain inwhich there ismore exchange of PEK is livestockmanagement,including herding, feeding, milking and breeding practices. The most relevantideas that result from the network graph and metric analyses are that: newpeasants aremore networked than locals by large; there is very little exchangebetween locals and new peasants; and there are two women from the newpeasants’groupthatarekey for theexchangeofPEKbetweenthetwotypesoffarmers.ThefactthatnewpeasantsexchangemorePEKmightbeduetothefactthattheyareinanearliermomentintheknowledgeprocess,theydonothavetheinherited knowledge and they are more open to and active in the search ofinnovations.

ItmightbesomehowsurprisingthatnewpeasantsarenotexchangingwithlocalstoincorporatePEK,whatismeanttobeanessentialelementwithinagroecology.However,itisalsologicalifwetakeintoaccountthatthefarmingsystemsaresodifferent and that the PEK thatmight be ofmore interest for new peasants, interms of livestock management, is that of the previous generation who eitherhave already passed away or are quite old. From another perspective, thepresence of multiple subgroups specialized in different farming models, mayenhance on one hand the development of specific knowledge, by providingopportunities for high degrees of interaction among similar others; and on theotherhandcontributetothedevelopmentofadiversityofknowledgebyenablingdifferentknowledgetodevelopindifferentsubgroups(BodinandCrona,2009).

PreviousresearchhassuggestedthatPEKlossisnotnecessarilyassociatedwithafailure inthemechanismsofculturaltransmissionofknowledge,butratherwithcontextualfactorsaffectingtheapplicabilityofPEK(Oteros-Rozasetal.2013):thismightbethecaseinthechangeofthefarmingmodelfromthefirstgenerationofthe century rising sheep and goats, to the next one with cattle. However, theappearance of new peasants herding small ruminants again and hence needingthatPEK,couldbringbacktothefront linePEKacknowledgement,recoveryandadaptation.WhatwassomehowsurprisinginthiscaseisthatevenifthecurrentpictureofsocialnetworksforPEKtransmissiondoesnotshowaflowfromlocals(theoreticallyholdingPEK)andnewpeasants, there isa flowofPEKamongnewpeasants:theabovementionedcooperativeLosApisquillos,whenarrivingtotheSierra, recovered PEK from elders before they passed away, and put back into

Elfu

turodelaalim

entación


25

practice someof the PEK that,whenmore newpeasants have arrived, is beingtransmitted topears.Previousworksalreadynoted that LEK thathas seeminglybecomeobsoleteunderpresentsocioeconomicandtechnologicalconditionsmayilluminate the path to future scenarios when a community confronts novelchanges(Berkesetal.2003,Fernández-GiménezandFillatEstaque2012,Oteros-Rozas et al. 2013). This shows the relevance of the qualitative aspects of theappearanceofnewemergentpeasantries:even if the statisticsdonot showbignumbersofre-peseantinizationorrecoveryoffarming,themereexistenceofnewholdersofthepocketsofLEKitscriticalforitspreservationandadaptation.

However, probably among themost interesting findings of the presentwork, isidentifying the critical role thatwomenplay in knowledge exchange. In recentstudies on new alternative agrifood models, women have been recognized tooccupy a important and increasingly visible position, developing innovativepractices(Pinto-Correiaetal.,2013).Thereareonly8peasantwomenoutof25,oftwowhichshowthehighestbetweennessinthenetwork,i.e.theyaresocalled“brokers”. Brokers are individual or organizational actors who convey manyexclusive links, that is, links to groups that would otherwise not be in directcontact with each other (Burt, 2003). A broker typically gains access to manypiecesofgroup-specific information,whichmightallowhertosynthesizea largeknowledge pool and to achieve, through the position, an advantage in knowingwhichgroupsorindividualstoconnectandnottoconnect,howtoconnectthem,andwhen(Burt,2003).Previousworkshavepointedoutthegenderednatureofknowledge and the fact thatwomen play a relevant role in small-scale farmingandinthegenerationandtransmissionoflocal/traditionalknowledge(Merchant1981,Mies & Shiva 1993, Howards 2006, Leach 2006, Pressley 2007). In Spain,Reyes-García et al. (2010) documented that women tend to use moreagroecological practices. In the USA, Wilmer and Fernández-Giménez (2016)noted how women produce and reproduce ranching knowledge and empoweryoungergenerationstochoosetostayinranching.Theyalsonotedthat“therearecultural norms that women, rather than men, keep and transfer knowledge ofcertainpractices,inpartbecauseofwomen’sattentiontothelong-termfinancialviabilityandecological sustainabilityof their ranches”.However,overall there isvery little researchon the role ofwomen in PEK. In the caseof SierraNorte ofMadrid, two elementsmight be relevant: on one hand the fact that these twowomenareconnectedwitheachotherandontheotherhandthattheonewiththe largest degree is a well-recognised person in the area because hergrandparentswereoriginallyfromthere(sheisa“daughterofthetown”).Inanycase,nostatisticaldifferencewasfoundbetweencentralityofmenandwomen.Inthe Indogangetic plains it was found thatwomen tended to sharemorewithininformal groups and interventions, and men more in formal meetings andprograms(Rivera-Ferreetal.2012)butournamegeneratordidnotdistinguishinthisregard.

Thenetworkofknowledgeexchangeinsanitaryissuesislessdensethattheonelivestockmanagement.However, it is even clearer howmost newpeasants areconnectedwhilefewlocalsdoexchangePEK.Thesamewomenthatwasabrokerin the livestockmanagement network plays a central role in this one, as she isindeedwell-known for her knowledge on phytotherapy and homeopathy.Mostlocalsreportedinsteadthattheyexchangeonsanitaryissuesprimarilywiththeirveterinaries. In relation to knowledge exchange on administrative issues, even

Elfu

turodelaalim

entación


26

thoughwe noticed no statistically significant differences between farmer types,wecanseeasimilardistributionasinthesanitarynetwork,withonlyasmallclickofnewpeasantsconnectedbyoneperson.

6.Conclusions

Pastoralism in the SierraNorte ofMadrid is undergoing a transition,with threesystemsco-existing:the“developed”,basedoncattlerisingfortheconventionalmeatmarket,exertedbylocals;andonebyyoungnewpeasants,basedonsheepand goat herding for the delivery of a diversified pull of products, that is verymuchinlinewiththe“agrosocialparadigm”(Monllor,2011)andclosetothepre-industrialone,stillexemplifiedbytwoeldershepherds(closetoextinction).Evenifcampesino-a-campesino strategiesarealready inmotion, it isurgent to fosterstrategiesthatfacilitatetheexchangeofPEKfromthedisappearinggenerationofpastoralists to new peasants, given that resources, skills and visions arecomplementary to the new technical agroecological knowledge. In this process,eveninspiteofconflictsaroundthegendereddivisionoffarmingandnon-farminglabouraswellasreproductivetasks,womenarealreadyplayingacriticalrole inthe development of new peasantries and the flow of PEK, what needs to beurgentlyacknowledged.

Elfu

turodelaalim

entación


27

References:

Aceituno, L. 2010. Estudio etnobotánico y agroecológico de la Sierra Norte deMadrid.PhD,UniversidadAutónomadeMadrid.

AcostaNaranjo,R.2002.Losentramadosdeladiversidad.Antropologíasocialdeladehesa.ColecciónRaíces.DiputacióndeBadajoz,Badajoz.

Altieri,M.A. and Koohafkan, P., 2004. Globally Important Ingenious AgriculturalHeritage Systems (GIAHS): extent, significance, and implications fordevelopment.En:GIAHS2ndInternationalWorkshop.UnitedNationsFoodandAgricultureOrganisation.

Banerjee, D. and Mayerfeld, M., 2007. Ecogender: Locating Gender inEnvironmentalSocialScience.SocietyforNaturalResources,20:3–19.

Barrios,J.C.,Fuentes,M.T.andRuiz,J.P.1992.ElsaberecológicodelosganaderosdelaSierradeMadrid.AgenciadeMedioAmbiente,Madrid.

Beaufoy,G.,Caballero,R.,andOñate,J.,2012.Spain.In:Oppermann,R.,Beaufoy,G., Jones, G. (eds.). 2012. High Nature Value Farming in Europe. 35 Eupeancountries – experiences and perspectives. Verlag Regionalkultur, Ubstadt -Weiher,Heidelberg,Basel,Deutschland.

Berkes, F., Colding, J. and Folke, C. 2000. Rediscovery of traditional ecologicalknowledgeasadaptivemanagement.EcologicalApplications10(5):1251-62.

Berkes, F., Colding, J., and Folke, C.2003. Synthesis: Building resilience andadaptive capacity in socialecological systems. Pages 352–87. In: F. Berkes, J.Colding, and C. Folke, editors. Navigating social-ecological systems: buildingresilienceforcomplexityandchangeSynthesis:Buildingresilienceandadaptivecapacityinsocialecologicalsystems.CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge.

Berkes, F., Turner, N.J. 2006. Knowledge, learning and the evolution ofconservation practice for social–ecological system resilience. Human Ecology34:479–494.

Blondel,J.2006.The‘design’ofMediterraneanlandscapes:amillennialstoryofhumansandecologicalsystemsduringthehistoricperiod.HumanEcology,34,713–729.

Bodin, Ö. and Crona, B.I. 2009. The role of social networks in natural resourcegovernance:whatrelationalpatternsmakeadifference?GlobalEnvironmentalChange19:366–374.

Bodin,Ö.,andPrell,C.2011.Socialnetworksandnaturalresourcemanagement:uncovering the social fabric of environmental governance. CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge,UK.

Borgatti,S.,andFoster,P.2003.Thenetworkparadigminorganizationalresearch:areviewandtypology.JournalofManagement29:991–1013.

Burgaz, F.J. 2009. Red de seguridad de los ingresos agrarios: aspectospreliminares. Presentación ENESA (Entidad Estatal de Seguros Agrarios).

Elfu

turodelaalim

entación


28

http://www.upa.es/_documentos/jornada_seguros/Red-seguridadingresos-dic-09.pdf

Burt, R.S. 2003. The social capital of structural holes. Pages 148–189. In:M. F.Guillen, R. Collins, P. England, and M. Meyer, editors. The new economicsociology: developments in an emerging field. Russell Sage Foundation, NewYork,NewYork,USA.

Caraveli,H.2000.Acomparativeanalysisonintensificationandextensificationinmediterraneanagriculture:dilemmas for LFAspolicy. JournalofRural Studies16:231-242.

Dabasso, B.H., Oba, G., and Roba, H.G. 2012. Livestock-based knowledge ofrangelandqualityassessmentandmonitoringatlandscapelevelamongBoranaherdersofnorthernKenya.Pastoralism:Research,PolicyandPractice2(1):2.

Davies, J., Hatfield, R. 2007. The Economics of Mobile Pastoralism: A GlobalSummary.NomadicPeoples,11:91–116.

Díaz-Reviriego,2016.GenderedNetworks,GenderedLivelihoods,Fishing,HealingandHomegardeningamongtheTsimane’,BolivianAmazonia.PhD,UniversidadAutónomadeBarcelona.

Domínguez, S. andHollstein,B.2014.MixedMethodsSocialNetworksResearchDesignandApplications.CambridgeuniversityPress.

Dong,S.,Wen,L.,Liu,S.,Zhang,X.2011.Vulnerabilityofworldwidepastoralismtoglobal changes and interdisciplinary strategies for sustainable pastoralism.EcologyandSociety16(2):10.

Ellis, E.C., Goldewijk, K.K., Siebert, S., Lightman, D., and Ramankutty, N. 2010.Anthropogenictransformationofthebiomes,1700to2000.GlobalEcologyandBiogeography,19:589–606.

Entrena, F. 2008. Consideraciones en torno a la construcción social de lasdesigualdades. In: Sociología y Realidad Social. Libro de Homenaje a MiguelBeltrán.Madrid.CentrodeInvestigacionesSociales.

FAO. 2013. FAOSTAT. United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation.http://faostat.fao.org/site/377/DesktopDefault.aspx?PageID=377#ancor(consultadoel16deMarzode2013).

Fernández Montes, M. 1990. Cultura tradicional en la comarca de Buitrago.Colección científico-técnica. Patronato Madrileño de Áreas de Montaña,Madrid.

FernándezMontes,M. 1992. Los aprovechamientos comunales delmonte en elcuadrante noroccidental de España. Anales delMuseo del Pueblo Español 4:49-73.

Fernández-Giménez, M. E., and Fillat Estaque, F.. 2012. Pyrenean Pastoralists’Ecological Knowledge: Documentation and Application to Natural ResourceManagementandAdaptation.HumanEcology40(2):1–14.

Fernández-Giménez, M.E., Le Febre, S. 2006. Mobility in pastoral systems:Dynamic flux or downward trend? The International Journal of SustainableDevelopmentandWorldEcology13:22.

Elfu

turodelaalim

entación


29

Fischer, J., T.Hartel, andT. Kuemmerle. 2012.Conservationpolicy in traditionalfarminglandscapes.ConservationLetters5(3):165-175

Flament-Ortun,S.,MaciasGarcia,B.andMonlloriRico,N.2017.Nuevosperfilesen la incorporación de personas jóvenes al campo: tendencias emergentesdesdeunaperspectivadesoberaníaalimentaria.

Folke, C., Colding, J., and Berkes, F. 2003. Synthesis: building resilience andadaptivecapacity insocial-ecologicalsystems.Pages352–387- In:F.Berkes,J.Colding, and C. Folke, editors. Navigating social-ecological systems: buildingresilience forcomplexityandchange.CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge,UK.

Galvin,K.A.2009. Transitions:Pastoralists LivingwithChange.AnnualReviewofAnthropology38:185–198.

Gibon, A. 2005. Managing grassland for production, the environment and thelandscape. Challenges at the farm and the landscape level. LivestockProductionScience,96:11–31.

Girvan, M., and Newman, M.E.J. 2002. Community structure in social andbiological networks. Proceedings of theNational Academy of Sciences of theUnitedStatesofAmerica99:7821–7826.

Gómez-Baggethun, E., Reyes-García, V., Olsson, P., and Montes, C. 2012.Traditional ecological knowledge and community resilience to environmentalextremes: A case study in Doñana, SW Spain. Global Environmental Change22(3):640-650.

Gómez-Sal,A.,López,V.,andForero,D.,2011.Ecosistemasybiodiversidadparaelbienestar humano. Evaluación de los Ecosistemas del Milenio. Sección IIICapítulo17,Agroecosistemas.FundaciónBiodiversidad,Madrid,España.

Gould,R.V.1993.Collectiveactionandnetworkstructure.AmericanSociologicalReview58:182–196.

Hanneman, R. A., and RiddleM. 2005. Introduction to social networkmethods.UniversityofCalifornia,Riverside,California,USA.

Hatfield,R.,Davies,J.,Wane,A.,Kerven,C.,Dutilly-Diane,C.,Biber,J.P.,Merega,J.L., Odhiambo, M.O., Behnke, R., and Gura, S. 2006. Global Review of theEconomicsofPastoralism.ReviewLiteratureAndArtsOfTheAmericas.WorldInitiativeforSustainablePastoralism,IUCN,Nairobi,Kenya.

Howards, P. 2006. Gender Bias in Ethnobotany: Propositions and Evidence of aDistorted Science and Promises of a Brighter Future. Conferencia Kew RoyalBotanicalGardens.

Isaac,M.E.,Erickson,B.H.Quashie-Sam,S.J.,andTimmerV.R.2007.Transferofknowledge on agroforestry management practices: The structure of farmeradvicenetworks.EcologyandSociety12(2):32.

Knapp, C.N., Fernandez-Gimenez,M., Kachergis, E., andRudeenA. 2011.UsingParticipatory Workshops to Integrate State-and-Transition Models CreatedWithLocalKnowledgeandEcologicalData.RangelandEcology&Management64(2):158–170.

Elfu

turodelaalim

entación


30

Leach, M. 2006. Gender and the environment: traps and opportunities.DevelopmentPractices2:12–22.

MAGRAMA (Ministerio de Agricultura, Alimentación y Medio Ambiente). 2010.Programadedesarrollo rural sostenible. 1. Situación ydiagnósticodelmediorural en España. Ministerio de Agricultura, Alimentación y Medio Ambiente,Gobierno de España. http://www.magrama.gob.es/es/desarrollorural/legislacion/1._An%C3%A1lisis_diagn%C3%B3stico_medio_rural_tcm7-9681.pdf(consultadoporúltimavezel27deMarzode2013).

MARM (Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Medio Rural y Marino). 2011. LibroBlancodelatrashumancia.DireccióndeDesarrolloSostenibledelMedioRural,MinisteriodeMedioAmbienteyMedioRuralyMarino,Madrid.

Merchant, C. 1981. The Death of Nature: Women, Ecology, and the ScientificRevolution.NY:Harper.

Mies,M.,andShiva,V.1993.Ecofeminism.London:ZedBooks.

Monllor, N., 2011. Explorant la jove pagesia: camins, pràctiques i actituds en elmarcd'unnouparadigmaagrosocial.Estudicomparatiuentreelsud-oestdelaprovíncia d'Ontario i les comarques gironines (Tesi doctoral), Girona,UniversitatdeGirona.

Monllor,N.2013.Elnuevoparadigmaagrosocial, futurodelnuevocampesinadoemergente.PolisRevistaLatinoamericana34.

Naredo,J.M.2004.LaevolucióndelaagriculturaenEspaña(1940-2000).EditorialUniversidaddeGranada,Granada.

Olsson, P., and Folke, C. 2001. Local ecological knowledge and institutionaldynamics for ecosystem management: a study of Lake Racken watershed,Sweden.Ecosystems4:85–104.

Oppermann, R., Beaufoy, G., and Jones, G. (eds.). 2012. High Nature ValueFarming in Europe. 35 Eruopean countries – experiences and perspectives.VerlagRegionalkultur,Ubstadt-Weiher,Heidelberg,Basel,Deutschland.

Oteros-Rozas, E., González, J.A., Martín-López, B., López, C.A. and Montes, C.2012. Ecosystem services and social – ecological resilience in transhumanceculturallandscapes:learningfromthepast,lookingforafuture.Pages242–260.InT.PlieningerandC.Bieling,editors.ResilienceandtheCulturalLandscape.CambridgeUniversityPress.

Oteros-Rozas, E.,Ontillera-Sánchez, R., Sanosa, P., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Reyes-García V., and González J.A. 2013. Traditional ecological knowledge amongtranshumant pastoralists inMediterranean Spain. Ecology And Society 18(3):33.

PAMAM1990.PlancomarcaldelaSierraNorte.PatronatoMadrileñodeÁreasdeMontaña,ComunidaddeMadrid,Madrid.

PAMAM2001.Plancomarcalde laSierraNortedeMadrid.PatronatoMadrileñodeÁreasdeMontaña,ComunidaddeMadrid,Madrid.

Elfu

turodelaalim

entación


31

Pardo de Santayana, M. and Gómez Pellón, E. 2003. Etnobotánica:aprovechamientotradicionaldeplantasypatrimoniocultural.AnalesdelJardínBotánicodeMadrid60(1):171-182.

Pérez-Soriano,J.2013.Whydotheymigrate?Womenfromvillageanduprootingin the Valencian rurality. Encurcijadas, Revista Crítica de Ciencias Sociales 6:101-116.

Pinto-Correia, T., Gonzalez, C., Sutherland, L.A. and Peneva, M. 2015. InSutherland, L-A; Darnhofer, I.; Zagata, L. y Wilson, G., 2015. TransitionpathwaystowardssustainabilityinEuropeanagriculture.Wallingford:CABI.

Ploeg, J.D. van der 2008. The new peasantries. Struggles for autonomy andsustainabilityinaneraofempireandglobalization.Earthscan,Londres.

Pressley, L. 2007.GenderedAspects of Scientific Knowledge: AMultidisciplinaryAnnotated Bibliography of Selected Sources. Behavioral & Social SciencesLibrarian27(1):46-61.

Reed,M.G.andChristie,S.2008.Environmentalgeography:we’renotquitehome-reviewingthegendergap.ProgressinHumanGeography33:246–255.

Reyes-García,V.,Vila, S.,Aceituno-Mata, L.,Calvet-Mir, L.,Garnatje,T., Jesh,A.,Lastra, J.J.,Parada,M.,Rigat,M.,Valles, J.andPardo-de-Santayana,M.2010.Gendered Homegardens: A Study in Three Mountain Areas of the IberianPeninsula.EconomicBotany64:235–247.

Rivera-Ferre,M.2012.Framingofagri-foodresearchaffects theanalysisof foodsecurity: the critical role of the social sciences. International Journal ofSociologyofAgricultureandFood,19:162–175.

RodríguezEguizabal,A.B.andTabadaCrende,X.E.1991.Delaciudadalcampo:elfenómenosocialneorruralistaenEspaña.PoliticaySociedad9:73-86.

Rodríguez, L., 2008. A global perspective on the total economic value ofpastoralism: Global synthesis report based on six country valuations. TheInternational Lives tock research Institute, for the World Initiative forSustainable Pastoralism (WISP). A project of the Global Environment Facility,ImplementedbyUNDPandexecutedbyIUCN,Nairobi,Kenya.

Ruiz, M. 2001. The ecological and economical rationale for transhumancepractices in Spain. In: Bunce, R.G.H., Pérez-Soba, M., Elbersen, B.S., Prados,M.J.,Andersen,E.,Bell,M.,Smeets,P.J.A.M(eds.).ExamplesofEuropeanagri-environment schemes and livestock systems and their influence on Spanishculturallandscapes.AlterraRapport309,Wageningen,TheNetherlands.

Ruiz, M., and Ruiz, J.P. 1986. Ecological History of Transhumance in Spain.BiologicalConservation37(1):73–86.

Sáez Pombo, E. 2000. Montes públicos, territorio y evolución del paisaje en laSierra Norte de Madrid. Comunidad de Madrid, Universidad Autónoma deMadridyObraSocialdeCajaMadrid,Madrid.

Sevilla Guzmán,E. and González de Molina, M. 1993. Ecología, campesinado ehistoria.LaPiqueta.Madrid.

Elfu

turodelaalim

entación


32

Siegel, D.A. 2009. Social networks and collective action. American Journal ofPoliticalScience53:122–138.

Siliprandi, E., and Zuloaga, G.P. 2014. Género, agroecología y soberaníaalimentaria.Perspectivasecofeministas.Ed.Icaria,Barcelona.239pp.

Sulieman, H. 2013. Land Grabbing along Livestock Migration Routes in GadarifState, Sudan - Impacts on Pastoralism and the Environment. The Land DealPoliticsInitiative.WorkingPaper19.

Tengö, M., Brondizio, E.S., Elmqvist, T., Malmer, P. and Spierenburg, M. 2014.Connecting diverse knowledge systems for enhanced ecosystem governance:Themultipleevidencebaseapproach.AMBIO43:579–591.

Valipour,A.,Plieninger,T., Shakeri, Z.,Ghazanfari,H.,Namiranian,M.andLexerM.J.2014.TraditionalsilvopastoralmanagementanditseffectsonforeststandstructureinnorthernZagros,Iran.ForestEcologyandManagement327:221–230.

Vías, J. 2002. Memorias del Guadarrama. Historia del descubrimiento de unasmontañas.EdicionesLaLibrería,Madrid.

Ward,J.H.1963.Hierarchicalgroupingtooptimizeanobjectivefunction.JournaloftheAmericanStatisticalAssociation58,236.

Wilmer,H.,andFernández-Giménez,M.2016.Someyearsyoulivelikeacoyote:Gendered practices of cultural resilience in working rangeland landscapes.Ambio45:363-372.

Zamora J., Verdu J.R. and Galante E. 2007: Species richness in Mediterraneanagroecosystems: Spatial and temporal analysis for biodiversity conservation.BiolConserv134:113-121.

Zweifel, H. 1997. The Gendered Nature of Biodiversity Conservation. NWSAJournal9:107–123.

Elfu

turodelaalim

entación


33

NazioartekoHizketaldiaELIKADURARENETORKIZUNAETANEKAZARITZARENERRONKAKXXI.MENDERAKO:

Munduanork,nolaetazer-nolakoinplikaziosozial,ekonomikoetaekologikorekinelikatukoduenizangodaeztabaidagaia

InternationalColloquiumTHEFUTUREOFFOODANDCHALLENGESFORAGRICULTUREINTHE21stCENTURY:

Debatesaboutwho,howandwithwhatsocial,economicandecologicalimplicationswewillfeedtheworld.

April24th-26th.EuropaCongressPalace.VitoriaGasteiz.Álava.BasqueCountry/Europe

ColoquioInternacionalELFUTURODELAALIMENTACIÓNYRETOSDELAAGRICULTURAPARAELSIGLOXXI:

Debatessobrequién,cómoyconquéimplicacionessociales,económicasyecológicasalimentaráelmundo.

st/sudeAbril,svwx.PalaciodeCongresosEuropa.Vitoria-Gasteiz.Álava.PaísVasco.Europa.

GUNTZAILEAK/COLABORAN/COLLABORATINGORGANIZATIONS

LAGUNTZAEKONOMIKOA/APOYAN/WITHSUPPORTFROM

2017koapirilaren24/26.EuropaBiltzarJauregia.Vitoria-Gasteiz.Araba.EuskalHerria.Europa.

Documents

¿Who learns from whom? Social networks of knowledge exchange …elikadura21.eus/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/85-Oteros... · 2017-04-22 · around the principles of Food Sovereignty