Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

The agri-food system (re)configuration: the case study of an agroecological network in the Ecuadorian Andes

The agri-food system (re)configuration: the case study of an agroecological network in the... Social Ecological System (SES) research highlights the importance of understanding the potential of collective actions, among other factors, when it comes to influencing the transformative (re)configuration of agri-food systems in response to global change. Such a response may result in different desired outcomes for those actors who promote collective action, one such outcome being food sovereignty. In this study, we used an SES framework to describe the configuration of local agri-food systems in Andean Ecuador in order to understand which components of the SES interact, and how they sup- port outcomes linked to five food sovereignty goals. Through a survey administered to mestizo and indigenous peasants, we analyze the key role played by the Agroecological Network of Loja (RAL) in transforming the local agri-food system through the implementation of a Participatory Guarantee System (PGS). This study demonstrates that participation in the RAL and PGS increases farmers’ adoption of agroecological practices, as well as their independence from non-traditional food. Additionally, RAL lobbying with the municipality significantly increases households’ on-farm income through access to local markets. Being part of indigenous communities also influences the configuration of the food system, increasing the participation in community work and access to credit and markets, thus positively affecting animal numbers, dairy production and income diversification. The complexity of the interactions described suggests that more research is needed to understand which key factors may foster or prevent the achieving of food sovereignty goals and promote household adaptation amid high uncertainty due to global change. Keywords Andes · Food sovereignty · Mestizo peasants · Saraguro · Indigenous people · Socio-ecological system Abbreviations LVC La Vía Campesina RAL Agroecological Network of Loja (in Spanish SES Socio-Ecological Systems Red Agroecológica de Loja)RDA Redundancy Analysis PGS Participatory Guarantee SystemA Actors GS Governance System RS Resource Systems * Federica Ravera RU Resource Units federica.ravera@udg.edu S Socio-Economic Drivers Virginia Vallejo-Rojas ECO Ecological Drivers virginiavallejorojas@gmail.com I Interactions Marta G. Rivera-Ferre O Outcomes mgrivfer@ingenio.upv.es APUs Agricultural Production Units VIF Variance Inflation Factor Center of Agri-Food Economy and Development, AIC Akaike's Information Criterion ParcMediterrani de la Tecnologia, Esteve Terrades 8, ESAB, 08860 Castelldefels, Barcelona, Spain INEC Instituto Nacional Estadística y Censos MAGAP Ministerio de Agricultura, Ganadería, Acua- INGENIO (CSIC-Universitat Politècnica de València), Edifici 8E, Acc. J, 4ª Planta Ciutat Politècnica de la cultura y Pesca Innovació (CPI), Camí de Vera, s/n, 46022 València, Spain INPC Instituto Nacional del Patrimonio Cultural Department of Geography, University of Girona, Edifici UNEP United Nations Environmental Program Sant Domènec II, Pl. Ferrater i Mora, 1, Campus Barri Vell, 17004 Girona, Catalonia, Spain Vol.:(0123456789) 1 3 1302 V. Vallejo-Rojas et al. FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the and subaltern struggles -such as those based on collective United Nations action involving peasants, indigenous and women in many UN United Nations different contexts and aimed at promoting agroecology and SINAGAP Sistema Información Nacional Agricultura, food sovereignty- have the potential to transform agri-food Ganadería, Acuacultura y Pesca systems (Martínez-Torres and Rosset 2014). Prior studies INAMHI Instituto Nacional de Meteorología e in the Peruvian Andean context have linked the role of bar- Hidrología ter markets -as an example of community-based collective action- to food sovereignty, mainly related to the promotion of social reciprocity and ecological diversity (Argumedo and Introduction Pimbert 2010). Some other studies have also demonstrated that the role of peasants and indigenous and other social The conceptualization of agri-food systems as Social Eco- movements in Ecuador has been pivotal in the push towards logical Systems (SES) is having a notable impact in agri- institutionalizing food sovereignty at the national level, both food research focused on sustainability (Ericksen 2008; within the Constitution and policy design (Giunta 2014). In Prosperi et al. 2016; Marshall 2015) and involves the fol- addition, research based on the sustainable rural livelihoods lowing aspects: developing new methodological frameworks framework has emphasized the need to study the social and that integrate the socio-economic, institutional and environ- economic characteristics of context-specific agri-food sys - mental dimensions of the agri-food system; analyzing the tems, including market integration and income-generation interactions that are taking place between the different com - strategies to support well-being and natural resource sus- ponents in production, transformation, commercialization tainability, and the capacity of rural communities and agri- and consumption activities; and understanding the potential food systems for transformative adaptation (Thompson and outcomes resulting from such interactions. This conceptu- Scoones 2009). alization allows for agri-food to be studied as a dynamic SES-based research and food sovereignty studies are nor- system in its entirety and managed accordingly, with the mally assessed independently. The aim of this article is to associated critical feedback on temporal and practical scales combine the two frameworks to understand how innovative (Thompson and Scoones 2009). collective action interacts and reorganizes the components SES-based research highlights the importance of under- of the local agri-food system, conceptualized as an SES, standing the role played by collective action in influencing and has significant impacts on food sovereignty outcomes outcomes; that is, the transformative (re)configuration of (Vallejo-Rojas, Ravera and Rivera-Ferré 2015). Addition- agri-food systems in the face of multiple drivers of change. ally, the article explores whether other concurrent factors, Collective action plays a key role in the management of com- such as being part of indigenous comunas (i.e. the commu- plex SES, facilitating cross-level governance, the long-term nal ancestral institutions) and having certain socio-economic protection of ecosystems and the well-being of different pop- characteristics, are also relevant in shaping agri-food sys- ulations (Ostrom 1990; Brondizio et al 2009; Cox et al 2010; tems. Our findings have multiple implications when it comes Ostrom and Cox 2010; Anderies and Janssen 2013). Specifi- to policy design aimed at supporting adaptive transforma- cally, the literature demonstrates that informal institutions, tions in the face of multiple drivers of change. e.g. networks based on reciprocity and trust, may determine The framework is applied to a case study in the south the level of success of collective action (Ostrom and Ahn Ecuadorian Andes. Our work was conducted with an infor- 2003). Steins and Edwards (1999) studied how nested plat- mal agroecological innovative network of women mestizo forms (i.e. ones including different levels of decision-mak - and Saraguro indigenous peasants, the Agroecological ing) with different user groups may facilitate ecologically, network of Loja (Red Agroecológica de Loja in Spanish, economically, and socially-sustainable resource management hereafter RAL), which implements a Participatory Guar- by emphasizing social learning and collective action. In a antee System (hereafter PGS). In studying this empirical case study of quinoa producers and short value chains in case, the aims are to (1) select the most relevant variables Bolivia Winkel et al. (2020) demonstrated that commun- that describe the local SES and its current configuration ing processes may facilitate social-economic inclusion and (i.e. architecture); (2) assess which key institutional and or sustainability. Collective action has also been found to be socio-economic factors explain a set of outcomes in terms essential in promoting food security (Pelletier et al. 1999). of food sovereignty; and (3) discuss the key role of the RAL Food sovereignty has been proposed as political proposal and other factors in transforming the local agri-food system capable to transform agri-food systems towards sustain- towards food sovereignty. The conclusions highlight the ability and conceptualised into a set of pillars, categories implications of the findings with regard to future policy. and indicators to facilitate its analysis (Ruíz-Almeida and Rivera-Ferre 2019). Several studies have shown how diverse 1 3 The agri‑food system (re)configuration: the case study of an agroecological network in the… 1303 Fig. 1 Methodological framework (adapted from McGinnis and highlight the main links with food sovereignty pillars (yellow boxes). Ostrom 2014). On the left, the ecological subsystems (RS and RU, In the center, the agri-food activities and outcomes (red boxes). green boxes), and on the right, the social subsystems (GS and A, blue (Color figure online) boxes) with their respective scales and levels. For each subsystem, we The food sovereignty framework was developed by the Theoretical and methodological framework international peasant movement La Vía Campesina (LVC) in 1996 as an alternative to the globalized and industrialized In order to conceptualize and analyze the agri-food system food system challenging the current food regime (McMi- as a whole, we have made use of the socio-ecological sys- chael 2011). The most commonly used definition of food tems (SES) and the food sovereignty conceptual frameworks. sovereignty is the one that emerged from the Declaration Ostrom (2009) developed the SES model to analyze of Nyéléni, first drafted at a forum held in Mali in February complex systems. It tackles both ecological and socio- 2007, which states that: “Food sovereignty is the right of economic elements of the system and organizes them into peoples to healthy and culturally appropriate food produced Actors (A), Governance System (GS), Resource Systems through ecologically sound and sustainable methods, and (RS) and Resource Units (RU). Within this conceptual- their right to define their own food and agriculture systems. ization, the elements are impacted by external drivers of It puts the aspirations and needs of those who produce, change, both socio-economic (S) and ecological (ECO). The distribute and consume food at the heart of food systems model analyzes how these drivers affect the components of (…)”. (Nyéléni Movement for Food Sovereignty 2015). the system through interactions (I) that result in different LVC describes the food sovereignty movement as a counter- outcomes (O) and a new configuration of the system. One hegemonic “movement of movements” that, through collec- important characteristic of the model is that it systematically tive action, attempts to radically transform the neo-liberal organizes all components of the system into different tiers food regimen in favor of an environmentally sustainable of variables. To analyze current configurations of the agri- and socially just agri-food system (La Via Campesina 2009; food system within a case study, we developed an integrated McMichael 2011). Many scholars agree that this policy pro- framework that links the social and ecological components posal has the potential to reduce hunger and rural poverty of the agri-food system conceptualized as an SES to the food (Altieri 2009; Wittman 2011) and further the move towards sovereignty as described by Ruiz-Almeida and Rivera Ferre sustainable rural development (Rosset et al. 2011). On more (2019) (Fig. 1). To this end, we adopted Ostrom’s terminol- of a policy level, multilateral institutions (e.g. the UNEP, ogy to classify the second-tier variables of the SES frame- the Commissioner of the Right to Food, the FAO, the UN work (McGinnis and Ostrom 2014) (Appendix 1 in Table 2). Committee on Food Security) and governments (e.g. those 1 3 1304 V. Vallejo-Rojas et al. Fig. 2 Study area: parishes of San Lucas and Jimbilla in the Province of Loja, a region of southern Andean Ecuador of Mali, Nepal, Indonesia, Ecuador, Bolivia) have acknowl- Methodology edged its potential in the development of sustainable agri- food systems (Brem-Wilson 2015). To analyze the potential Background information on the case study of food sovereignty in achieving sustainability goals, indica- tors have been developed at both the local (Binimelis et al. Our study focuses on the Andean agro-ecosystem in the can- 2014) and global (Ortega-Cerdà and Rivera-Ferre, 2010; ton and province of Loja, located in the southern Ecuadorian Ruiz-Almeida and Rivera-Ferre 2019) levels. Measuring Andes, in the parishes of San Lucas (3° 44′ 47.5′′ S, 79° 15′ food system outcomes in terms of food sovereignty allows 58.5′′ W) and Jimbilla (3° 51′ 39.5′′ S, 79° 10′ 22.2′′ W) new trends to emerge that will be useful for policy-makers (Fig. 2). (see Oteros-Rozas et al. 2019). For this case study, we used The agricultural calendar for this region (Fig. 3) has a indicators related to five food sovereignty pillars adapted rainy season from September to May and a dry season from by Ortega-Cerdà and Rivera-Ferre (2010): (1) Access to June to August. The agricultural calendar is linked to tradi- Resources, which includes the access human, financial and tional Andean indigenous celebrations (shown in the outer natural resources; (2) Production model, which refers to circle). The rainy season corresponds to September to May both the land and labor organization and the management (periods of high rainfall are usually during October and practices adopted based on agroecology; (3) Transforma- March–April), and the dry season to June to August. Kulla tion and Commercialization, which includes indicators of Raymi (a Quichua word that means Queen festival dedicated transformation practices, prices, access to markets; (4) Food to the moon) begins on September 21. The crops cultivated Security and the Right to Food, which includes indicators of in this season are: corn associated with bean, squash and the food and nutritional security, but also access to cultur- other Andean crops. Following the summer austral solstice ally appropriate food and dependence from buying food; (5) (Kapac Raymi, which in Quichua means wisdom festival), Agrarian policies and Civil Society Organizations, which barley and wheat are planted in January. After March 21 include degree of organization, participation and lobbying (Pawkar Raymi, or flowering festival in Quichua), the fresh capacity of peasants. bean harvest begins. In April, potatoes and peas are planted. On June 21, Saraguro and other ancestral communities cel- ebrate the Sun festival (Inti Raymi, in Quichua) and this 1 3 The agri‑food system (re)configuration: the case study of an agroecological network in the… 1305 Fig. 3 Agricultural calendar for the area of study, canton of Loja, Ecuador. Source: informal interviews and MBS-SSDR/ IFAD/IICA 1991, Neill and Jørgensen 1999, INPC 2012, INAMHI 2014b. Author’s own data is the period of the ripe corn, barley and wheat harvests 51% are smaller than 5 ha and occupy 6% of the land area. (MBS-SSDR/IFAD/IICA 1991; Neill and Jørgensen 1999; The largest units (which are over 100 ha) represent 2% of INAMHI 2014a; INPC 2012). The area where corn is grown local APUs, occupying 40% of the land area. alongside Andean crops (e.g. beans, potatoes) is locally The largest indigenous group is the Saraguro people, a known as chacra, while the huerta is mainly dedicated to large and diverse Quechua group (INPC 2012). Though the planting short-cycle vegetables. Crops are also distributed Saraguro agro-pastoralist society has been heavily trans- according to altitude. formed and the economy diversified in recent times, includ - Provincial data show that the population of Loja canton ing receiving income through remittances due to high rates corresponds to 2.5% of the country’s total population. It is of migration to the US and Spain, most Saraguros maintain predominantly urban (79%) and mestizo (83%), the indig- their distinctive ethnic identity through ceremonies, cloth- enous population (10%) comprising a considerably smaller ing, observing the wakas, i.e. natural sacred beings, etc. proportion of the total population (INEC 2010). For 48% Saraguro culture still maintains an agro-centric spirituality of the population, income derives from on-farm activities and knowledge system (Bacacela 2010). (INEC 2010), while off-farm work is also a relevant strategy The indigenous peoples and mestizos live within com- of income generation for 63% of the population (of the latter, munity-based organizations, i.e. the traditional indigenous 34% is not related to the agricultural sector) (INEC 2010). comunas and farmers’ associations. The comunas are groups Only 14% of agricultural production units (APUs) sell their of indigenous people with formal rules drafted in coordi- production directly to consumers (SINAGAP 2000), while nation with the Ministry of Agriculture (Martínez 1998). These organizations are governed by the Law of Commons (1937) and have the cabildo as their representative body (Martínez 2002). In Saraguro communities, the cabildo is Cultural and biological mix of Spanish and indigenous people therefore the central entity of political organization (Ávila (Belote 2002). 1 3 1306 V. Vallejo-Rojas et al. 2012; INPC 2012). Land ownership is individual and neither to capture the cultural, institutional and ecological diversity the community nor its leaders control rights over the land of the agrarian dynamic in this Ecuadorian Andean region or water supply (Belote 2002). However, mobilizations by (Cepeda, Gondard, and Gasselin 2007). Regarding cultural Saraguro communities in relation to land struggles played diversity, both indigenous Saraguro (N = 59) (81% of the a decisive role in an indigenous uprising during the 1990s San Lucas population) and mestizo households (N = 57) (Rosero 1990, cited in Criollo 1995, p. 164), and the com- (95% of the Jimbilla population) were interviewed (INEC munity currently plays a key role in decision-making on land 2010). To cover institutional diversity, we also included a uses and economic activities, such as communitarian tour- number of households in the communities that belonged to ism (Ordoñez Sotomayor and Ochoa Cueva 2020). indigenous comunas (N = 34) and the RAL (N = 24). Finally, Mostly organized by women, the RAL was created as a to capture ecological diversity, the interviewed households novel institutional arrangement in 2006. It comprises both were located in different altitudinal zones, from low (1800- indigenous (i.e. Saraguro) and mestizo traditional farm- 2200 m.a.s.l.; N = 24) to middle (2200-2600 m.a.s.l.; N = 61) ers’ organizations and is linked to the transnational peas- and high (2600-3000 m.a.s.l.; N = 31) zones (Cueva 2010). ant movement La Vía Campesina. The RAL was created as The survey participants comprised 60% women and 40% a response to rapid socio-economic, cultural and political men (householders aged between 18 and 89  years). The changes that were affecting both social organization and questionnaire included information on: (i) household (e.g. culture (Martínez 2005, 2002), the loss of traditional crops size and division by age and gender) and individual (e.g. and foods (Espinosa 1997; Sherwood et al. 2013) and the ethnic self-identification and educational level) character - progressive dependence on intermediaries in urban markets istics; (ii) production activities (e.g. access to and uses of (Proaño and Lacroix 2013; Chiriboga and Arellano 2004). land, credit, training, agricultural practices, crops and live- As in other cases of agroecological counter-movements stock management, commercialization); (iii) processing in Ecuador, the emergence of RAL met with a favorable and distribution activities (e.g. artisanal processing, com- political environment, i.e. the new Constitution of Ecuador mercialization, access to markets and incomes sources); adopted in 2008 (Asamblea Nacional 2008), which included (iv) consumption activities (e.g. consumption habits); and food sovereignty as a strategic objective (Art. 281) (Intriago (v) social relations (e.g. participation in social exchanges et al. 2017). Additionally, in 2009, the Food Sovereignty such as minga [exchange of work for food, mainly for com- Law (LORSA) was approved to provide a legal framework munity purposes], prestamanos or randi-randi in Quechua for food sovereignty. At the time of this study, the RAL was [exchange of work for work, mainly at the household level], composed of 17 producer organizations and had established exchange of seeds and community-based organizations. All three associative spaces in the city of Loja in the form of survey sections included questions about: rights (e.g. access weekly agro-ecological fairs. At the core of the RAL’s to land); agency (e.g. decisions about crops and livestock governance system is the Participatory Guarantee System management); and power (e.g. role of gender in division of (PGS). PGS are networks created within local communi- tasks and responsibilities within the household in the differ - ties that provide certification for producers based on active ent agri-food activities). participation by stakeholders and are built on a foundation of trust, social networks and knowledge exchange (Loconto Data analysis and Hatanaka 2018). The RAL uses the PGS as a valida- tion tool for implementing agroecology at the farm level We qualitatively analyzed the content of interviews from and as a consumer warranty regarding the type and quality key local informants, and triangulated this information with of products. The RAL is coordinated with the municipality the literature review to define and classify a series of vari- of Loja and the local public university for the access to local ables that describe the configuration of the agri-food system. markets and training. These were classified as explanatory (i.e. those variables from Actors and Governance subsystems that might influ- Data collection ence the behavior of other components and their interac- tions), intermediate (i.e. those variables that are relevant in First, a literature review was conducted in order to collect influencing the configuration of agri-food activities but at context-specific data and complementary information and the same time can be influenced by other explanatory vari- have references to other mountain area studies. In order to ables targeted by our study), or control variables (i.e. those design the survey, informal visits were undertaken to the variables that could influence the configuration of agri-food area in December 2014 to carry out in-depth interviews activities but did not form part of our target study goal). with key informants (N = 14). The survey was then admin- Some of these variables also influence the components of istered in four communities in the parishes of San Lucas agri-food activities (dependent variables, in our case, linked and Jimbilla. The sample was deliberately skewed in order to food sovereignty pillars). 1 3 The agri‑food system (re)configuration: the case study of an agroecological network in the… 1307 A Redundancy Analysis (RDA) was performed to select the configuration of the agri-food system in our case study. the main variables influencing the configuration of the The results of the RDA analysis and the biplot representation agri-food system. RDA is a form of constrained ordina- are shown in Fig. 4. The RDA mainly revealed the trade-off tion that examines how much of the variation in one matrix association between income generation strategies (on-farm of explanatory variables explains the variation in another strategies vs off-farm work) and ecological (RU5.1; RU5.2; matrix of response variables (Leps and Smilauer 2003). The RU6.1) and economic (A8.5) diversification. The analysis explanatory and control variables were included within the also revealed that households with larger land size (RS3 explanatory matrix, and the dependent and intermediate Land size) often have on-farm income generation strategies. variables were included within the response matrix. Prior Two further explanatory variables, i.e. membership to RAL to performing the RDA, we applied a log-transformation and belonging to the indigenous Saraguro culture, were (Leps and Smilauer 2003) to all of the numerical and ordinal mainly associated with agroecological production practices variables. In order to exclude collinear variables from the (A9.1; A9.2; A9.3), a dependence on purchased food (A8.4), model, we performed a collinearity test using the variance seed exchanges (A6.3), access to human resources (A2.5) inflation factor (VIF); a VIF > 10 indicates that a variable and to market (GS5.1). has a high level of collinearity (Zuur et al. 2010; Oksanen In order to better understand how selected explanatory 2013). We then applied a model-building technique to variables positively or negatively influence other variables reduce and find the significant variables (from the explana- of the agri-food system in the four activities (i.e. production, tory matrix) that determine the configuration of the agri- transformation process, distribution, consumption), bivariate food system (i.e. response matrix) in this case study. Model tests were performed (see Fig. 5 and Appendix 3 in Table 4 building was performed using the step function (Oksanen for details). Links with food sovereignty pillars were also 2013) from the Community Ecology Vegan R Package soft- analyzed. ware (Oksanen et al. 2015). The step function uses Akaike's information criterion (AIC) to select the best model from On‑farm income generation strategies among all the possible combinations of available variables within the explanatory matrix. To validate the model’s pre- This variable correlated positively with number of cattle diction, the function uses a permutation test at each step. (RU5.3), crop (RU5.1) and small animal (RU5.2) richness Thus, all included variables in the final model are significant in production activities, i.e. production model pillar. With and all excluded variables not significant (Oksanen 2013). regards to distribution activities, on-farm income generation The results of the RDA were visualized using a biplot graph. strategies displayed a positive correlation with income diver- In order to evaluate the key role socio-economic and insti- sification (A8.5), i.e. production model pillar. With regards tutional factors play in components of agri-food activities, to consumption activities, a positive correlation was found we conducted non-parametric bivariate tests using SPSS with dietary diversity produced (RU6.1), and a negative statistics for each significant variable obtained from the one with importance of small animals for self-consumption RDA. Finally, to understand the configuration of the agri- (A8.2) and the dependence of non-traditional purchased food system in terms of food sovereignty, we linked the five foods low in micronutrients (A8.4), i.e. food security and food sovereignty pillars with signic fi ant dependent and inter - right to food pillar. mediate variables for each agri-food activity. An overview of the variables used for the different analy - O‑farm w ff ork income generation strategies ses performed in the study and their links to food sovereignty pillars is provided in Table 1 and Appendix 2 in Table 3. The variable off-farm work displayed a negative correla- tion with agroecological practices, such as the use of ethno- veterinary products (A9.3), i.e. production model. Pillar. Results Concerning distribution activities, off-farm work had a positive correlation with participation in community-based Our results indicate a statistically significant association working groups (A6.1), i.e. social organization pillar, which (p < 0.0001, from 999 permutations) among the most rel- in turn also influenced income diversification (A8.5), but it evant institutional and socio-economic factors that determine displayed a negative correlation with importance of on-farm incomes (A8.6), production model pillar. With regards to consumption activities, off-farm work had a negative cor - relation with dietary diversity produced (RU6.1), i.e. food We used ln(x) for this, and for those variables that range from zero, security and right to food pillar. ln(x + 1). The Mann–Whitney-U test was used for numerical variables, and the chi-squared test for nominal, dummy and ordinal variables. 1 3 1308 V. Vallejo-Rojas et al. 1 3 Table 1 Summary of the third-tier SES variables (linked to  food sovereignty indicators) obtained from the households’ questionnaires responses (N = 116)  and used for the different analysis performed in the study † † First-tier Second-tier Third-tier: indicators Description Type variable Attributes Food sovereignty pillar (dummy, numeric or nominal) RS RS3 RS3.1—Size of farm Land area by household: hectares Numeric Number Access to resources RS4 RS4.1—Access to roads paved If the rural town have access to main Dummy 1: yes; 0: no Access to resources roads paved RS5 RS5.1—Production of processed dairy Production of processed dairy: fresh Numeric Number Production model cheeses, kg per week (1 kg = 7.7 l of milk) RS9 RS9.1—Location in altitudinal zones Low zone: 1800–2200 m.a.s.l Nominal LowZone Production model Middle zone: 2200–2600 m.a.s.l MiddleZone High zone: 2600–3000 m.a.s.l. HighZone RS9.2—Location in protected area If the community is located within Dummy 1: yes; 0: no Production model protected area RU RU5 RU5.1—Crop richness Specific richness of farmed species Numeric Number Production model (except medicinal and ornamental) RU5.2—Small animal richness Number of types of small bred animals. Numeric Number Production model Types considered include: sheep, pig, poultry, guinea pigs, beekeeping and aquaculture RU5.3—Number of cattle Number of cattle Numeric Number Access to resources RU6 RU6.1—Dietary diversity produced Dietary produced diversity (in the last Numeric Number Right to food year) regarding the food micronu- trients: WDDS inde x . It constitutes the potential of the farm as source of highly nutritious food GS GS4 GS4.1—Land tenure Legal status of land Nominal Properties: Access to resources Without titles Only with titles Both (with & without titles) GS5 GS5.1—Access to retailing location If at least one household member has a Dummy 1: yes; 0: no Agri-food policies & Local retail location in local markets markets GS6 GS6.1—Member of agro-ecological If at least one household member Dummy 1: yes; 0: no Social organization network of Loja (RAL) belongs to community based organiza- tion called Red Agroecológica Loja (RAL) GS6.2—Member of community- based If at least one household member Dummy 1: yes; 0: no Social organization organizations (Comunas) belongs to community based organiza- tion called Comuna A A1 A1.1—Size of labor force Number of people in household Numeric Number Production model with > 15 years A1.2—Gender of respondent - Dummy 1: female; 0: male - The agri‑food system (re)configuration: the case study of an agroecological network in the… 1309 1 3 Table 1 (continued) † † First-tier Second-tier Third-tier: indicators Description Type variable Attributes Food sovereignty pillar (dummy, numeric or nominal) A2 A2.1—Self-identification as Saraguro Regarding the culture, if the house- Dummy 1: yes; 0: no Social organization indigenous hold is self-identified as Saraguro indigenous A2.2—Gender equality in the distribution If 50% or more of activities are per- Dummy 1: yes; 0: no Production model of labor responsibilities formed by both (female and male). Activities considered are: eight to agricultural production and animal production according to animal types in the household, three to processing (food preservation to self-consump- tion, dairy and non-dairy products to sell), three to distribution (crops, livestock, dairy products), and one to off-farm works A2.3—Marketing of agri-food products If household has as strategy of income Dummy 1: yes; 0: no Local markets generation the marketing of some agri-food product (crops, cattle, small animals and/or their products) A2.4—Off-farm If household has as strategy of income Dummy 1: yes; 0: no Production model work generation the off-farm work A2.5—Access to training If at least one household member during Dummy 1: yes; 0: no Agri-food policies & Access to the last year received a training resources A2.6—Access to credit If at least one household member during Dummy 1: yes; 0: no Access to resources the last year had access to credit A6 A6.1—Participation in community-based If at least one household member dur- Dummy 1: yes; 0: no Social organization working groups ing the last three years participated in working groups convened by the community (mingas) A6.2—Participation in services If at least one household member par- Dummy 1: yes; 0: no Social organization exchanges ticipated during the last three years in exchanges of services-services A6.3—Participation in seeds exchanges If at least one household member dur- Dummy 1: yes; 0: no Social organization ing the last three years participated in exchanges of seeds A8 A8.1—Importance of crops for self- Proportion of crops for HH consump- Numeric Number Right to food consumption tion (from total of species farmed) A8.2—Importance of small animals for Proportion of small animals for HH Numeric Number Right to food self -consumption consumption (from total of types of small bred animals) 1310 V. Vallejo-Rojas et al. 1 3 Table 1 (continued) † † First-tier Second-tier Third-tier: indicators Description Type variable Attributes Food sovereignty pillar (dummy, numeric or nominal) A8.3—Importance of traditional foods Frequency of consuming corn—tradi- Ordinal 1: low Right to food tional food (times per week) 2: medium 3: high A8.4—Dependence of non-traditional Frequency of consuming noodles—pur- Ordinal 1: low Right to food purchased foods low in micronutrients chased food (times per week) 2: medium 3: high A8.5—Income diversification Diversification of incomes within the Numeric Number Production model household. The types considered are: five on-farm incomes (sell of crops, dairy and non-dairy products, small animals, and cattle), one off-farm incomes (works), and three non-farm incomes (government subsidies Bono de Desarrollo Humano, remittances, land lease) A8.6—Importance of on-farm incomes Proportion of income diversification Numeric Number Production model due to on-farm incomes A8.7—Dependence on middlemen Selling (crops & dairy) to middlemen Dummy 1: yes; 0: no Local markets A8.8—Weekly frequency of sell Frequency of selling (times per week) Ordinal 0: no sold Local markets 1: sells, but less than once 2: once 3: more than once A9 A9.1—Use of organic inputs on crops If they use organic inputs to control Dummy 1: yes; 0: no Production model pests. Including the bioles A9.2—Use of chemical inputs on crops If they use chemical inputs to control Dummy 1: yes; 0: no Production model pests A9.3—Use of ethno-veterinary products If they use ethno-veterinary products to Dummy 1: yes; 0: no Production model control diseases on small animals RS agro-ecosystem boundaries, RS3 size of resource system, RS4 human-constructed facilities, RS5 productivity of system, RS9 location, RU agro-ecosystem units, RU5 number of units, RU6 distinctive characteristics, GS agri-food governance system, GS4 property-rights systems, GS5 operational-choice rules, GS6 collective-choice rules, A agri-food system actors, A1 number of actors, A2 socioeconomic attributes, A6 social capital, A8 importance of resource, A9 technology available Zoning based on direct observation and cartographic information about the classification of vegetation units (Cueva 2010). The altitudinal range, from about 1800 to 3000 m.a.s.l., corresponds to a temperate climate (Cepeda et al. 2007, p. 46) WDDS index, based on Women’s Dietary Diversity Project designed by FAO (Kennedy et al. 2013) Frequency: low = sells, but 1 time or less/week; medium = 2–3 time; high = 4 times or more Bioles are solutions prepared on-farm based on a fermentation of natural herbs which have a double function: pest control and crop nutrition The agri‑food system (re)configuration: the case study of an agroecological network in the… 1311 Fig. 4 Redundancy analysis biplot showing the explanatory and (labeled in blue). Small red circles represent the households surveyed control variables (labeled in black on arrows) that explain the con- on study (N = 116). Percentage variance explained: RDA 1 (67.72%), figuration of the third-tier SES dependent and intermediate variables RDA 2 (19.36%) crops (A9.1) and ethnoveterinary practices (A9.3); and a The indigenous Saraguro culture negative correlation with conventional practices, such as the use of chemical inputs on crops (A9.2), i.e. produc- With regards to production and processing activities, indig- tion model pillar. Additionally, the RAL collective’s rules enous Saraguro commmunities has a positive correlation has a significant positive correlation with access to train- with access to credit (A2.6) and a negative one with train- ing (A2.5), which in turn also influenced agroecological ing (A2.5), i.e. access to resources. Furthermore, access to practices. Participation in seed exchanges (A6.3), i.e. social credit positively influenced number of cattle (RU5.3) and organization pillar, was also found to correlate with RAL, processed dairy production (RS5.1), access to resources influencing crop richness (RU5.1), production model pil- and production model pillars. According to our survey and lar. With regards to distribution activities, the RAL had a interviews, access to credit in the study area has occurred significant positive correlation with importance of on-farm mainly through savings and credit cooperatives (69%), i.e. incomes (A8.6), i.e. production model pillar. Additionally, through the private sector. With regards to distribution the RAL had significant positive correlation with participa- activities, being Saraguro had a positive influence on weekly tion in services exchanges (A6.2), social organization, and frequency of selling (A8.8). Additionally, being Saraguro access to retail location (GS5.1), i.e. commercialization, has a marginally significant positive correlation with partici- which in turn also influenced the importance of the on-farm pation in community-based working groups (A6.1), social income variable. With regards to consumption activities, the organization pillar, which in turn also influenced income RAL had a significant negative correlation with dependence diversification (A8.5), i.e. production model pillar. on non-traditional purchased foods low in micronutrients (A8.4), i.e. food security and right to food, which in turn RAL collective rules was also influenced by training. With regards to production activities, the RAL collective’s rules displayed significant positive correlations with agro- ecological practices, such as the use of organic inputs on 1 3 1312 V. Vallejo-Rojas et al. Fig. 5 Description of the role played by the following explanatory variables: Indig- enous Saraguro, marketing of agri-food products and off-farm works, Agroeological network of Loja (RAL) in configuring the agri-food system through agri- food activities. The diagram shows the statistical significance of the relationship between each explanatory variable and their intermediate and dependent variables. Letters within brack- ets show how each component of the agri-food system relates to the food sovereignty pillars: a access to resources, b produc- tion model, c local markets, d right to food, e social organiza- tion generation, through both normal local market and PGS Discussion mechanisms, contributes to income diversification within the household, as suggested in the literature (Minot et al. Do economic factors matter when it comes 2006). Secondly, this strategy influences agro-biodiversity to configuration of the agri‑food system and food at the farm level, as suggested for other contexts by Major sovereignty goals? et al. (2005) and Trinh et al. (2003). Households that market their own agri-food products had higher levels of diversity First of all, our results confirm that the commercialization in terms of crop and animal richness; and, as noted by other of agri-food products as an on-farm strategy for income 1 3 The agri‑food system (re)configuration: the case study of an agroecological network in the… 1313 studies (Herforth 2010; Jones et al. 2014), this richness is noted that mingas (e.g. communal works such as water sup- associated with high levels of dietary diversity produced. In ply and road construction) are implemented when communal sum, the commercialization of agri-food products increases action participation is high. Therefore, this variable could control over food sovereignty in the production model and be acting as a contextual factor. Finally, regarding the eco- right to food pillars. Moreover, through the positive influ- nomic characteristics of the household, our results suggest ence of on-farm production diversity the diversity it also that livelihood decisions are strongly affected by the amount increases the diversity of households diets, an important of land owned by the family. Households with small farms nutritional outcome associated with the nutrient adequacy are more likely to have off-farm work in order to diversify of diets and individuals’ nutritional status (Jones et al. 2014). their income sources (Escobal 2001; Lanjouw 1999), while The results illustrate that such households have low levels having more land means being able to maintain livestock, of dependence on non-traditional purchased foods low in the main activity linked to an on-farm income generation micronutrients. Since food consumption of low nutritional strategy in the area of study (Belote 2002; Pohle et al. 2010). quality, especially in areas with fewer economic resources, is To sum up, then, our findings suggest that generating a public health problem in Ecuador (Freire et al. 2013), these income through an off-farm strategy interacts with food sov - results are important for understanding the potential capacity ereignty goals in opposing ways, specifically by decreasing of local agri-food systems to meet human nutritional needs the control over the production model and right to food pil- in fragile and marginal areas, i.e. to impact food sovereignty lars, while also increasing the household’s social organiza- in the right to food pillar. However, our results also show tion and, thus, its diversification. that households that market their own agri-food products score lower in own consumption of small animals, due to Does belonging to mestizo or indigenous the fact that they sell them. This is an undesirable outcome communities matter in the configuration related to the consumption of nutritional foods within the of the agri‑food system and food sovereignty goals? right to food pillar, and is consistent with the findings of recent studies performed in the Ecuadorian Andes (Oyarzun The Andean research community has highlighted the role et al. 2013; Berti et al. 2014) as well as studies found else- of socio-cultural characteristics that link indigenous cul- where in the Andean region (Berti et al. 2010). tures and knowledge to local configuration of the agri-food Regarding the influence of off-farm work on the con- system and adaptation to changes (Garay and Larrabure figuration of the agri-food system, we found that this type 2011; Velásquez-Milla et al. 2011). Our findings contrib- of strategy supports income diversification (Ellis 2000 ), ute to those of the aforementioned studies, showing that helping to increase farm income for rural households liv- indigenous communities and their social capital facilitate ing at subsistence level and thus, to diversify against risk access to other forms of capital, both directly and through (Reardon et al. 2001; Lanjouw 1999). However, it also leads engaging with State, market, and other civil society actors to lesser importance for revenue obtained from the market- (Bebbington and Perreault 1999; Perreault 2003). This influ- ing of farm products and a lower dietary diversity, which ence can be assessed through both ecological and socio- can influence the food consumption at the household level. economic components of the local agri-food system. Being Given that the production model is intensive in labor in the part of the indigenous culture therefore facilitates access region concerned, this lower diversification may influence to credit, mainly to support livelihood strategies related to the reduction of available labor within households for agri- livestock management (i.e. the production model pillar). culture (Rozelle et al. 1999; Pfeiffer et al. 2009). In sum, This result is corroborated by those from other studies on families with an off-farm strategy have a deficit of con- Saraguro culture and shows that livestock ownership (jointly trol over the production model and the food security and with land) is an indicator linked to success in local liveli- right to food pillars of food sovereignty. Unexpectedly, our hoods (Belote 2002), which are mainly based on keeping findings reveal a relationship between participation in the animals and income from selling cheese (Belote 2002; Pohle community based on ties and work (social organization pil- et al. 2010). In line with other research (Belote and Belote lar), expressed through mingas, and income diversification 2005), our findings show that Saraguro people also display (production model pillar). In respect of this, other studies high diversification when it comes to income, given that have shown the importance of social ties in securing off- migration to urban areas and/or foreign countries has been farm work by linking farm residents to jobs outside the farm an common adaptation strategy. In respect of this, access property and/or influencing their likelihood to participate in to a paved road in San Lucas parish is a contextual factor off-farm work (Vanwey and Vithayathil 2013). That being that positively links to being part of Saraguro communities said, however, we cannot fully confirm these findings from and would appear to be relevant to distribution activities, the available data, especially given that other studies on thus influencing sales frequency and income diversification. Ecuadorian Andean communities (Martínez 1996) have This result corroborates other findings showing that access 1 3 1314 V. Vallejo-Rojas et al. to road infrastructure systems has a cascade effect on access Being a member of the RAL also increases the impor- to local markets, the development of multiple activities and tance of on-farm income, and access to markets may explain income diversification (Castaing et al. 2015; Bernardi De the diversification of income due to on-farm activities León 2009). within RAL households. In fact, this is one of the pillars All that being said, access to training is negatively related strengthened most by the RAL, due to it performing lobby- to the Saraguro indigenous group, and we observe here that ing activities with the municipality (Vallejo-Rojas, Ravera they have less access than mestizo people to the information and Rivera-Ferre 2015). Other Ecuadorian agroecological necessary to adopt agricultural practices (González et al. networks (Chauveau et al. 2010; MAGAP 2012; Proaño and 2010). Thus, our results confirm that indigenous people rely Lacroix 2013) have also achieved these desirable outcomes more on local and horizontal networks within the commu- within distribution activities. Regarding eating habits at the nity and traditional ecological knowledge for farming (the household level, our findings reveal the importance of the social organization pillar of food sovereignty). However, no RAL when it comes to access to training, due to it perform- difference was found to be associated with membership of ing lobbying activities with NGOs and the collective rules the comuna or not. As noted by Belote (2002), Saraguro and social ties built by the organization. The RAL’s collec- communities do not act as regulatory units, which may tive rules establish that food production must first focus on explain why this institutional factor was not signic fi ant in the meeting household nutritional needs, forcing the market- indicators used here describing the local agri-food system. ing of agri-food products into second place. This is relevant In sum, from a food sovereignty perspective, our results because it avoids the undesirable effects of indicators linked suggest that in the configuration of the local agri-food sys- to the strategy of commercializing agri-food products within tem in Loja, indigenous Saraguro culture plays a central role the right to food pillar, like those related to low levels of in positively influencing social organization, and therefore self-consumption (explained above). Additionally, social control over access to resources, the production model and ties between mestizos and indigenous people strengthen local markets. the exchange of knowledge in the gastronomic and nutri- tious fields. Previous studies have also highlighted the role Does participating in the RAL matter when it comes of social networks as determinants of consumer habits to configuration of the agri‑food system and food (Fonte 2013; Williams et al. 2015). Moreover, the relation- sovereignty goals? ship between RAL and service exchanges is an important aspect within Ecuadorian Andean communities, where these Our findings make a further contribution to studies based on forms of exchange are becoming increasingly scarce (Mar- agri-food sociology and agroecology research by showing tínez 2002). Reciprocity contributes to the development of that collective organization under the agroecological para- long-term obligations between people, which is an important digm is the core on which food sovereignty components are part of achieving positive environmental outcomes in agri- built (Rosset et al. 2011; Simoncini 2015; Gyau et al. 2014; food systems (Pretty and Smith 2004). Both prior studies Rosset and Altieri 2017; Oteros-Rozas et al. 2019). In our and our key informants indicate that these exchanges are case, the RAL facilitates access to training (specifically in mainly related to on-farm activities (e.g. planting, harvest- this case, agroecological training through contacts with the ing) (Martínez 1996; Gray 2009). local public university) and participation in seed exchange In sum, from a food sovereignty perspective these find- (i.e. access to the resources pillar), which in turn positively ings suggest that RAL’s collective rules play a pivotal role influences the adoption of agroecological production prac- in the interaction between the pillars of social organization tices and agro-biodiversity (i.e. the production model pillar). and agri-food policy, increasing access to the right to food Prior studies and our key informants both point to the key and production model pillars. role played by social organization in the adoption of agroe- RAL is a network led by and mainly comprising women. cological practices through a diálogo de saberes (dialogue of Like other scholars (Gray 2009), we observed that in rural wisdoms) (Martínez-Torres and Rosset 2014), e.g. in agro- parishes of Loja province, the number of women working in ecology or farmers’ schools (McCune et al. 2014) and/or in the farm household increased due to male-driven migration meetings organized by these networks as seed exchange fairs and remittances. Indeed, in our area of study, men are often (Hermann et al. 2009). With its system of collective rules, of engaged in off-farm work (Vallejo-Rojas et al. 2015) mainly which the PGS constitutes the core, the RAL strengthens and linked to the construction sector (INEC 2010), which diver- monitors the implementation of agroecological practices on sifies their sources of income, while women have increased the farms owned by its associate producers. Previous studies their participation in on-farm labor, confirming an increased have also highlighted the key role of PSGs in strengthening female presence in agricultural activities (Deere 2005; Katz agroecological practices (MAGAP 2012; Binder and Vogl 2003). Secondly, we observe that in our case study the 2018). adoption of an agro-ecological production model is strictly 1 3 The agri‑food system (re)configuration: the case study of an agroecological network in the… 1315 related to the existence of a collective agency built by the design. Historically, the role played by Ecuadorian govern- RAL. Women members of RAL have united their efforts, ments in agri-food policies has focused on the agro-export independently of ethnic and class divisions, and through the model, in detriment of peasant and small-farmer agriculture organization’s rules (at a collective level) achieved the suc- (Rosero et al. 2011). As a response to this, there has been cessful adoption of the agro-ecological production model a progressive emergence, consolidation and expansion of (at a farm level) and access to local markets (at a collective counter-movement spaces aimed at agroecology and food level) by lobbying government and nongovernment organi- sovereignty (Intriago et al. 2017). Our study focuses on this zations. Additionally, in the interviews conducted within this re-configuration of local agri-food systems and suggests research, women highlighted an increase in self-esteem and that interventions need to focus on the production model economic independence (at an individual level) as a result of promoted by agro-ecological organizations, while including participating in the RAL. Despite these data requiring more programs aimed at enhancing the role of formal and infor- in-depth research, they confirm the findings of other studies mal organizations involving both peasants and indigenous on collective agency and women (Agarwal 2000; Gabriels- communities, strengthening their alliances with consum- son and Ramasar 2013; Bezner-Kerr et al. 2019). Recent ers. Similarly, government investments aimed at generally studies in the Ecuadorian Andean context (Cole et al. 2011) improving the nutrition and health levels of the population have also suggested that women’s greater understanding of should include those collaboration programs with agroeco- crop management options and more equal household gender logical networks that are likely to have the broadest and relations are associated with conventional practices being greatest impact on consumer habits within the rural sector at less widespread. the household level and provide greater nutritional diversity. That being said, those agricultural programs that focus on a single crop and off-farm income generation may make small- Conclusions holder farms and farming families more vulnerable, resulting in poorer ecological, nutritional and economic outcomes of By combining the SES and food sovereignty frameworks the agri-food system from a food sovereignty perspective. in a local Ecuadorian Andean case study, we have analyzed Additionally, regarding policy focusing on conservation, which variables and factors interact in the local agri-food policy-makers interested in promoting the sustainable use system, contributing to an understanding of its current of natural resources (soil, water, forest) need to consider configuration when conceptualized as a social-ecological not only including communities living in protected areas system. Most food sovereignty-related research to date has within conservation programs, but also the role of infor- shown, mainly through qualitative methodologies, the key mal networks to improve the adoption of sustainable local role of social organization and collective action as a central production practices in and around protected areas. In sum, component in advancing the proposal for food sovereignty. ignoring the role of social and institutional factors could Our study contributes to this literature by quantitatively represent a missed opportunity to improve the management demonstrating how being part of the RAL and participating of Ecuadorian agri-food systems across scales. in the PGS foster this proposal in practice. Finally, we would note that, in part, ensuring food sov- The links and interacting effects between the variables ereignty means not only implementing agroecological solu- in our study are complex and non-linear. More research tions but also dealing with power relationships in the pro- in different contexts is required to determine which cross- ductive system and specifically on gender roles, rights and scale factors either enhance or pose a barrier to food sov- involvement in decision-making (Patel 2012; Bezner-Kerr ereignty goals, and which are most relevant in promoting et al. 2019). This topic certainly deserves more attention in household adaptation amid the high uncertainty of global future research. environmental change (e.g. how household diversification fosters risk diversification) or making it more difficult (e.g. off-farm work linked to small farms and lack of access Appendix 1 to land). Such an understanding may help future policy 1 3 1316 V. Vallejo-Rojas et al. Table 2 Working definitions for each second-tier SES variables used to describe the agri-food system as SES using the McGinnis and Ostrom framework (2014) Second-tier Working definition References RS3 Size of resource system Agroecosystem spatial boundaries, equivalent to a Gliessman (2002), McGinnis (2011) farm, farmland, plot, etc., or, to a set of these units RS4 Human-constructed facilities Technological infrastructure for the design and Gliessman (2002) management of the agri-food production systems (e.g., irrigation systems, silos, road systems) RS5 Productivity of system Biomass production from the agro-ecosystem Gliessman (2002) RS9 Location Geographical space where the resource system Gliessman (2002), Dudley (2008), McGinnis (2011) is located. It can be characterized by a set of environmental factors (e.g., altitudinal variations, precipitation regime) and/or be a clearly defined geographical space with protection to achieve the long-term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values RU5 Number of units Biotic factors that form part of the agro-ecosystem Gliessman (2002) RU6 Distinctive characteristics Characteristics of living entities. For example, the Kennedy et al. (2013), McGinnis and Ostrom (2014) micronutrient richness that have the crops and animals GS4 Property-rights systems Defines the relations among people with respect to McGinnis and Ostrom (2014) things, and specifies both duties and obligations GS5 Operational rules Implementation of practical decisions by those indi- McGinnis and Ostrom (2014) viduals who have been authorized (or allowed) to take these actions as a consequence of collective choice processes GS6 Collective-choice rules The processes through which institutions are McGinnis and Ostrom (2014) constructed and policy decisions made, by those actors authorized to participate in the collec- tive decisions as a consequence of constitutional choice processes A1 Number of actors It comprises the labor force defined as the number INEC (2014) of people in working age (> 15 years) (they may or may not have employment) A2 Socioeconomic attributes Characteristics of actors related to social (e.g., eth- Ostrom and Cox (2010), Anderies and Janssen nic background, education, skills, gender, values, (2013) etc.) and economic dimensions A6 Social capital Social capital comprises the range of relationships, McGinnis (2011), networks and institutions that allow people to Meinzen-Dick et al. (2014) build trust and cooperation. In these sense, it includes: the reciprocity, a norm of behavior that encourages members of a group to cooperate with others who have cooperated with them in previous encounters. The trust, a measure of the extent to which members of this community feel confident that other members will come to their assistance when needed. The networks, ties, not bounded by organized groups that facilitate the informal exchange of information or materials, such as seeds A8 Importance of resource Actors are dependent on the resource system for a (Ostrom 2009) substantial portion of their livelihoods. It includes different types of importance such as: food, cul- tural and economic importance A9 Technologies available Practices used by actors for the design and manage- Gliessman (2002) ment of the agri-food production systems. Actors can use agro-ecological practices (based on the application of ecological concepts and principles) or modern/conventional practices (based on maxi- mizing short-term production) 1 3 The agri‑food system (re)configuration: the case study of an agroecological network in the… 1317 Appendix 2 Table 3 Classification of variables of the SES framework in explanatory, control, intermediate and depended variables in order to analyze the agri-food system configuration according to literature review, narratives from key local informants and available observations Second-tier Third-tier Linkages with system interactions and bibliographic Key informants a references Explanatory variables  GS6 GS6.1—Member of agro-ecological network of Loja It can influence interactions such as production and I-RAL-1, (RAL) monitoring activities linked to adoption of agro- I-ASOR-1, ecological models Pretty and Smith (2004), Rosset I-MA-1, et al. (2011); distribution activities linked to better I-UNL-1 access to markets Gyau et al. (2014), Binder and Vogl (2018), Chauveau et al. (2010) and alternative food networks Simoncini (2015); self-organizing activities linked to influence on agri-food policies Rosset et al. (2011)  GS6 GS6.2—Member of community- based organizations It can influence local agri-food system interactions I-COM-1, (comunas) such as self-organizing activities that influence agri- I-COM-2 food policies Martínez (2002)  A2 A2.1– Self-identification as Saraguro indigenous It can influence interactions such as production activi- I-COM-1, ties linked to sustainable crop management practices I-GADP-1, Velásquez-Milla et al. (2011), distribution activities I- GADP-2 linked to incomes from on-farm activities (Winterset al. 2002), and self-organizing activities linked to access to resources Bebbington and Perreault (1999), Perreault (2003) A2.2—Gender equality in the distribution of labor It can determine the power space within the household – responsibilities in the different agri-food activities Fadiman (2005), Howard (2003); and, it can influence interactions such as production activities linked to reduced use of chemical inputs Cole et al. (2011), and consumption activities linked to improving nutrition at household level Schreinemachers et al. (2015) A2.3—Marketing of agri-food products It can influence production activities linked to I-RAL-1, increased crop diversification Jones et al. (2014), I-ASOR-1, increased dietary diversity and on-farm incomes (von I-MA-1 Braun (1995), Herforth (2010), Jones et al. (2014), Minot et al. (2006) A2.4—Off-farm work It can influence production activities linked to I-MA-1, decreased crop diversification Winters et al. (2006), I-FEN-1, Kasem and Thapa (2011) and distribution activities I-COM-1, linked to increased income diversification Lanjouw I-ASON-1, (1999), Marchetta (2013) I- GADM-1 Control variables  RS3 RS3.1—Size of farm It can influence crop diversification Kumar et al. I-RAL-1 (2012), Winters et al. (2006), Sichoongwe et al. (2014), choice and accumulation of livestock Tegebu et al. (2012), productivity Fan and Chan-Kang (2005) and incomes from on-farm activities Winters et al. (2002)  RS4 RS4.1—Access to roads paved It can influence crop diversification Kumar et al. I-ASOR-1, (2012), Sichoongwe et al. (2014), incomes diver- I-ASON-1 sification Castaing et al. (2015) and incomes from on-farm activities Winters et al. (2002)  RS9 RS9.1—Location in altitudinal zones It can influence crop diversification Velásquez-Milla – et al. (2011) RS9.2—Location in protected area It can influence food production Castro et al. (2015) –  GS4 GS4.1—Land tenure Not clear influence among securing land titling and I-COM-1, access to credit Domeher and Raymond (2012) I-COM-2, I-ASOR-1, I-ASON-1 1 3 1318 V. Vallejo-Rojas et al. Table 3 (continued) Second-tier Third-tier Linkages with system interactions and bibliographic Key informants a references  A1 A1.1—Size of labor force It can influence crop diversification Winters et al. – (2006), Velásquez-Milla et al. (2011), Kasem and Thapa (2011) A1.2—Gender of respondent We included the sex of survey respondents in order to – avoid gender bias Twyman et al. (2015) Intermediate variables GS5 GS5.1—Access to retailing location It can influence crop diversification (Kumar et al. I-RAL-1, 2012; Kasem and Thapa (2011) and farmers’ deci- I-ASOR-1, sions to use middlemen for accessing markets (Abde- I-MA-1 lali-Martini et al. 2014). Additionally, this access can be determined by institutional factors as membership to farmers groups and/or agro-ecological networks) A2 A2.5—Access to training These assets play an important role on crop diversi- I-RAL-1, fication Kumar et al. (2012), Winters et al. (2006), I-ASOR-1, Kasem and Thapa (2011), and incomes diversifica- I-MA-1, tion Winters et al. (2002). Additionally, these assets I-UNL-1 can be determined by social factors as indigenous culture and by institutional factors as membership to farmers groups and/or agro-ecological networks Kasem and Thapa (2011), Hellin et al. (2009), McCune et al. (2014), Isaac (2012) A2.6—Access to credit Ibid I-GADP-1 A6 A6.1—Participation in community-based working These social relations can influence crop diversifica- I-RAL-1, groups tion (Winters et al. 2006; Fuentes et al. (2012) and I-ASOR-1, income diversification (Winters, et al. 2002). Addi- I-MA-1 tionally, these social relations can be determined by social factors as culture Walsh–Dilley (2012) and by institutional factors as membership to farmers groups and/or agro-ecological networks Isaac (2012), Pretty and Smith (2004) A6.2—Participation in services exchanges Ibid Ibid A6.3—Participation in seeds exchanges Ibid Ibid Dependent variables RS5 RS5.1—Production of processed dairy Variable included in terms of processing activities – Kristjanson et al. (2007) RU5 RU5.1—Crop richness Variable included in terms of production activities – Kumar et al. (2012), Kasem and Thapa (2011), Velásquez-Milla et al. (2011), Sichoongwe et al. (2014) RU5.2—Small animal richness Ibid RU5.3—Number of cattle Variable included in terms of production activities – Delgado et al. (2008), Kristjanson et al. (2007) RU6 RU6.1—Dietary diversity produced Variable included in terms of consumption activities – Jones et al. (2014), Herforth (2010), Oyarzun et al. (2013) A8 A8.1—Importance of crops for self-consumption Variable included in terms of consumption activities – Marchetta (2013) A8.2—Importance of small animals for self -consump- Ibid – tion A8.3—Importance of traditional foods Variable included in terms of consumption activities – Velásquez-Milla et al. (2011) A8.4—Dependence of non-traditional purchased foods Variable included in terms of consumption activities – low in micronutrients Freire et al. (2013), Oyarzun et al. (2013) A8.5—Income diversification Variable included in terms of distribution activities – Marchetta (2014), Winters et al. (2002), Escobal (2001) 1 3 The agri‑food system (re)configuration: the case study of an agroecological network in the… 1319 Table 3 (continued) Second-tier Third-tier Linkages with system interactions and bibliographic Key informants a references A8.6—Importance of on-farm incomes Variable included in terms of distribution activities – Kasem and Thapa (2011) A8.7—Dependence on middlemen Variable included in terms of distribution activities – Abdelali-Martini et al. (2014) A8.8—Weekly frequency of sell Variable included in terms of distribution activities – Nsoso et al. (2004) A9 A9.1—Use of organic inputs on crops Variable included in terms of production activities – Altieri (1995) A9.2—Use of chemical inputs on crops Ibid – A9.3—Use of ethno-veterinary products Ibid – RS agro-ecosystem boundaries, RS3 size of resource system, RS4 human-constructed facilities, RS5 productivity of system, RS9 location, RU agro-ecosystem units, RU5 number of units, RU6 distinctive characteristics, GS agri-food governance system, GS4 property-rights systems, GS5 operational-choice rules, GS6 collective-choice rules, A agri-food system actors, A1 number of actors, A2 socioeconomic attributes, A6 social capital, A8 importance of resource, A9 technology available Based on previously analyzed narratives from key local informants (Vallejo-Rojas et  al. 2015). I-MA-1 movimiento Agroecológico de Amé- rica Latina y Caribe (MAELA) & Red Agroecológica Loja (RAL), I-FEN-1 Federación Nacional de Organizaciones Campesinas e Indígenas (FENOCIN), I-RAL-1 RAL I-, SON-1 “Amigos de la Naturaleza” association, I-ASOR-1 “San Antonio” association & RAL, I-COM-1 Comuna “Pueblo Viejo”, I-COM-2 Comuna “Ramos”, I- GADM-1 Autonomous decentralized government (GAD) of canton of “Loja”, I-GADP-1& I- GADP-2 GAD of rural parish of “San Lucas”, I-UNL-1 National university of Loja (UNL) Appendix 3 1 3 1320 V. Vallejo-Rojas et al. 1 3 Table 4 Relations between culture (indigenous Saraguro / mestizo), member of RAL (agro-ecological network of Loja) and strategies of income generation (marketing of agri-food products and off-farm work) with the third-tier SES intermediate and dependent variables Agri-food activities n Indigenous Saraguro Mestizo RAL Non-RAL Marketing Without market- Off-farm work Without off-farm work & third-tier SES of agri-food ing of agri-food variables products products Production  A2.5—Access to 116 % Yes 22.4 43.1 100.0 21.2 34.3 18.2 32.4 33.3 training % No 77.6 56.9 0.0 78.8 65.7 81.8 67.6 66.7 χ 4.74* 37.39*** 0.56 0.0  A2.6—Access to 116 % Yes 31.0 13.8 35.3 20.2 22.9 18.2 22.1 22.9 credit % No 69.0 86.2 64.7 79.8 77.1 81.8 77.9 77.1 χ 4.02* 1.13 0.0 0.0  A6.2—Participa- 116 % Yes 41.4 31.0 58.8 32.3 37.1 27.3 35.3 37.5 tion in services  Exchanges % No 58.6 69.0 41.2 67.7 62.9 72.7 64.7 62.5 χ 0.93 3.34 m.s 0.10 0.002  A6.3—Participa- 116 % Yes 39.7 25.9 76.5 25.3 35.2 9.1 33.8 31.3 tion in seed exchanges % No 60.3 74.1 23.5 74.7 64.8 90.9 66.2 68.8 χ 1.92 15.03*** 2.02 0.008  RU5.1—Crop rich- 116 number (S.D.) 17.7 (9.48) 15.2 (9.98) 19.7 (10.30) 15.9 (9.62) 17.2 (9.82) 9.2 (5.67) 16.3 (10.10) 16.7 (9.40) ness U 1387.00 658.00 297.00** 1570.50  RU5.2—Small 113 Number (S.D.) 2.5 (0.94) 2.5 (1.10) 2.6 (1.00) 2.5 (1.03) 2.6 (0.99) 1.4 (0.51) 2.4 (1.08) 2.7 (0.91) animal richness U 1534.50 767.00 163.50*** 1254.50  RU5.3—Number 85 Number (S.D. ) 4.3 (2.74) 3.6 (2.59) 4.3 (2.37) 3.9 (2.74) 4.0 (2.66) 1.0 (0.0) 3.7 (2.27) 4.2 (3.11) of cattle U 765.00 421.00 8.0* 855.50  A9.1—Use of 116 % Yes 27.6 31.0 64.7 23.2 30.5 18.2 33.8 22.9 organic inputs on  Crops % No 72.4 69.0 35.3 76.8 69.5 81.8 66.2 77.1 χ 0.04 10.13*** 0.25 1.13  A9.2—Use of 116 % Yes 17.2 17.2 0.0 20.2 18.1 9.1 19.1 14.6 chemical inputs On crops % No 82.8 82.8 100.0 79.8 81.9 90.9 80.9 85.4 χ 0.00 2.86* 0.11 0.15  A9.3—Use of 113 % Yes 22.4 31.0 82.4 17.2 28.6 9.1 19.1 37.5 ethno-veterinary  Products % No 77.6 69.0 17.6 82.8 71.4 90.9 80.9 62.5 The agri‑food system (re)configuration: the case study of an agroecological network in the… 1321 1 3 Table 4 (continued) Agri-food activities n Indigenous Saraguro Mestizo RAL Non-RAL Marketing Without market- Off-farm work Without off-farm work & third-tier SES of agri-food ing of agri-food variables products products χ 1.04 27.16 *** 1.06 3.96* Process  RS5.1—Produc- 78 Kg/week (S.D.) 9.8 (6.42) 7.70 (4.52) 9.4 (5.75) 8.6 (5.63) 8.8 (5.61) 2.7 (0.0) 8.2 (5.34) 9.4 (5.94) tion of processed dairy Distribution  GS5.1—Access to 105 % Yes 17.0 19.2 100.0 2.3 18.1 – 16.7 20.0 a retail  Location % No 83.0 80.8 0.0 97.7 81.9 – 83.3 80.0 2 – χ 0.002 85.34*** 0.03  A6.1—Participa- 116 % Yes 81.0 65.5 88.2 70.7 74.3 63.6 80.9 62.5 tion in  Community-based % No 19.0 34.5 11.8 29.3 25.7 36.4 19.1 37.5 working  Groups χ 2.82 1.47 0.16 3.96*  A8.5—Income 116 Number (S.D.) 4.1 (1.36) 3.5 (1.57) 4.2 (1.38) 3.7 (1.51) 4.0 (1.35) 1.5 (0.52) 4.1 (1.54) 3.4 (1.35) diversification U 1288.00* 696.50 45.50*** 1216.00*  A8.6—Importance 116 % (S.D.) 57.2 (25.95) 56.6 (24.87) 69.6 (17.10) 54.7 (25.90) 62.9 (18.15) 0.0 (0.0) 47.6 (21.06) 70.1 (25.14) of on-farm  Incomes U 1665.00 570.50* 670.50***  A8.7—Depend- 105 % Yes 41.5 34.6 17.6 42.0 38.1 – 41.7 33.3 ence on  Middlemen% No 58.5 65.4 82.4 58.0 61.9 – 58.3 66.7  A8.8—Weekly 105 % Less than once 11.3 21.2 11.8 17.0 16.2 – 21.7 8.9 frequency of sell % Once 64.2 73.1 58.8 70.5 68.6 – 66.7 71.1 % More than once 24.5 5.8 29.4 12.5 15.2 – 11.7 20.0 2 – χ 7.93* 3.20 3.84 Consumption  RU6.1—Dietary 116 Number (S.D.) 8.1 (1.04) 7.7 (1.76) 8.4 (1.06) 7.8 (1.50) 8.1 (1.32) 6.3 (1.79) 7.6 (1.61) 8.3 (1.10) diversity  Produced U 1563.50 634.00 223.50*** 1173.00**  A8.1—Importance 116 Number (S.D.) 98.3 (7.94) 98.4 (5.12) 99.0 (3.51) 98.2 (7.06) 98.1 (6.97) 100.0 (0.0) 98.5 (5.46) 98.1 (8.10) of crops for self- consumption 1322 V. Vallejo-Rojas et al. 1 3 Table 4 (continued) Agri-food activities n Indigenous Saraguro Mestizo RAL Non-RAL Marketing Without market- Off-farm work Without off-farm work & third-tier SES of agri-food ing of agri-food variables products products  A8.2—Importance 113 Number (S.D.) 90.5 (16.14) 91.0 (18.67) 94.1 (16.61) 90.2 (17.49) 89.9 (17.98) 100.0 (0.0) 90.26 (15.85) 91.5 (19.33) of small  Animals for self- U 1524.50 710.00 407.00* 1428.00 consumption  A8.3—Importance 116 % Low 13.8 19.0 11.8 17.2 15.2 27.3 19.1 12.5 of traditional  Foods % Medium 27.6 31.0 11.8 32.3 29.5 27.3 25.0 35.4 % High 56.8 50.0 76.5 50.5 55.2 45.5 55.9 52.1  A8.4—Dependence 116 % Low 24.1 27.6 52.9 21.2 26.7 18.2 29.4 20.8 of non-  Traditional pur- %Medium 50.0 36.2 47.1 42.4 45.7 18.2 42.6 43.8 chased foods low  In micronutrients % High 25.9 36.2 0.0 36.4 27.6 63.6 27.9 35.4 χ 2.41 11.90** 6.19* 1.32 Asterisks indicate significant differences after the non-parametric statistical tests (χ = Chi-Square; U = Mann–Whitney-U): m.s. (marginally significant) = 0.05 < p < 0.1; *p  ≤  0.05; **p ≤ 0.01; ***p ≤ 0.001 S.D.standard deviation Number of respondents Results of bivariate analysis (statistical value) are not shown because there are not significant relationships for any of the groups analyzed and/or the bivariate analysis is not applicable The agri‑food system (re)configuration: the case study of an agroecological network in the… 1323 Acknowledgements We thank Narcisa Medina and Rovin Andrade, Transnacionalismo, Redes e Identidades, edited by G. Herrera, local leaders of the rural Andean parishes Jimbilla and San Lucas of M. Carrillo, and A. Torres, 449–66. Quito, Ecuador: FLACSO the Loja canton; and, Nancy Huaca, coordinator of the Agroecological - Sede Ecuador. Network of Loja (RAL); who have shown their aperture for carrying Bernardi De León, R. 2009. Road development in podocarpus national out the research in eight communities of their locality and have shared park: An assessment of threats and opportunities. Journal of Sus- their experiences and knowledges. This research was part of a PhD tainable Forestry 28 (6–7): 735–754. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ study funded by the National Secretariat for Science, Technology and 10549 81090 29366 07 Innovation (SENESCYT) of Ecuadorian government. The correspond- Berti, P., C. Fallu, and Y. Cruz. 2014. A systematic review of the nutri- ing author has been funded by AXA Research Fund (2016) and Ramón tional adequacy of the diet in the central Andes. Revista Pan- i Cajal fellowship (RYC2018-025958-I) funded by Ministerio de Cien- americana De Salud Publica 34 (5): 314–323. cia, Innovación y Universidades (Spain). Berti, P., A. Jones, Y. Cruz, S. Larrea, R. Borja, and S. Sherwood. 2010. Assessment and characterization of the diet of an isolated population in the Bolivian Andes. American Journal of Human Funding Open Access funding provided thanks to the CRUE-CSIC Biology 22 (6): 741–749. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ ajhb. 21075. agreement with Springer Nature. Bezner-Kerr, R., C. Hickey, E. Lupafy, and D. Laifolo. 2019. Repairing rifts or reproducing inequalities? Agroecology, food sovereignty, Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attri- and gender justice in Malawi. Journal of Peasant Studies 46 (7): bution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adapta- 1499–1518. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 03066 150. 2018. 15478 97. tion, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long Binder, N., and Ch.R. Vogl. 2018. Participatory guarantee systems as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, in Peru: Two case studies in lima and Apurímac and the role provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes of capacity building in the food chain. Sustainability 10: 4644. were made. The images or other third party material in this article are https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ su101 24644. included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated Binimelis, R., M.G. Rivera-Ferre, G. Tendero, M. Badal, and M. Heras. otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in 2014. Adapting established instruments to build useful food sov- the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not ereignty indicators. Development Studies Research 1: 324–339. permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 21665 095. 2014. 973527. need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a Brem-Wilson, J. 2015. Towards food sovereignty: Interrogating peasant copy of this licence, visit http://cr eativ ecommons. or g/licen ses/ b y/4.0/ . voice in the United Nations Committee on World Food Security. The Journal of Peasant Studies 42 (1): 73–95. https://doi. or g/10. 1080/ 03066 150. 2014. 968143. Brondizio, E.S., E. Ostrom, and O.R. Young. 2009. Connectivity and References the governance of multilevel social-ecological systems: the role of social capital. Annual Review of Environment and Resources Abdelali, M.M., B. Dhehibi, and A. Aw-Hassan. 2014. Determinants 34 (1): 253–278. https:// doi. or g/ 10. 1146/ annur e v . envir on. of small scale dairy sheep producers’ decisions to use middlemen 020708. 100707. for accessing markets and getting loans in dry marginal areas in Castaing, G., and B.G. NajmanRaballand. 2015. Roads and diversifica- Syria. Experimental Agriculture 50: 438–457. https://doi. or g/10. tion of activities in rural areas: A Cameroon case study. Devel- 1017/ S0014 47971 30006 28. opment Policy Review 33 (3): 355–372. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ Agarwal, B. 2000. Conceptualising environmental collective action: dpr. 12111. Why gender matters. Cambridge Journal of Economics 24 (3): Castro, A., B. Martín-López, E. López, T. Plieninger, D. Alcaraz- 283–310. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1093/ cje/ 24.3. 283. Segura, C.C. Vaughn, and J. Cabello. 2015. Do protected areas Altieri, M. 1995. Agroecology: The scientific basis of alternative agri- networks ensure the supply of ecosystem services? Spatial pat- culture. Boca Raton, USA: Taylor and Francis Book. terns of two nature reserve systems in semi-arid Spain. Applied Altieri, M. 2009. Agroecology, small farms, and food sover- Geography 60: 1–9. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. apgeog. 2015. 02. eignty. Monthly Review 61 (3): 102. https:// doi. org/ 10. 14452/ MR- 061- 03- 2009- 07_8. Cepeda, D., P. Gondard, and P. Gasselin. 2007. Mega Diversidad Anderies, J.M., and M. A. Janssen. 2013. Sustaining the Commons. Agraria en el Ecuador: Disciplina, Conceptos y Herramientas Center for the Study of Institutional Diversity, Arizona State Metodológicas para el Analisis-Diagnóstico de Micro-Regiones. University In Mosaico Agrario, edited by M. Vaillant, D. Cedepa, P. Gond- Argumedo, A., and M. Pimbert. 2010. Bypassing globalization: Barter ard, A. Zapatta, and A. Meunier. Quito, Ecuador: SIPAE, IRD, markets as a new indigenous economy in Peru. Development 53 IFEA. (3): 343–349. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1057/ dev. 2010. 43. Chauveau, C., W. Carchi, P. Peñafiel, and M. Guamán. 2010. Agro - Asamblea Nacional. 2008. Constitución de la República del Ecuador. ecología y Venta Directa Organizadas, una Propuesta para Ecuador: R.O. N 449 de 20 de octubre de 2008. Valorizar Mejor Los Territorios de la Sierra Sur del Ecuador. Ávila, L. F. 2012. Disputas de Poder y Justicia: San Lucas (Saraguro). Cuenca, Ecuador: CEDIR-AVSF-FEM. In Justicia Indígena, Plurinacionalidad e Interculturalidad En Chiriboga, M., and J.F. Arellano. 2004. Diagnóstico de la Comerciali- Ecuador, ed. Boaventura de Sousa Santos and J. Grijalva, 373– zación para la Pequeña Economía Campesina y Propuesta para 430. Quito, Ecuador: Abya-Yala. una Agenda Nacional de Comercialización Agropecuaria. Quito, Bebbington, A., and Th. Perreault. 1999. Social capital, development, Ecuador: RIMISP. and access to resources in highland ecuador. Economic Geogra- Cole, D., F. Orozco, W. Pradel, J. Suquillo, X. Mera, A. Chacon, G. phy 75 (4): 395–418. Prain, S. Wanigaratne, and J. Leah. 2011. An agriculture and Belote, L. 2002. Relaciones Interétnicas en Saraguro 1962–1972. health inter-sectorial research process to reduce hazardous pes- Abya-Yala. ticide health impacts among smallholder farmers in the Andes. Belote, L., and J. Belote. 2005. ¿Que Hacen Dos Mil Saraguros BMC International Health and Human Rights 11 (2): S6. https:// en EE.UU. y España? In La Migración Ecuatoriana doi. org/ 10. 1186/ 1472- 698X- 11- S2- S6. 1 3 1324 V. Vallejo-Rojas et al. Cox, M., G. Arnold, and S. Villamayor. 2010. A review of design prin- Gray, C. 2009. Rural out-migration and smallholder agriculture in ciples for community-based natural resource management. Ecol- the southern Ecuadorian Andes. Population and Environment ogy and Society 15 (4): 38. 30 (4–5): 193–217. https://doi. or g/10. 1007/ s11111- 009- 0081-5 . Criollo, T. 1995. Economía Campesina y Estrategias de Sobrevivencia Gyau, A., S. Franzel, M. Chiatoh, G. Nimino, and K. Owusu. 2014. en Zonas de Altura Caso: San Lucas. Loja, Ecuador: CCE. Collective action to improve market access for smallholder Cueva, J.L. 2010. Elaboración y Análisis del Estado de la Cobertura producers of agroforestry products: Key lessons learned with Vegetal de la Provincia de Loja-Ecuador. España: Universidad insights from Cameroon’s experience. Current Opinion in Envi- Internacional de Andalucía. ronmental Sustinability 6: 68–72. https:// doi. or g/ 10. 1016/j. Deere, C. D. 2005. The Feminization of Agriculture? Economic cosust. 2013. 10. 017. Restructuring in Rural Latin America. Geneva, Switzerland: Herforth, A. 2010. Promotion of Traditional african vegetables in UNRISD Kenya and Tanzania: A case study of an intervention represent- Domeher, D., and A. Raymond. 2012. Access to credit in the develop- ing emerging imperatives in global nutrition. New York, USA: ing world: Does land registration matter? Third World Quarterly Cornell University. 33: 161–175. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 01436 597. 2012. 627254. Hellin, J., M. Lundy, and M. Meijer. 2009. Farmer organization, collec- Dudley, N. 2008. Guidelines for appling protected areas management tive action and market access in Meso-America. Food Policy 34: categories. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. 16–22. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. foodp ol. 2008. 10. 003. Ellis, F. 2000. The determinants of rural livelihood diversification in Hermann, M., K. Amaya, L. Latournerie, and L. Castiñeiras. 2009. developing countries. Journal of Agricultural Economics 51 (2): ¿Cómo Conservan Los Agricultores Sus Semillas en el Trópico 89–302. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1477- 9552. 2000. tb012 29.x. Húmedo de Cuba, México y Perú? Roma, Italia: Bioversity Ericksen, P. 2008. Conceptualizing food systems for global environ- International. mental change research. Global Environmental Change 18 (1): Howard, P.L. 2003. Women and plants: Gender relations in biodiversity 234–245. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. gloen vcha. 2007. 09. 002. management and conservation. London: Zed Books. Escobal, J. 2001. The determinants of nonfarm income diversification Instituto Nacional de Meteorología e Hidrología (INAMHI). 2014a. in Rural Peru. World Development 29 (3): 497–508. https:// doi. Análisis de Las Condiciones Climáticas Registradas en el Ecua- org/ 10. 1016/ S0305- 750X(00) 00104-2. dor Continental en el Año 2013 y su Impacto en el Sector Agrí- Espinosa, P. 1997. Raíces y tubérculos andinos cultivos marginados en cola. Quito, Ecuador. el Ecuador: situación actual y limitaciones para la producción. Instituto Nacional de Meteorología e Hidrología (INAMHI). 2014b. ABYA-YALA editor Boletín Climatológico Anual 2013. Quito, Ecuador. Fadiman, M. 2005. Cultivated food plants: Culture and gendered spaces Instituto Nacional Estádistica y Censos (INEC). 2010. Censo de of colonists and the Chachi in Ecuador. Journal Latin American Población y Vivienda 2010. http:// www. ecuad orenc ifras. gob. Geography 4: 43–57.ec/ siste ma- integ rado- de- consu ltas- redat am/. Fan, Sh., and C. Chan-Kang. 2005. Is small beautiful? Farm size, pro- Instituto Nacional del Patrimonio Cultural (INPC). 2012. Memoria ductivity, and poverty in Asian agriculture. Agricultural Eco- Oral del Pueblo Saraguro. Loja, Ecuador: Regional 7 Instituto nomics 32: 135–146. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 0169- 5150. 2004. Nacional de Patrimonio Cultural. 00019.x. Isaac, M. 2012. Agricultural information exchange and organizational Fonte, M. 2013. Food consumption as social practice: solidarity pur- ties: The effect of network topology on managing agrodiversity. chasing groups in Rome Italy. Journal of Rural Studies 32: 230– Agricultural Systems 109: 9–15. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. agsy. 239. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jrurs tud. 2013. 07. 003.2012. 01. 011. Freire, W., M. J. Ramírez, P. Belmont, M. J. Mendieta, K. M. Silva, Intriago, R., R. Gortaire Amézcua, E. Bravo, and C. O’Connell. 2017. N. Romero, K. Sáenz, P. Piñeiros, L. F. Gómez, and R. Monge. Agroecology in ecuador: Historical processes, achievements, 2013. Encuesta Nacional de Salud y Nutrición del Ecuador. and challenges. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems. 41 ENSANUT-ECU 2011–2013. Quito, Ecuador: MSP/INEC. (3–4): 311–328. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 21683 565. 2017. 12841 Fuentes, F., D. Bazile, A. Bhargava, and E. Martínez. 2012. Implica- 74. tions of farmers’ seed exchanges for on-farm conservation of Jones, A., A. Shrinivas, and R. Bezner-Kerr. 2014. Farm production quinoa, as revealed by its genetic diversity in Chile. Journal of diversity is associated with greater household dietary diversity Agriculture Science 150: 702–716. https://doi. or g/10. 1017/ S0021 in Malawi: findings from nationally representative data. Food 85961 20000 56. Policy 46 (June): 1–12. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. foodp ol. 2014. Gabrielsson, S., and V. Ramasar. 2013. Widows: agents of change in 02. 001. a climate of water uncertainty. Journal of Cleaner Production Kasem, S., and G. Thapa. 2011. Crop diversification in Thailand: Sta- 60 (12): 34–42. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jclep ro. 2012. 01. 034. tus, determinants, and effects on income and use of inputs. Land Garay, E., and J. Larrabure. 2011. Relational knowledge systems Use Policy 28: 618–628. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. landu sepol. and their impact on management of mountain ecosystems: 2010. 12. 001. Approaches to understanding the motivations and expectations Katz, E. 2003. The Changing Role of Women in the Rural Economies of traditional farmers in the maintenance of biodiversity zones of Latin America. In: Current and Emerging Issues for Economic in the Andes. Management of Environmental Quality 22 (2): Analysis and Policy Research. Volume I: Latin America and the 213–232. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ 14777 83111 11133 92. Caribbean, edited by B. Davis, 31–66. Rome, Italy: FAO. Giunta, I. 2014. Food sovereignty in Ecuador: Peasant struggles and Kennedy, G., T. Ballard, and MC. Dop. 2013. Guidelines for Measur- the challenge of institutionalization. Journal of Peasant Studies ing Household and Individual Dietary Diversity. Roma: FAO. 41: 1201–1224. https://doi. or g/10. 1080/ 03066 150. 2014. 938057 . Accessed on 10th February 2022 https://www .f ao.or g/publi catio Gliessman, S. 2002. Agroecología: Procesos Ecológicos en Agricultura ns/ card/ es/c/ 5aacb e39- 068f- 513b- b17d- 1d929 59654 ea/ Sostenible. Turrialba: CATIE. Kristjanson, P., A. Krishna, M. Radeny, and J. Kuan. 2007. Poverty González, V., J. Barkmann, and R. Marggraf. 2010. Social Network dynamics and the role of livestock in the Peruvian Andes. Agri- effects on the adoption of agroforestry species: Preliminary cultural Systems 94: 294–308. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. agsy . results of a study on differences on adoption patterns in southern 2006. 09. 009. Kumar, A., K. Pramod, and A. Sharma. 2012. Crop diversification ecuador. Procedias 4: 71–82. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. sbspro. in Eastern India: Status and determinants. Indian Journal of 2010. 07. 484. 1 3 The agri‑food system (re)configuration: the case study of an agroecological network in the… 1325 Agricultural Economics 67: 600–616. https:// doi. org/ 10. 22004/ Institute. Research Report 145. Washington, D.C., USA: Inter- ag. econ. 204840. national Food Policy Research Institute. La Vía Campesina. 2009. La Vía Campesina policy documents: 5th Neill, D.A., and P.M. Jørgensen. 1999. Climates. In Catalogue of the conference, Mozambique, 16th to 23rd October 2008. Interna- Vascular Plants of Ecuador, ed. Peter M. Jørgensen and Susana tional Operational Secretariat of La Via Campesina. Accessed on León-Yánez, 8–13. St. Louis, USA: Missouri Botanical Garden. 10th February 2022 at https://viaca m pesina. or g/en/ la- via- cam pe Nyéléni Movement for Food Sovereignty. 2015. Declaration of the sina- policy- docum ents/ international forum for agroecology. Nyeleni Forum for Food Leps, J., and P. Smilauer. 2003. Multivariate analysis of ecological data Sovereignty. Accessed 10th February , 2022. https://w ww.f oods using CANOCO. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.overe ignty. org/ forum- agroe cology- nyele ni- 2015-2/ decla ration- Loconto, A., and M. Hatanaka. 2018. Participatory guarantee systems: of- the- inter natio nal- forum- for- agroe cology- nyele ni- 2015/ Alternative ways of den fi ing, measuring, and assessing ‘Sustain - Nsoso, S.J., M. Monkhei, and B.E. Tlhwaafalo. 2004. A survey of ability.’ Sociologia Ruralis 58 (2): 412–432. https:// doi. org/ 10. traditional small stock farmers in Molelopole North, Kweneng 1111/ soru. 12187. district, Botswana: Demographic parameters, market practices Ministerio de Agricultura y ganadería (MAGAP). 2012. Creación de and marketing channels. Livestock Research for Rural Develop- Sellos de Calidad para Productos de Pequeños Productores. ment. 16: 100. Quito, Ecuador. Oksanen, J. 2013. Multivariate Analysis of Ecological Communities Major, J., Ch. Clement, and A. DiTommaso. 2005. Influence of market in R: Vegan Tutorial. orientation on food plant diversity of farms located on amazonian Oksanen, J., F. Guillem Blanchet, R. Kindt, P. Legendre, R. G. O’Hara, dark earth in the region of Manaus, Amazonas Brazil. Economic G. Leslie Simpson, Peter Solymos, H. Stevens, and H. Wagner. Botany 59 (1): 77–86. https://doi. or g/10. 1663/ 0013- 0001(2005) 2015. Vegan: Community Ecology Package. R Package Version 059[0077: IOMOOF] 2.0. CO;2. 3.2.2. http://cr an.r-pr oject. or g/pac kag e=v egan. Accessed 10 Feb Marchetta, F. 2013. Migration and nonfarm activities as income diver- 2022 sification strategies: The case of Northern Ghana. Canadian Ordoñez Sotomayor, A., and P. Ochoa Cueva. 2020. Ambiente, socie- Journal of Development Studies 34: 1–21. h t t p s : / / d o i . o rg / 1 0 . dad y turismo comunitario: La etnia Saraguro en Loja – Ecuador. 1080/ 02255 189. 2013. 755916. Revista De Ciencias Sociales 26 (2): 180–191. Marshall, G.R. 2015. A social-ecological systems framework for food Ortega-Cerdà, M., and M.G. Rivera-Ferre. 2010. Indicadores Inter- systems research: Accommodating transformation systems and nacionales de Soberanía Alimentaria: Nuevas Herramientas para their products. International Journal of the Commons 9 (2): una Nueva Agricultura. Revista Iberoamericana De Economía 881–908. Ecológica 14: 53–77. Martínez, L. 1996. Familia Indígena: Cambios Socio Demográficos y Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the commons. Cambridge: Cambridge Económicos. Quito, Ecuador: CONADE/FNUAP. University Press. Martínez, L. 1998. Comunidades y Tierra en el Ecuador, 173–188. Ostrom, E. 2009. A general framework for analyzing sustainability of Quito: Ecuador Debate. social-ecological systems. Science 325 (5939): 419–422. https:// Martínez, L. 2002. Economía Política de Las Comunidades Indígenas. doi. org/ 10. 1126/ scien ce. 11721 33. Quito, Ecuador: Abya-Yala. Ostrom, E., and T.K. Ahn. 2003. Una Perspectiva del Capital Social Martínez, L. 2005. Migración Internacional y Mercado de Trabajo Desde Las Ciencias Sociales: Capital Social y Acción Colectiva. Rural en Ecuador. In La Migración Ecuatoriana Transnacion- Revista Mexicana De Sociología 65 (1): 155–233. alismo, Redes e Identidades, ed. G. Herrera, M. Carrillo, and Ostrom, E., and M. Cox. 2010. Moving beyond panaceas: A multi- A. Torres, 147–168. Quito, Ecuador: FLACSO-Sede Ecuador. tiered diagnostic approach for social-ecological analysis. Envi- Martínez-Torres, M.H., and P. Rosset. 2014. Diálogo de Saberes in La ronmental Conservation 37 (04): 451–463. https:// doi. org/ 10. Vía Campesina: Food Sovereignty and Agroecology. The Jour-1017/ S0376 89291 00008 34. nal of Peasant Studies 41 (6): 979–997. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ Oteros-Rozas, E., F. Ravera, and M. García-Llorente. 2019. How does 03066 150. 2013. 872632. agroecology contribute to the transitions towards social-ecolog- MBS-SSDR/IFAD/IICA. 1991. Saraguro - Yacuambi - Loja Rural ical sustainability? Sustainability 11: 4372. https:// doi. org/ 10. Development Project Ecuador. Quito, Ecuador: IICA.3390/ su111 64372. McMichael, Ph. 2011. Food system sustainability: Questions of envi- Oyarzun, P., R. Borja, S. Sherwood, and V. Parra. 2013. Making sense ronmental governance in the new world (dis)order. Global Envi- of agro-biodiversity, diet, and intensification of smallholder fam- ronmental Change 21 (3): 804–812. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ily farming in the highland Andes of Ecuador. Ecology of Food gloen vcha. 2011. 03. 016. and Nutrition 52 (6): 515–541. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 03670 McCune, N., J. Reardon, and P. Rosset. 2014. Agroecological for-244. 2013. 769099. mación in rural social movements. Radical Teacher 98: 31–37. Patel, R. 2012. Food sovereignty: Power, gender, and the right to food. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5195/ rt. 2014. 71. PLoS Medicine 9: e1001223. h t t ps :/ / d o i. o rg/ 1 0 . 1 3 71 / j o ur n a l . McGinnis, M. 2011. An introduction to IAD and the language of the pmed. 10012 23. Ostrom workshop: A simple guide to a complex framework. Pelletier, D.L., V. Kraak, Ch. McCullum, U. Unsitalo, and R. Rich. Policy Studies Journal 39 (1): 169–183. 1999. Community food security: Salience and participation at McGinnis, M., and E. Ostrom. 2014. Social-ecological system frame- community level. Agriculture and Human Values 16: 401–419. work: Initial changes and continuing challenges. Ecology and Perreault, Th. 2003. Making space: Community organization, agrar- Society 19 (2): 30. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5751/ ES- 06387- 190230. ian change, and the politics of scale in the Ecuadorian Amazon. Meinzen-Dick, R., J. Behrman, L. Pandolfelli, A. Peterman, and A. Latin American Perspectives 30 (1): 96–121. https:// doi. org/ 10. Quisumbing. 2014. Gender and social capital for agricultural 1177/ 00945 82X02 239146. development. In Gender in agriculture, ed. A. Quisumbing, R. Pfeiffer, L., A. López-Feldman, and J.E. Taylor. 2009. Is off-farm Meinzen-Dick, T. Raney, A. Croppenstedt, J. Behrman, and A. income reforming the farm? Evidence from Mexico. Agricultural Peterman, 235–266. Netherlands: Springer. Economics 40 (2): 125–138. https://doi. or g/10. 1111/j. 1574- 0862. Minot, N., M. Epprecht, TT. Anh, and LeQ. Trung. 2006. Income 2009. 00365.x. Pohle, P., A. Gerique, M. Park, and M. F. L. Sandoval. 2010. Diversification and Poverty in the Northern Uplands of Viet- Human Ecological Dimensions in Sustainable Utilization and nam. Research Report of the International Food Policy Research 1 3 1326 V. Vallejo-Rojas et al. Conservation of Tropical Mountain Rain Forests under Global Animal Health and Production 44: 133–144. https:// doi. org/ 10. Change in Southern Ecuador. In Tropical Rainforests and Agro-1007/ s11250- 011- 9900-7. forests under Global Change, edited by T. Tscharntke, C. Leusch- Thompson, J., and I. Scoones. 2009. Addressing the dynamics of agri- ner, E. Veldkamp, H. Faust, E. Guhardja, and A. Bidin, 477–509. food systems: An emerging agenda for social science research. Environmental Science and Engineering. Berlin: Springer Environmental Science and Policy 12 (4): 386–397. https:// doi. Pretty, J., and D. Smith. 2004. Social capital in biodiversity conserva-org/ 10. 1016/j. envsci. 2009. 03. 001. tion and management. Conservation Biology 18 (3): 631–638. Trinh, L.N., J.W. Watson, N.N. De, N.V. Minh, P. Chu, B.R. Sthapit, https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1523- 1739. 2004. 00126.x. and P.B. Eyzaguirre. 2003. Agro-biodiversity conservation and Proaño, V., and P. Lacroix. 2013. Dinámicas de Comercialización para development in Vietnamese home gardens. Agriculture Eco- la Agricultura Familiar Campesina: Desafíos y Alternativas en el system and Environment 97: 317–344. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ Escenario Ecuatoriano. Ed. Verónica Proaño and Pierril Lacroix. S0167- 8809(02) 00228-1. Quito: SIPAE. Twyman, J., P. Useche, and C.D. Deere. 2015. Gendered perceptions Prosperi, P., Th. Allen, B. Cogill, M. Padilla, and I. Peri. 2016. Towards of land ownership and agricultural decision-making in ecuador: metrics of sustainable food systems: A review of the resilience Who are the farm managers? Land Economics 91: 479–500. and vulnerability literature. Environmental System and Decisions https:// doi. org/ 10. 3368/ le. 91.3. 479. 36: 3–19. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10669- 016- 9584-7. Vallejo-Rojas, V., F. Ravera, and M.G. Rivera-Ferre. 2015. Develop- Reardon, Th., J. Berdegué, and G. Escobar. 2001. Rural nonfarm ing an integrated framework to assess agri-food systems and its employment and incomes in Latin America: overview and policy application in the Ecuadorian Andes. Regional Environmental implications. World Development 29 (3): 395–409. https:// doi. Change. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10113- 015- 0887-x. org/ 10. 1016/ S0305- 750X(00) 00112-1. Vanwey, L., and T. Vithayathil. 2013. Off-farm work among rural Rosero, F., Y.C. Yonfá, and F. Regalado. 2011. Soberanía alimentaria, households: a case study in the Brazilian Amazon. Rural Soci- modelos de desarrollo y tierras en Ecuador. Quito: CAFOLIS. ology 78 (1): 29–50. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1549- 0831. 2012. Rosset, P., B. Sosa, A. Jaime, and D. Lozano. 2011. The campesino- 00094.x. to-campesino agroecology movement of ANAP in cuba: social Velásquez-Milla, D., A. Casas, J. Torres-Guevara, and A. Cruz- process methodology in the construction of sustainable peasant Soriano. 2011. Ecological and socio-cultural factors influenc- agriculture and food sovereignty. Journal of Peasant Studies 38 ing in situ conservation of crop diversity by traditional Andean (1): 161–191. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 03066 150. 2010. 538584. households in Peru. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine Rosset, P., and M. Altieri. 2017. Agroecology: Science and politics; 7 (1): 40. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1186/ 1746- 4269-7- 40. agrarian change and peasant studies. Black Point, NS, Canada: von Braun, J. 1995. Agricultural commercialization: Impacts on Fernwood Publishing Co LTD. income and nutrition and implications for policy. Food Policy Rozelle, S., J.E. Taylor, and A. DeBrauw. 1999. Migration, remittances, 20 (3): 187–202. https://doi. or g/10. 1016/ 0306- 9192(95) 00013-5 . and agricultural productivity in China. American Economic Walsh-Dilley, M. 2012. Indigenous reciprocity and globalization in Review 89 (2): 287–291. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1257/ aer. 89.2. 287. rural Bolivia. Grassroots Development 33: 58–61. Ruíz-Almeida, A., and M.G. Rivera-Ferre. 2019. Internationally-based Williams, L., J. Germov, S. Fuller, and M. Freij. 2015. A Taste of ethi- indicators to measure agri-food systems sustainability using food cal consumption at a slow food festival. Appetite 91: 321–328. sovereignty as a conceptual framework. Food Security 11 (6): https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. appet. 2015. 04. 066. 1321–1337. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s12571- 019- 00964-5. Winkel, T., L. Núñez-Carrasco, J. Cruz Pablo, N. Egan, L. Sáez-Ton- Sherwood, S., A. Arce, P. Berti, R. Borja, P. Oyarzun, and E. Bek- acca, P. Cubillos-Celis, C. Poblete-Olivera, N. Zavalla-Nanco, B. kering. 2013. Tackling the new materialities: Modern food and Miño-Baes, and M.-P. Viedma-Araya. 2020. Mobilising common counter-movements in ecuador. Food Policy 41: 1–10. https://doi. biocultural heritage for the socioeconomic inclusion of small org/ 10. 1016/j. foodp ol. 2013. 03. 002. farmers: Panarchy of two case studies on quinoa in Chile and Schreinemachers, P., M.A. Patalagsa, Md. Rafiqul Islam, Md. Nasir Bolivia. Agriculture and Human Values 37: 433–447. https://do i. Uddin, S. Sh Ahmad, Md. Chandra Biswas, R.-Y. Tanvir Ahmed, org/ 10. 1007/ s10460- 019- 09996-1. P. Yang, B.. S. Hanson, and C. Takagi. 2015. The effect of wom- Winters, P., R. Cavatassi, and L. Lipper. 2006. Sowing the seeds of en’s home gardens on vegetable production and consumption in social relations: the role of social capital in crop diversity. Bangladesh. Food Security 7: 97–107. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ Rome, Italy: FAO. s12571- 014- 0408-7. Winters, P., B. Davis, and L. Corral. 2002. Assets, activities and income Sichoongwe, K., L. Mapemba, G. Tembo, and D. Ng’ong’ola,. 2014. generation in rural Mexico: factoring in social and public capi- The determinants and extent of crop diversification among small- tal. Rome, Italy: FAO. holder farmers: A case study of southern province Zambia. Jour- Wittman, H. 2011. Food sovereignty: A new rights framework for food nal Agricultural Science 6: 150–159. https://doi. or g/10. 5539/ jas. and nature? Environment and Society 2 (1): 87–105. https:// doi. v6n11 p150.org/ 10. 3167/ ares. 2011. 020106. Simoncini, R. 2015. Introducing territorial and historical contexts and Zuur, A., E. Ieno, and C. Elphick. 2010. A protocol for data explora- critical thresholds in the analysis of conservation of agro-bio- tion to avoid common statistical problems. Methods in Ecology diversity by alternative food networks, in Tuscany, Italy. Land and Evolution 1 (1): 3–14. https://d oi.o rg/10 .11 11/j.2 041-2 10X. Use Policy 42: 355–366. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. landu sepol. 2009. 00001.x. 2014. 08. 010. Sistema Información Nacional Agricultura, Ganadería, Acuacultura Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to y Pesca (SINAGAP). 2000. III Censo Nacional Agropecuario. jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Quito. Steins, N.A., and V.M. Edwards. 1999. Platforms for collective action in multiple-use common-pool resources. Agriculture and Human Values 16: 241–255. Virginia Vallejo‑Rojas is currently working in the Forest and Farm Tegebu, F.N., E. Mathijs, J. Deckers, M. Haile, J. Nyssen, and E. Tol- Facility (FFF) of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United lens. 2012. Rural livestock asset portfolio in northern Ethiopia: Nations (FAO). In 2016 obtained her PhD in Sustainability, Technol- A microeconomic analysis of choice and accumulation. Tropical ogy and Humanism, Polytechnic University of Catalonia, Spain. Her 1 3 The agri‑food system (re)configuration: the case study of an agroecological network in the… 1327 research focuses on agri-food systems and policies for food security Federica Ravera , PhD in Environmental Sciences, in the Specialty of and sovereignty with a gender perspective, following a socio-ecological Ecological Economics and Political Ecology from the Autonomous Uni- system approach that interrelates health, territory and democracy to versity of Barcelona, is currently Ramón y Cajal senior researcher for the achieve sustainable agri-food systems. University of Girona (Spain). Her research line is focused on the analysis of socio-institutional innovations, collective actions and the role of tradi- Marta G. Rivera‑Ferre is Research Professor at INGENIO (CSIC-UPV). tional and local knowledge in adapting to global environmental changes, She was director of Chair in Agroecology and food systems at the especially in Mediterranean and high mountain contexts. With a feminist University of Vic-Central University of Catalonia (Spain). With a mul- political ecology perspective applied to adaptation and resilience studies, tidisciplinary profile in the analysis of the society and environment her research is focuses on understanding the power dynamics that create interactions within agri-food systems, she has a particular interest in inequalities, and the differential conditions that create new opportunities alternative agri-food systems following the food sovereignty paradigm in the transformations of socio-political systems. and more recently, in the analysis of feminists and commons theories as to be adopted in agri-food research. 1 3 http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Agriculture and Human Values Springer Journals

The agri-food system (re)configuration: the case study of an agroecological network in the Ecuadorian Andes

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/the-agri-food-system-re-configuration-the-case-study-of-an-KZo4f6n4gb

References (133)

Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2022
ISSN
0889-048X
eISSN
1572-8366
DOI
10.1007/s10460-022-10318-1
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Social Ecological System (SES) research highlights the importance of understanding the potential of collective actions, among other factors, when it comes to influencing the transformative (re)configuration of agri-food systems in response to global change. Such a response may result in different desired outcomes for those actors who promote collective action, one such outcome being food sovereignty. In this study, we used an SES framework to describe the configuration of local agri-food systems in Andean Ecuador in order to understand which components of the SES interact, and how they sup- port outcomes linked to five food sovereignty goals. Through a survey administered to mestizo and indigenous peasants, we analyze the key role played by the Agroecological Network of Loja (RAL) in transforming the local agri-food system through the implementation of a Participatory Guarantee System (PGS). This study demonstrates that participation in the RAL and PGS increases farmers’ adoption of agroecological practices, as well as their independence from non-traditional food. Additionally, RAL lobbying with the municipality significantly increases households’ on-farm income through access to local markets. Being part of indigenous communities also influences the configuration of the food system, increasing the participation in community work and access to credit and markets, thus positively affecting animal numbers, dairy production and income diversification. The complexity of the interactions described suggests that more research is needed to understand which key factors may foster or prevent the achieving of food sovereignty goals and promote household adaptation amid high uncertainty due to global change. Keywords Andes · Food sovereignty · Mestizo peasants · Saraguro · Indigenous people · Socio-ecological system Abbreviations LVC La Vía Campesina RAL Agroecological Network of Loja (in Spanish SES Socio-Ecological Systems Red Agroecológica de Loja)RDA Redundancy Analysis PGS Participatory Guarantee SystemA Actors GS Governance System RS Resource Systems * Federica Ravera RU Resource Units federica.ravera@udg.edu S Socio-Economic Drivers Virginia Vallejo-Rojas ECO Ecological Drivers virginiavallejorojas@gmail.com I Interactions Marta G. Rivera-Ferre O Outcomes mgrivfer@ingenio.upv.es APUs Agricultural Production Units VIF Variance Inflation Factor Center of Agri-Food Economy and Development, AIC Akaike's Information Criterion ParcMediterrani de la Tecnologia, Esteve Terrades 8, ESAB, 08860 Castelldefels, Barcelona, Spain INEC Instituto Nacional Estadística y Censos MAGAP Ministerio de Agricultura, Ganadería, Acua- INGENIO (CSIC-Universitat Politècnica de València), Edifici 8E, Acc. J, 4ª Planta Ciutat Politècnica de la cultura y Pesca Innovació (CPI), Camí de Vera, s/n, 46022 València, Spain INPC Instituto Nacional del Patrimonio Cultural Department of Geography, University of Girona, Edifici UNEP United Nations Environmental Program Sant Domènec II, Pl. Ferrater i Mora, 1, Campus Barri Vell, 17004 Girona, Catalonia, Spain Vol.:(0123456789) 1 3 1302 V. Vallejo-Rojas et al. FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the and subaltern struggles -such as those based on collective United Nations action involving peasants, indigenous and women in many UN United Nations different contexts and aimed at promoting agroecology and SINAGAP Sistema Información Nacional Agricultura, food sovereignty- have the potential to transform agri-food Ganadería, Acuacultura y Pesca systems (Martínez-Torres and Rosset 2014). Prior studies INAMHI Instituto Nacional de Meteorología e in the Peruvian Andean context have linked the role of bar- Hidrología ter markets -as an example of community-based collective action- to food sovereignty, mainly related to the promotion of social reciprocity and ecological diversity (Argumedo and Introduction Pimbert 2010). Some other studies have also demonstrated that the role of peasants and indigenous and other social The conceptualization of agri-food systems as Social Eco- movements in Ecuador has been pivotal in the push towards logical Systems (SES) is having a notable impact in agri- institutionalizing food sovereignty at the national level, both food research focused on sustainability (Ericksen 2008; within the Constitution and policy design (Giunta 2014). In Prosperi et al. 2016; Marshall 2015) and involves the fol- addition, research based on the sustainable rural livelihoods lowing aspects: developing new methodological frameworks framework has emphasized the need to study the social and that integrate the socio-economic, institutional and environ- economic characteristics of context-specific agri-food sys - mental dimensions of the agri-food system; analyzing the tems, including market integration and income-generation interactions that are taking place between the different com - strategies to support well-being and natural resource sus- ponents in production, transformation, commercialization tainability, and the capacity of rural communities and agri- and consumption activities; and understanding the potential food systems for transformative adaptation (Thompson and outcomes resulting from such interactions. This conceptu- Scoones 2009). alization allows for agri-food to be studied as a dynamic SES-based research and food sovereignty studies are nor- system in its entirety and managed accordingly, with the mally assessed independently. The aim of this article is to associated critical feedback on temporal and practical scales combine the two frameworks to understand how innovative (Thompson and Scoones 2009). collective action interacts and reorganizes the components SES-based research highlights the importance of under- of the local agri-food system, conceptualized as an SES, standing the role played by collective action in influencing and has significant impacts on food sovereignty outcomes outcomes; that is, the transformative (re)configuration of (Vallejo-Rojas, Ravera and Rivera-Ferré 2015). Addition- agri-food systems in the face of multiple drivers of change. ally, the article explores whether other concurrent factors, Collective action plays a key role in the management of com- such as being part of indigenous comunas (i.e. the commu- plex SES, facilitating cross-level governance, the long-term nal ancestral institutions) and having certain socio-economic protection of ecosystems and the well-being of different pop- characteristics, are also relevant in shaping agri-food sys- ulations (Ostrom 1990; Brondizio et al 2009; Cox et al 2010; tems. Our findings have multiple implications when it comes Ostrom and Cox 2010; Anderies and Janssen 2013). Specifi- to policy design aimed at supporting adaptive transforma- cally, the literature demonstrates that informal institutions, tions in the face of multiple drivers of change. e.g. networks based on reciprocity and trust, may determine The framework is applied to a case study in the south the level of success of collective action (Ostrom and Ahn Ecuadorian Andes. Our work was conducted with an infor- 2003). Steins and Edwards (1999) studied how nested plat- mal agroecological innovative network of women mestizo forms (i.e. ones including different levels of decision-mak - and Saraguro indigenous peasants, the Agroecological ing) with different user groups may facilitate ecologically, network of Loja (Red Agroecológica de Loja in Spanish, economically, and socially-sustainable resource management hereafter RAL), which implements a Participatory Guar- by emphasizing social learning and collective action. In a antee System (hereafter PGS). In studying this empirical case study of quinoa producers and short value chains in case, the aims are to (1) select the most relevant variables Bolivia Winkel et al. (2020) demonstrated that commun- that describe the local SES and its current configuration ing processes may facilitate social-economic inclusion and (i.e. architecture); (2) assess which key institutional and or sustainability. Collective action has also been found to be socio-economic factors explain a set of outcomes in terms essential in promoting food security (Pelletier et al. 1999). of food sovereignty; and (3) discuss the key role of the RAL Food sovereignty has been proposed as political proposal and other factors in transforming the local agri-food system capable to transform agri-food systems towards sustain- towards food sovereignty. The conclusions highlight the ability and conceptualised into a set of pillars, categories implications of the findings with regard to future policy. and indicators to facilitate its analysis (Ruíz-Almeida and Rivera-Ferre 2019). Several studies have shown how diverse 1 3 The agri‑food system (re)configuration: the case study of an agroecological network in the… 1303 Fig. 1 Methodological framework (adapted from McGinnis and highlight the main links with food sovereignty pillars (yellow boxes). Ostrom 2014). On the left, the ecological subsystems (RS and RU, In the center, the agri-food activities and outcomes (red boxes). green boxes), and on the right, the social subsystems (GS and A, blue (Color figure online) boxes) with their respective scales and levels. For each subsystem, we The food sovereignty framework was developed by the Theoretical and methodological framework international peasant movement La Vía Campesina (LVC) in 1996 as an alternative to the globalized and industrialized In order to conceptualize and analyze the agri-food system food system challenging the current food regime (McMi- as a whole, we have made use of the socio-ecological sys- chael 2011). The most commonly used definition of food tems (SES) and the food sovereignty conceptual frameworks. sovereignty is the one that emerged from the Declaration Ostrom (2009) developed the SES model to analyze of Nyéléni, first drafted at a forum held in Mali in February complex systems. It tackles both ecological and socio- 2007, which states that: “Food sovereignty is the right of economic elements of the system and organizes them into peoples to healthy and culturally appropriate food produced Actors (A), Governance System (GS), Resource Systems through ecologically sound and sustainable methods, and (RS) and Resource Units (RU). Within this conceptual- their right to define their own food and agriculture systems. ization, the elements are impacted by external drivers of It puts the aspirations and needs of those who produce, change, both socio-economic (S) and ecological (ECO). The distribute and consume food at the heart of food systems model analyzes how these drivers affect the components of (…)”. (Nyéléni Movement for Food Sovereignty 2015). the system through interactions (I) that result in different LVC describes the food sovereignty movement as a counter- outcomes (O) and a new configuration of the system. One hegemonic “movement of movements” that, through collec- important characteristic of the model is that it systematically tive action, attempts to radically transform the neo-liberal organizes all components of the system into different tiers food regimen in favor of an environmentally sustainable of variables. To analyze current configurations of the agri- and socially just agri-food system (La Via Campesina 2009; food system within a case study, we developed an integrated McMichael 2011). Many scholars agree that this policy pro- framework that links the social and ecological components posal has the potential to reduce hunger and rural poverty of the agri-food system conceptualized as an SES to the food (Altieri 2009; Wittman 2011) and further the move towards sovereignty as described by Ruiz-Almeida and Rivera Ferre sustainable rural development (Rosset et al. 2011). On more (2019) (Fig. 1). To this end, we adopted Ostrom’s terminol- of a policy level, multilateral institutions (e.g. the UNEP, ogy to classify the second-tier variables of the SES frame- the Commissioner of the Right to Food, the FAO, the UN work (McGinnis and Ostrom 2014) (Appendix 1 in Table 2). Committee on Food Security) and governments (e.g. those 1 3 1304 V. Vallejo-Rojas et al. Fig. 2 Study area: parishes of San Lucas and Jimbilla in the Province of Loja, a region of southern Andean Ecuador of Mali, Nepal, Indonesia, Ecuador, Bolivia) have acknowl- Methodology edged its potential in the development of sustainable agri- food systems (Brem-Wilson 2015). To analyze the potential Background information on the case study of food sovereignty in achieving sustainability goals, indica- tors have been developed at both the local (Binimelis et al. Our study focuses on the Andean agro-ecosystem in the can- 2014) and global (Ortega-Cerdà and Rivera-Ferre, 2010; ton and province of Loja, located in the southern Ecuadorian Ruiz-Almeida and Rivera-Ferre 2019) levels. Measuring Andes, in the parishes of San Lucas (3° 44′ 47.5′′ S, 79° 15′ food system outcomes in terms of food sovereignty allows 58.5′′ W) and Jimbilla (3° 51′ 39.5′′ S, 79° 10′ 22.2′′ W) new trends to emerge that will be useful for policy-makers (Fig. 2). (see Oteros-Rozas et al. 2019). For this case study, we used The agricultural calendar for this region (Fig. 3) has a indicators related to five food sovereignty pillars adapted rainy season from September to May and a dry season from by Ortega-Cerdà and Rivera-Ferre (2010): (1) Access to June to August. The agricultural calendar is linked to tradi- Resources, which includes the access human, financial and tional Andean indigenous celebrations (shown in the outer natural resources; (2) Production model, which refers to circle). The rainy season corresponds to September to May both the land and labor organization and the management (periods of high rainfall are usually during October and practices adopted based on agroecology; (3) Transforma- March–April), and the dry season to June to August. Kulla tion and Commercialization, which includes indicators of Raymi (a Quichua word that means Queen festival dedicated transformation practices, prices, access to markets; (4) Food to the moon) begins on September 21. The crops cultivated Security and the Right to Food, which includes indicators of in this season are: corn associated with bean, squash and the food and nutritional security, but also access to cultur- other Andean crops. Following the summer austral solstice ally appropriate food and dependence from buying food; (5) (Kapac Raymi, which in Quichua means wisdom festival), Agrarian policies and Civil Society Organizations, which barley and wheat are planted in January. After March 21 include degree of organization, participation and lobbying (Pawkar Raymi, or flowering festival in Quichua), the fresh capacity of peasants. bean harvest begins. In April, potatoes and peas are planted. On June 21, Saraguro and other ancestral communities cel- ebrate the Sun festival (Inti Raymi, in Quichua) and this 1 3 The agri‑food system (re)configuration: the case study of an agroecological network in the… 1305 Fig. 3 Agricultural calendar for the area of study, canton of Loja, Ecuador. Source: informal interviews and MBS-SSDR/ IFAD/IICA 1991, Neill and Jørgensen 1999, INPC 2012, INAMHI 2014b. Author’s own data is the period of the ripe corn, barley and wheat harvests 51% are smaller than 5 ha and occupy 6% of the land area. (MBS-SSDR/IFAD/IICA 1991; Neill and Jørgensen 1999; The largest units (which are over 100 ha) represent 2% of INAMHI 2014a; INPC 2012). The area where corn is grown local APUs, occupying 40% of the land area. alongside Andean crops (e.g. beans, potatoes) is locally The largest indigenous group is the Saraguro people, a known as chacra, while the huerta is mainly dedicated to large and diverse Quechua group (INPC 2012). Though the planting short-cycle vegetables. Crops are also distributed Saraguro agro-pastoralist society has been heavily trans- according to altitude. formed and the economy diversified in recent times, includ - Provincial data show that the population of Loja canton ing receiving income through remittances due to high rates corresponds to 2.5% of the country’s total population. It is of migration to the US and Spain, most Saraguros maintain predominantly urban (79%) and mestizo (83%), the indig- their distinctive ethnic identity through ceremonies, cloth- enous population (10%) comprising a considerably smaller ing, observing the wakas, i.e. natural sacred beings, etc. proportion of the total population (INEC 2010). For 48% Saraguro culture still maintains an agro-centric spirituality of the population, income derives from on-farm activities and knowledge system (Bacacela 2010). (INEC 2010), while off-farm work is also a relevant strategy The indigenous peoples and mestizos live within com- of income generation for 63% of the population (of the latter, munity-based organizations, i.e. the traditional indigenous 34% is not related to the agricultural sector) (INEC 2010). comunas and farmers’ associations. The comunas are groups Only 14% of agricultural production units (APUs) sell their of indigenous people with formal rules drafted in coordi- production directly to consumers (SINAGAP 2000), while nation with the Ministry of Agriculture (Martínez 1998). These organizations are governed by the Law of Commons (1937) and have the cabildo as their representative body (Martínez 2002). In Saraguro communities, the cabildo is Cultural and biological mix of Spanish and indigenous people therefore the central entity of political organization (Ávila (Belote 2002). 1 3 1306 V. Vallejo-Rojas et al. 2012; INPC 2012). Land ownership is individual and neither to capture the cultural, institutional and ecological diversity the community nor its leaders control rights over the land of the agrarian dynamic in this Ecuadorian Andean region or water supply (Belote 2002). However, mobilizations by (Cepeda, Gondard, and Gasselin 2007). Regarding cultural Saraguro communities in relation to land struggles played diversity, both indigenous Saraguro (N = 59) (81% of the a decisive role in an indigenous uprising during the 1990s San Lucas population) and mestizo households (N = 57) (Rosero 1990, cited in Criollo 1995, p. 164), and the com- (95% of the Jimbilla population) were interviewed (INEC munity currently plays a key role in decision-making on land 2010). To cover institutional diversity, we also included a uses and economic activities, such as communitarian tour- number of households in the communities that belonged to ism (Ordoñez Sotomayor and Ochoa Cueva 2020). indigenous comunas (N = 34) and the RAL (N = 24). Finally, Mostly organized by women, the RAL was created as a to capture ecological diversity, the interviewed households novel institutional arrangement in 2006. It comprises both were located in different altitudinal zones, from low (1800- indigenous (i.e. Saraguro) and mestizo traditional farm- 2200 m.a.s.l.; N = 24) to middle (2200-2600 m.a.s.l.; N = 61) ers’ organizations and is linked to the transnational peas- and high (2600-3000 m.a.s.l.; N = 31) zones (Cueva 2010). ant movement La Vía Campesina. The RAL was created as The survey participants comprised 60% women and 40% a response to rapid socio-economic, cultural and political men (householders aged between 18 and 89  years). The changes that were affecting both social organization and questionnaire included information on: (i) household (e.g. culture (Martínez 2005, 2002), the loss of traditional crops size and division by age and gender) and individual (e.g. and foods (Espinosa 1997; Sherwood et al. 2013) and the ethnic self-identification and educational level) character - progressive dependence on intermediaries in urban markets istics; (ii) production activities (e.g. access to and uses of (Proaño and Lacroix 2013; Chiriboga and Arellano 2004). land, credit, training, agricultural practices, crops and live- As in other cases of agroecological counter-movements stock management, commercialization); (iii) processing in Ecuador, the emergence of RAL met with a favorable and distribution activities (e.g. artisanal processing, com- political environment, i.e. the new Constitution of Ecuador mercialization, access to markets and incomes sources); adopted in 2008 (Asamblea Nacional 2008), which included (iv) consumption activities (e.g. consumption habits); and food sovereignty as a strategic objective (Art. 281) (Intriago (v) social relations (e.g. participation in social exchanges et al. 2017). Additionally, in 2009, the Food Sovereignty such as minga [exchange of work for food, mainly for com- Law (LORSA) was approved to provide a legal framework munity purposes], prestamanos or randi-randi in Quechua for food sovereignty. At the time of this study, the RAL was [exchange of work for work, mainly at the household level], composed of 17 producer organizations and had established exchange of seeds and community-based organizations. All three associative spaces in the city of Loja in the form of survey sections included questions about: rights (e.g. access weekly agro-ecological fairs. At the core of the RAL’s to land); agency (e.g. decisions about crops and livestock governance system is the Participatory Guarantee System management); and power (e.g. role of gender in division of (PGS). PGS are networks created within local communi- tasks and responsibilities within the household in the differ - ties that provide certification for producers based on active ent agri-food activities). participation by stakeholders and are built on a foundation of trust, social networks and knowledge exchange (Loconto Data analysis and Hatanaka 2018). The RAL uses the PGS as a valida- tion tool for implementing agroecology at the farm level We qualitatively analyzed the content of interviews from and as a consumer warranty regarding the type and quality key local informants, and triangulated this information with of products. The RAL is coordinated with the municipality the literature review to define and classify a series of vari- of Loja and the local public university for the access to local ables that describe the configuration of the agri-food system. markets and training. These were classified as explanatory (i.e. those variables from Actors and Governance subsystems that might influ- Data collection ence the behavior of other components and their interac- tions), intermediate (i.e. those variables that are relevant in First, a literature review was conducted in order to collect influencing the configuration of agri-food activities but at context-specific data and complementary information and the same time can be influenced by other explanatory vari- have references to other mountain area studies. In order to ables targeted by our study), or control variables (i.e. those design the survey, informal visits were undertaken to the variables that could influence the configuration of agri-food area in December 2014 to carry out in-depth interviews activities but did not form part of our target study goal). with key informants (N = 14). The survey was then admin- Some of these variables also influence the components of istered in four communities in the parishes of San Lucas agri-food activities (dependent variables, in our case, linked and Jimbilla. The sample was deliberately skewed in order to food sovereignty pillars). 1 3 The agri‑food system (re)configuration: the case study of an agroecological network in the… 1307 A Redundancy Analysis (RDA) was performed to select the configuration of the agri-food system in our case study. the main variables influencing the configuration of the The results of the RDA analysis and the biplot representation agri-food system. RDA is a form of constrained ordina- are shown in Fig. 4. The RDA mainly revealed the trade-off tion that examines how much of the variation in one matrix association between income generation strategies (on-farm of explanatory variables explains the variation in another strategies vs off-farm work) and ecological (RU5.1; RU5.2; matrix of response variables (Leps and Smilauer 2003). The RU6.1) and economic (A8.5) diversification. The analysis explanatory and control variables were included within the also revealed that households with larger land size (RS3 explanatory matrix, and the dependent and intermediate Land size) often have on-farm income generation strategies. variables were included within the response matrix. Prior Two further explanatory variables, i.e. membership to RAL to performing the RDA, we applied a log-transformation and belonging to the indigenous Saraguro culture, were (Leps and Smilauer 2003) to all of the numerical and ordinal mainly associated with agroecological production practices variables. In order to exclude collinear variables from the (A9.1; A9.2; A9.3), a dependence on purchased food (A8.4), model, we performed a collinearity test using the variance seed exchanges (A6.3), access to human resources (A2.5) inflation factor (VIF); a VIF > 10 indicates that a variable and to market (GS5.1). has a high level of collinearity (Zuur et al. 2010; Oksanen In order to better understand how selected explanatory 2013). We then applied a model-building technique to variables positively or negatively influence other variables reduce and find the significant variables (from the explana- of the agri-food system in the four activities (i.e. production, tory matrix) that determine the configuration of the agri- transformation process, distribution, consumption), bivariate food system (i.e. response matrix) in this case study. Model tests were performed (see Fig. 5 and Appendix 3 in Table 4 building was performed using the step function (Oksanen for details). Links with food sovereignty pillars were also 2013) from the Community Ecology Vegan R Package soft- analyzed. ware (Oksanen et al. 2015). The step function uses Akaike's information criterion (AIC) to select the best model from On‑farm income generation strategies among all the possible combinations of available variables within the explanatory matrix. To validate the model’s pre- This variable correlated positively with number of cattle diction, the function uses a permutation test at each step. (RU5.3), crop (RU5.1) and small animal (RU5.2) richness Thus, all included variables in the final model are significant in production activities, i.e. production model pillar. With and all excluded variables not significant (Oksanen 2013). regards to distribution activities, on-farm income generation The results of the RDA were visualized using a biplot graph. strategies displayed a positive correlation with income diver- In order to evaluate the key role socio-economic and insti- sification (A8.5), i.e. production model pillar. With regards tutional factors play in components of agri-food activities, to consumption activities, a positive correlation was found we conducted non-parametric bivariate tests using SPSS with dietary diversity produced (RU6.1), and a negative statistics for each significant variable obtained from the one with importance of small animals for self-consumption RDA. Finally, to understand the configuration of the agri- (A8.2) and the dependence of non-traditional purchased food system in terms of food sovereignty, we linked the five foods low in micronutrients (A8.4), i.e. food security and food sovereignty pillars with signic fi ant dependent and inter - right to food pillar. mediate variables for each agri-food activity. An overview of the variables used for the different analy - O‑farm w ff ork income generation strategies ses performed in the study and their links to food sovereignty pillars is provided in Table 1 and Appendix 2 in Table 3. The variable off-farm work displayed a negative correla- tion with agroecological practices, such as the use of ethno- veterinary products (A9.3), i.e. production model. Pillar. Results Concerning distribution activities, off-farm work had a positive correlation with participation in community-based Our results indicate a statistically significant association working groups (A6.1), i.e. social organization pillar, which (p < 0.0001, from 999 permutations) among the most rel- in turn also influenced income diversification (A8.5), but it evant institutional and socio-economic factors that determine displayed a negative correlation with importance of on-farm incomes (A8.6), production model pillar. With regards to consumption activities, off-farm work had a negative cor - relation with dietary diversity produced (RU6.1), i.e. food We used ln(x) for this, and for those variables that range from zero, security and right to food pillar. ln(x + 1). The Mann–Whitney-U test was used for numerical variables, and the chi-squared test for nominal, dummy and ordinal variables. 1 3 1308 V. Vallejo-Rojas et al. 1 3 Table 1 Summary of the third-tier SES variables (linked to  food sovereignty indicators) obtained from the households’ questionnaires responses (N = 116)  and used for the different analysis performed in the study † † First-tier Second-tier Third-tier: indicators Description Type variable Attributes Food sovereignty pillar (dummy, numeric or nominal) RS RS3 RS3.1—Size of farm Land area by household: hectares Numeric Number Access to resources RS4 RS4.1—Access to roads paved If the rural town have access to main Dummy 1: yes; 0: no Access to resources roads paved RS5 RS5.1—Production of processed dairy Production of processed dairy: fresh Numeric Number Production model cheeses, kg per week (1 kg = 7.7 l of milk) RS9 RS9.1—Location in altitudinal zones Low zone: 1800–2200 m.a.s.l Nominal LowZone Production model Middle zone: 2200–2600 m.a.s.l MiddleZone High zone: 2600–3000 m.a.s.l. HighZone RS9.2—Location in protected area If the community is located within Dummy 1: yes; 0: no Production model protected area RU RU5 RU5.1—Crop richness Specific richness of farmed species Numeric Number Production model (except medicinal and ornamental) RU5.2—Small animal richness Number of types of small bred animals. Numeric Number Production model Types considered include: sheep, pig, poultry, guinea pigs, beekeeping and aquaculture RU5.3—Number of cattle Number of cattle Numeric Number Access to resources RU6 RU6.1—Dietary diversity produced Dietary produced diversity (in the last Numeric Number Right to food year) regarding the food micronu- trients: WDDS inde x . It constitutes the potential of the farm as source of highly nutritious food GS GS4 GS4.1—Land tenure Legal status of land Nominal Properties: Access to resources Without titles Only with titles Both (with & without titles) GS5 GS5.1—Access to retailing location If at least one household member has a Dummy 1: yes; 0: no Agri-food policies & Local retail location in local markets markets GS6 GS6.1—Member of agro-ecological If at least one household member Dummy 1: yes; 0: no Social organization network of Loja (RAL) belongs to community based organiza- tion called Red Agroecológica Loja (RAL) GS6.2—Member of community- based If at least one household member Dummy 1: yes; 0: no Social organization organizations (Comunas) belongs to community based organiza- tion called Comuna A A1 A1.1—Size of labor force Number of people in household Numeric Number Production model with > 15 years A1.2—Gender of respondent - Dummy 1: female; 0: male - The agri‑food system (re)configuration: the case study of an agroecological network in the… 1309 1 3 Table 1 (continued) † † First-tier Second-tier Third-tier: indicators Description Type variable Attributes Food sovereignty pillar (dummy, numeric or nominal) A2 A2.1—Self-identification as Saraguro Regarding the culture, if the house- Dummy 1: yes; 0: no Social organization indigenous hold is self-identified as Saraguro indigenous A2.2—Gender equality in the distribution If 50% or more of activities are per- Dummy 1: yes; 0: no Production model of labor responsibilities formed by both (female and male). Activities considered are: eight to agricultural production and animal production according to animal types in the household, three to processing (food preservation to self-consump- tion, dairy and non-dairy products to sell), three to distribution (crops, livestock, dairy products), and one to off-farm works A2.3—Marketing of agri-food products If household has as strategy of income Dummy 1: yes; 0: no Local markets generation the marketing of some agri-food product (crops, cattle, small animals and/or their products) A2.4—Off-farm If household has as strategy of income Dummy 1: yes; 0: no Production model work generation the off-farm work A2.5—Access to training If at least one household member during Dummy 1: yes; 0: no Agri-food policies & Access to the last year received a training resources A2.6—Access to credit If at least one household member during Dummy 1: yes; 0: no Access to resources the last year had access to credit A6 A6.1—Participation in community-based If at least one household member dur- Dummy 1: yes; 0: no Social organization working groups ing the last three years participated in working groups convened by the community (mingas) A6.2—Participation in services If at least one household member par- Dummy 1: yes; 0: no Social organization exchanges ticipated during the last three years in exchanges of services-services A6.3—Participation in seeds exchanges If at least one household member dur- Dummy 1: yes; 0: no Social organization ing the last three years participated in exchanges of seeds A8 A8.1—Importance of crops for self- Proportion of crops for HH consump- Numeric Number Right to food consumption tion (from total of species farmed) A8.2—Importance of small animals for Proportion of small animals for HH Numeric Number Right to food self -consumption consumption (from total of types of small bred animals) 1310 V. Vallejo-Rojas et al. 1 3 Table 1 (continued) † † First-tier Second-tier Third-tier: indicators Description Type variable Attributes Food sovereignty pillar (dummy, numeric or nominal) A8.3—Importance of traditional foods Frequency of consuming corn—tradi- Ordinal 1: low Right to food tional food (times per week) 2: medium 3: high A8.4—Dependence of non-traditional Frequency of consuming noodles—pur- Ordinal 1: low Right to food purchased foods low in micronutrients chased food (times per week) 2: medium 3: high A8.5—Income diversification Diversification of incomes within the Numeric Number Production model household. The types considered are: five on-farm incomes (sell of crops, dairy and non-dairy products, small animals, and cattle), one off-farm incomes (works), and three non-farm incomes (government subsidies Bono de Desarrollo Humano, remittances, land lease) A8.6—Importance of on-farm incomes Proportion of income diversification Numeric Number Production model due to on-farm incomes A8.7—Dependence on middlemen Selling (crops & dairy) to middlemen Dummy 1: yes; 0: no Local markets A8.8—Weekly frequency of sell Frequency of selling (times per week) Ordinal 0: no sold Local markets 1: sells, but less than once 2: once 3: more than once A9 A9.1—Use of organic inputs on crops If they use organic inputs to control Dummy 1: yes; 0: no Production model pests. Including the bioles A9.2—Use of chemical inputs on crops If they use chemical inputs to control Dummy 1: yes; 0: no Production model pests A9.3—Use of ethno-veterinary products If they use ethno-veterinary products to Dummy 1: yes; 0: no Production model control diseases on small animals RS agro-ecosystem boundaries, RS3 size of resource system, RS4 human-constructed facilities, RS5 productivity of system, RS9 location, RU agro-ecosystem units, RU5 number of units, RU6 distinctive characteristics, GS agri-food governance system, GS4 property-rights systems, GS5 operational-choice rules, GS6 collective-choice rules, A agri-food system actors, A1 number of actors, A2 socioeconomic attributes, A6 social capital, A8 importance of resource, A9 technology available Zoning based on direct observation and cartographic information about the classification of vegetation units (Cueva 2010). The altitudinal range, from about 1800 to 3000 m.a.s.l., corresponds to a temperate climate (Cepeda et al. 2007, p. 46) WDDS index, based on Women’s Dietary Diversity Project designed by FAO (Kennedy et al. 2013) Frequency: low = sells, but 1 time or less/week; medium = 2–3 time; high = 4 times or more Bioles are solutions prepared on-farm based on a fermentation of natural herbs which have a double function: pest control and crop nutrition The agri‑food system (re)configuration: the case study of an agroecological network in the… 1311 Fig. 4 Redundancy analysis biplot showing the explanatory and (labeled in blue). Small red circles represent the households surveyed control variables (labeled in black on arrows) that explain the con- on study (N = 116). Percentage variance explained: RDA 1 (67.72%), figuration of the third-tier SES dependent and intermediate variables RDA 2 (19.36%) crops (A9.1) and ethnoveterinary practices (A9.3); and a The indigenous Saraguro culture negative correlation with conventional practices, such as the use of chemical inputs on crops (A9.2), i.e. produc- With regards to production and processing activities, indig- tion model pillar. Additionally, the RAL collective’s rules enous Saraguro commmunities has a positive correlation has a significant positive correlation with access to train- with access to credit (A2.6) and a negative one with train- ing (A2.5), which in turn also influenced agroecological ing (A2.5), i.e. access to resources. Furthermore, access to practices. Participation in seed exchanges (A6.3), i.e. social credit positively influenced number of cattle (RU5.3) and organization pillar, was also found to correlate with RAL, processed dairy production (RS5.1), access to resources influencing crop richness (RU5.1), production model pil- and production model pillars. According to our survey and lar. With regards to distribution activities, the RAL had a interviews, access to credit in the study area has occurred significant positive correlation with importance of on-farm mainly through savings and credit cooperatives (69%), i.e. incomes (A8.6), i.e. production model pillar. Additionally, through the private sector. With regards to distribution the RAL had significant positive correlation with participa- activities, being Saraguro had a positive influence on weekly tion in services exchanges (A6.2), social organization, and frequency of selling (A8.8). Additionally, being Saraguro access to retail location (GS5.1), i.e. commercialization, has a marginally significant positive correlation with partici- which in turn also influenced the importance of the on-farm pation in community-based working groups (A6.1), social income variable. With regards to consumption activities, the organization pillar, which in turn also influenced income RAL had a significant negative correlation with dependence diversification (A8.5), i.e. production model pillar. on non-traditional purchased foods low in micronutrients (A8.4), i.e. food security and right to food, which in turn RAL collective rules was also influenced by training. With regards to production activities, the RAL collective’s rules displayed significant positive correlations with agro- ecological practices, such as the use of organic inputs on 1 3 1312 V. Vallejo-Rojas et al. Fig. 5 Description of the role played by the following explanatory variables: Indig- enous Saraguro, marketing of agri-food products and off-farm works, Agroeological network of Loja (RAL) in configuring the agri-food system through agri- food activities. The diagram shows the statistical significance of the relationship between each explanatory variable and their intermediate and dependent variables. Letters within brack- ets show how each component of the agri-food system relates to the food sovereignty pillars: a access to resources, b produc- tion model, c local markets, d right to food, e social organiza- tion generation, through both normal local market and PGS Discussion mechanisms, contributes to income diversification within the household, as suggested in the literature (Minot et al. Do economic factors matter when it comes 2006). Secondly, this strategy influences agro-biodiversity to configuration of the agri‑food system and food at the farm level, as suggested for other contexts by Major sovereignty goals? et al. (2005) and Trinh et al. (2003). Households that market their own agri-food products had higher levels of diversity First of all, our results confirm that the commercialization in terms of crop and animal richness; and, as noted by other of agri-food products as an on-farm strategy for income 1 3 The agri‑food system (re)configuration: the case study of an agroecological network in the… 1313 studies (Herforth 2010; Jones et al. 2014), this richness is noted that mingas (e.g. communal works such as water sup- associated with high levels of dietary diversity produced. In ply and road construction) are implemented when communal sum, the commercialization of agri-food products increases action participation is high. Therefore, this variable could control over food sovereignty in the production model and be acting as a contextual factor. Finally, regarding the eco- right to food pillars. Moreover, through the positive influ- nomic characteristics of the household, our results suggest ence of on-farm production diversity the diversity it also that livelihood decisions are strongly affected by the amount increases the diversity of households diets, an important of land owned by the family. Households with small farms nutritional outcome associated with the nutrient adequacy are more likely to have off-farm work in order to diversify of diets and individuals’ nutritional status (Jones et al. 2014). their income sources (Escobal 2001; Lanjouw 1999), while The results illustrate that such households have low levels having more land means being able to maintain livestock, of dependence on non-traditional purchased foods low in the main activity linked to an on-farm income generation micronutrients. Since food consumption of low nutritional strategy in the area of study (Belote 2002; Pohle et al. 2010). quality, especially in areas with fewer economic resources, is To sum up, then, our findings suggest that generating a public health problem in Ecuador (Freire et al. 2013), these income through an off-farm strategy interacts with food sov - results are important for understanding the potential capacity ereignty goals in opposing ways, specifically by decreasing of local agri-food systems to meet human nutritional needs the control over the production model and right to food pil- in fragile and marginal areas, i.e. to impact food sovereignty lars, while also increasing the household’s social organiza- in the right to food pillar. However, our results also show tion and, thus, its diversification. that households that market their own agri-food products score lower in own consumption of small animals, due to Does belonging to mestizo or indigenous the fact that they sell them. This is an undesirable outcome communities matter in the configuration related to the consumption of nutritional foods within the of the agri‑food system and food sovereignty goals? right to food pillar, and is consistent with the findings of recent studies performed in the Ecuadorian Andes (Oyarzun The Andean research community has highlighted the role et al. 2013; Berti et al. 2014) as well as studies found else- of socio-cultural characteristics that link indigenous cul- where in the Andean region (Berti et al. 2010). tures and knowledge to local configuration of the agri-food Regarding the influence of off-farm work on the con- system and adaptation to changes (Garay and Larrabure figuration of the agri-food system, we found that this type 2011; Velásquez-Milla et al. 2011). Our findings contrib- of strategy supports income diversification (Ellis 2000 ), ute to those of the aforementioned studies, showing that helping to increase farm income for rural households liv- indigenous communities and their social capital facilitate ing at subsistence level and thus, to diversify against risk access to other forms of capital, both directly and through (Reardon et al. 2001; Lanjouw 1999). However, it also leads engaging with State, market, and other civil society actors to lesser importance for revenue obtained from the market- (Bebbington and Perreault 1999; Perreault 2003). This influ- ing of farm products and a lower dietary diversity, which ence can be assessed through both ecological and socio- can influence the food consumption at the household level. economic components of the local agri-food system. Being Given that the production model is intensive in labor in the part of the indigenous culture therefore facilitates access region concerned, this lower diversification may influence to credit, mainly to support livelihood strategies related to the reduction of available labor within households for agri- livestock management (i.e. the production model pillar). culture (Rozelle et al. 1999; Pfeiffer et al. 2009). In sum, This result is corroborated by those from other studies on families with an off-farm strategy have a deficit of con- Saraguro culture and shows that livestock ownership (jointly trol over the production model and the food security and with land) is an indicator linked to success in local liveli- right to food pillars of food sovereignty. Unexpectedly, our hoods (Belote 2002), which are mainly based on keeping findings reveal a relationship between participation in the animals and income from selling cheese (Belote 2002; Pohle community based on ties and work (social organization pil- et al. 2010). In line with other research (Belote and Belote lar), expressed through mingas, and income diversification 2005), our findings show that Saraguro people also display (production model pillar). In respect of this, other studies high diversification when it comes to income, given that have shown the importance of social ties in securing off- migration to urban areas and/or foreign countries has been farm work by linking farm residents to jobs outside the farm an common adaptation strategy. In respect of this, access property and/or influencing their likelihood to participate in to a paved road in San Lucas parish is a contextual factor off-farm work (Vanwey and Vithayathil 2013). That being that positively links to being part of Saraguro communities said, however, we cannot fully confirm these findings from and would appear to be relevant to distribution activities, the available data, especially given that other studies on thus influencing sales frequency and income diversification. Ecuadorian Andean communities (Martínez 1996) have This result corroborates other findings showing that access 1 3 1314 V. Vallejo-Rojas et al. to road infrastructure systems has a cascade effect on access Being a member of the RAL also increases the impor- to local markets, the development of multiple activities and tance of on-farm income, and access to markets may explain income diversification (Castaing et al. 2015; Bernardi De the diversification of income due to on-farm activities León 2009). within RAL households. In fact, this is one of the pillars All that being said, access to training is negatively related strengthened most by the RAL, due to it performing lobby- to the Saraguro indigenous group, and we observe here that ing activities with the municipality (Vallejo-Rojas, Ravera they have less access than mestizo people to the information and Rivera-Ferre 2015). Other Ecuadorian agroecological necessary to adopt agricultural practices (González et al. networks (Chauveau et al. 2010; MAGAP 2012; Proaño and 2010). Thus, our results confirm that indigenous people rely Lacroix 2013) have also achieved these desirable outcomes more on local and horizontal networks within the commu- within distribution activities. Regarding eating habits at the nity and traditional ecological knowledge for farming (the household level, our findings reveal the importance of the social organization pillar of food sovereignty). However, no RAL when it comes to access to training, due to it perform- difference was found to be associated with membership of ing lobbying activities with NGOs and the collective rules the comuna or not. As noted by Belote (2002), Saraguro and social ties built by the organization. The RAL’s collec- communities do not act as regulatory units, which may tive rules establish that food production must first focus on explain why this institutional factor was not signic fi ant in the meeting household nutritional needs, forcing the market- indicators used here describing the local agri-food system. ing of agri-food products into second place. This is relevant In sum, from a food sovereignty perspective, our results because it avoids the undesirable effects of indicators linked suggest that in the configuration of the local agri-food sys- to the strategy of commercializing agri-food products within tem in Loja, indigenous Saraguro culture plays a central role the right to food pillar, like those related to low levels of in positively influencing social organization, and therefore self-consumption (explained above). Additionally, social control over access to resources, the production model and ties between mestizos and indigenous people strengthen local markets. the exchange of knowledge in the gastronomic and nutri- tious fields. Previous studies have also highlighted the role Does participating in the RAL matter when it comes of social networks as determinants of consumer habits to configuration of the agri‑food system and food (Fonte 2013; Williams et al. 2015). Moreover, the relation- sovereignty goals? ship between RAL and service exchanges is an important aspect within Ecuadorian Andean communities, where these Our findings make a further contribution to studies based on forms of exchange are becoming increasingly scarce (Mar- agri-food sociology and agroecology research by showing tínez 2002). Reciprocity contributes to the development of that collective organization under the agroecological para- long-term obligations between people, which is an important digm is the core on which food sovereignty components are part of achieving positive environmental outcomes in agri- built (Rosset et al. 2011; Simoncini 2015; Gyau et al. 2014; food systems (Pretty and Smith 2004). Both prior studies Rosset and Altieri 2017; Oteros-Rozas et al. 2019). In our and our key informants indicate that these exchanges are case, the RAL facilitates access to training (specifically in mainly related to on-farm activities (e.g. planting, harvest- this case, agroecological training through contacts with the ing) (Martínez 1996; Gray 2009). local public university) and participation in seed exchange In sum, from a food sovereignty perspective these find- (i.e. access to the resources pillar), which in turn positively ings suggest that RAL’s collective rules play a pivotal role influences the adoption of agroecological production prac- in the interaction between the pillars of social organization tices and agro-biodiversity (i.e. the production model pillar). and agri-food policy, increasing access to the right to food Prior studies and our key informants both point to the key and production model pillars. role played by social organization in the adoption of agroe- RAL is a network led by and mainly comprising women. cological practices through a diálogo de saberes (dialogue of Like other scholars (Gray 2009), we observed that in rural wisdoms) (Martínez-Torres and Rosset 2014), e.g. in agro- parishes of Loja province, the number of women working in ecology or farmers’ schools (McCune et al. 2014) and/or in the farm household increased due to male-driven migration meetings organized by these networks as seed exchange fairs and remittances. Indeed, in our area of study, men are often (Hermann et al. 2009). With its system of collective rules, of engaged in off-farm work (Vallejo-Rojas et al. 2015) mainly which the PGS constitutes the core, the RAL strengthens and linked to the construction sector (INEC 2010), which diver- monitors the implementation of agroecological practices on sifies their sources of income, while women have increased the farms owned by its associate producers. Previous studies their participation in on-farm labor, confirming an increased have also highlighted the key role of PSGs in strengthening female presence in agricultural activities (Deere 2005; Katz agroecological practices (MAGAP 2012; Binder and Vogl 2003). Secondly, we observe that in our case study the 2018). adoption of an agro-ecological production model is strictly 1 3 The agri‑food system (re)configuration: the case study of an agroecological network in the… 1315 related to the existence of a collective agency built by the design. Historically, the role played by Ecuadorian govern- RAL. Women members of RAL have united their efforts, ments in agri-food policies has focused on the agro-export independently of ethnic and class divisions, and through the model, in detriment of peasant and small-farmer agriculture organization’s rules (at a collective level) achieved the suc- (Rosero et al. 2011). As a response to this, there has been cessful adoption of the agro-ecological production model a progressive emergence, consolidation and expansion of (at a farm level) and access to local markets (at a collective counter-movement spaces aimed at agroecology and food level) by lobbying government and nongovernment organi- sovereignty (Intriago et al. 2017). Our study focuses on this zations. Additionally, in the interviews conducted within this re-configuration of local agri-food systems and suggests research, women highlighted an increase in self-esteem and that interventions need to focus on the production model economic independence (at an individual level) as a result of promoted by agro-ecological organizations, while including participating in the RAL. Despite these data requiring more programs aimed at enhancing the role of formal and infor- in-depth research, they confirm the findings of other studies mal organizations involving both peasants and indigenous on collective agency and women (Agarwal 2000; Gabriels- communities, strengthening their alliances with consum- son and Ramasar 2013; Bezner-Kerr et al. 2019). Recent ers. Similarly, government investments aimed at generally studies in the Ecuadorian Andean context (Cole et al. 2011) improving the nutrition and health levels of the population have also suggested that women’s greater understanding of should include those collaboration programs with agroeco- crop management options and more equal household gender logical networks that are likely to have the broadest and relations are associated with conventional practices being greatest impact on consumer habits within the rural sector at less widespread. the household level and provide greater nutritional diversity. That being said, those agricultural programs that focus on a single crop and off-farm income generation may make small- Conclusions holder farms and farming families more vulnerable, resulting in poorer ecological, nutritional and economic outcomes of By combining the SES and food sovereignty frameworks the agri-food system from a food sovereignty perspective. in a local Ecuadorian Andean case study, we have analyzed Additionally, regarding policy focusing on conservation, which variables and factors interact in the local agri-food policy-makers interested in promoting the sustainable use system, contributing to an understanding of its current of natural resources (soil, water, forest) need to consider configuration when conceptualized as a social-ecological not only including communities living in protected areas system. Most food sovereignty-related research to date has within conservation programs, but also the role of infor- shown, mainly through qualitative methodologies, the key mal networks to improve the adoption of sustainable local role of social organization and collective action as a central production practices in and around protected areas. In sum, component in advancing the proposal for food sovereignty. ignoring the role of social and institutional factors could Our study contributes to this literature by quantitatively represent a missed opportunity to improve the management demonstrating how being part of the RAL and participating of Ecuadorian agri-food systems across scales. in the PGS foster this proposal in practice. Finally, we would note that, in part, ensuring food sov- The links and interacting effects between the variables ereignty means not only implementing agroecological solu- in our study are complex and non-linear. More research tions but also dealing with power relationships in the pro- in different contexts is required to determine which cross- ductive system and specifically on gender roles, rights and scale factors either enhance or pose a barrier to food sov- involvement in decision-making (Patel 2012; Bezner-Kerr ereignty goals, and which are most relevant in promoting et al. 2019). This topic certainly deserves more attention in household adaptation amid the high uncertainty of global future research. environmental change (e.g. how household diversification fosters risk diversification) or making it more difficult (e.g. off-farm work linked to small farms and lack of access Appendix 1 to land). Such an understanding may help future policy 1 3 1316 V. Vallejo-Rojas et al. Table 2 Working definitions for each second-tier SES variables used to describe the agri-food system as SES using the McGinnis and Ostrom framework (2014) Second-tier Working definition References RS3 Size of resource system Agroecosystem spatial boundaries, equivalent to a Gliessman (2002), McGinnis (2011) farm, farmland, plot, etc., or, to a set of these units RS4 Human-constructed facilities Technological infrastructure for the design and Gliessman (2002) management of the agri-food production systems (e.g., irrigation systems, silos, road systems) RS5 Productivity of system Biomass production from the agro-ecosystem Gliessman (2002) RS9 Location Geographical space where the resource system Gliessman (2002), Dudley (2008), McGinnis (2011) is located. It can be characterized by a set of environmental factors (e.g., altitudinal variations, precipitation regime) and/or be a clearly defined geographical space with protection to achieve the long-term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values RU5 Number of units Biotic factors that form part of the agro-ecosystem Gliessman (2002) RU6 Distinctive characteristics Characteristics of living entities. For example, the Kennedy et al. (2013), McGinnis and Ostrom (2014) micronutrient richness that have the crops and animals GS4 Property-rights systems Defines the relations among people with respect to McGinnis and Ostrom (2014) things, and specifies both duties and obligations GS5 Operational rules Implementation of practical decisions by those indi- McGinnis and Ostrom (2014) viduals who have been authorized (or allowed) to take these actions as a consequence of collective choice processes GS6 Collective-choice rules The processes through which institutions are McGinnis and Ostrom (2014) constructed and policy decisions made, by those actors authorized to participate in the collec- tive decisions as a consequence of constitutional choice processes A1 Number of actors It comprises the labor force defined as the number INEC (2014) of people in working age (> 15 years) (they may or may not have employment) A2 Socioeconomic attributes Characteristics of actors related to social (e.g., eth- Ostrom and Cox (2010), Anderies and Janssen nic background, education, skills, gender, values, (2013) etc.) and economic dimensions A6 Social capital Social capital comprises the range of relationships, McGinnis (2011), networks and institutions that allow people to Meinzen-Dick et al. (2014) build trust and cooperation. In these sense, it includes: the reciprocity, a norm of behavior that encourages members of a group to cooperate with others who have cooperated with them in previous encounters. The trust, a measure of the extent to which members of this community feel confident that other members will come to their assistance when needed. The networks, ties, not bounded by organized groups that facilitate the informal exchange of information or materials, such as seeds A8 Importance of resource Actors are dependent on the resource system for a (Ostrom 2009) substantial portion of their livelihoods. It includes different types of importance such as: food, cul- tural and economic importance A9 Technologies available Practices used by actors for the design and manage- Gliessman (2002) ment of the agri-food production systems. Actors can use agro-ecological practices (based on the application of ecological concepts and principles) or modern/conventional practices (based on maxi- mizing short-term production) 1 3 The agri‑food system (re)configuration: the case study of an agroecological network in the… 1317 Appendix 2 Table 3 Classification of variables of the SES framework in explanatory, control, intermediate and depended variables in order to analyze the agri-food system configuration according to literature review, narratives from key local informants and available observations Second-tier Third-tier Linkages with system interactions and bibliographic Key informants a references Explanatory variables  GS6 GS6.1—Member of agro-ecological network of Loja It can influence interactions such as production and I-RAL-1, (RAL) monitoring activities linked to adoption of agro- I-ASOR-1, ecological models Pretty and Smith (2004), Rosset I-MA-1, et al. (2011); distribution activities linked to better I-UNL-1 access to markets Gyau et al. (2014), Binder and Vogl (2018), Chauveau et al. (2010) and alternative food networks Simoncini (2015); self-organizing activities linked to influence on agri-food policies Rosset et al. (2011)  GS6 GS6.2—Member of community- based organizations It can influence local agri-food system interactions I-COM-1, (comunas) such as self-organizing activities that influence agri- I-COM-2 food policies Martínez (2002)  A2 A2.1– Self-identification as Saraguro indigenous It can influence interactions such as production activi- I-COM-1, ties linked to sustainable crop management practices I-GADP-1, Velásquez-Milla et al. (2011), distribution activities I- GADP-2 linked to incomes from on-farm activities (Winterset al. 2002), and self-organizing activities linked to access to resources Bebbington and Perreault (1999), Perreault (2003) A2.2—Gender equality in the distribution of labor It can determine the power space within the household – responsibilities in the different agri-food activities Fadiman (2005), Howard (2003); and, it can influence interactions such as production activities linked to reduced use of chemical inputs Cole et al. (2011), and consumption activities linked to improving nutrition at household level Schreinemachers et al. (2015) A2.3—Marketing of agri-food products It can influence production activities linked to I-RAL-1, increased crop diversification Jones et al. (2014), I-ASOR-1, increased dietary diversity and on-farm incomes (von I-MA-1 Braun (1995), Herforth (2010), Jones et al. (2014), Minot et al. (2006) A2.4—Off-farm work It can influence production activities linked to I-MA-1, decreased crop diversification Winters et al. (2006), I-FEN-1, Kasem and Thapa (2011) and distribution activities I-COM-1, linked to increased income diversification Lanjouw I-ASON-1, (1999), Marchetta (2013) I- GADM-1 Control variables  RS3 RS3.1—Size of farm It can influence crop diversification Kumar et al. I-RAL-1 (2012), Winters et al. (2006), Sichoongwe et al. (2014), choice and accumulation of livestock Tegebu et al. (2012), productivity Fan and Chan-Kang (2005) and incomes from on-farm activities Winters et al. (2002)  RS4 RS4.1—Access to roads paved It can influence crop diversification Kumar et al. I-ASOR-1, (2012), Sichoongwe et al. (2014), incomes diver- I-ASON-1 sification Castaing et al. (2015) and incomes from on-farm activities Winters et al. (2002)  RS9 RS9.1—Location in altitudinal zones It can influence crop diversification Velásquez-Milla – et al. (2011) RS9.2—Location in protected area It can influence food production Castro et al. (2015) –  GS4 GS4.1—Land tenure Not clear influence among securing land titling and I-COM-1, access to credit Domeher and Raymond (2012) I-COM-2, I-ASOR-1, I-ASON-1 1 3 1318 V. Vallejo-Rojas et al. Table 3 (continued) Second-tier Third-tier Linkages with system interactions and bibliographic Key informants a references  A1 A1.1—Size of labor force It can influence crop diversification Winters et al. – (2006), Velásquez-Milla et al. (2011), Kasem and Thapa (2011) A1.2—Gender of respondent We included the sex of survey respondents in order to – avoid gender bias Twyman et al. (2015) Intermediate variables GS5 GS5.1—Access to retailing location It can influence crop diversification (Kumar et al. I-RAL-1, 2012; Kasem and Thapa (2011) and farmers’ deci- I-ASOR-1, sions to use middlemen for accessing markets (Abde- I-MA-1 lali-Martini et al. 2014). Additionally, this access can be determined by institutional factors as membership to farmers groups and/or agro-ecological networks) A2 A2.5—Access to training These assets play an important role on crop diversi- I-RAL-1, fication Kumar et al. (2012), Winters et al. (2006), I-ASOR-1, Kasem and Thapa (2011), and incomes diversifica- I-MA-1, tion Winters et al. (2002). Additionally, these assets I-UNL-1 can be determined by social factors as indigenous culture and by institutional factors as membership to farmers groups and/or agro-ecological networks Kasem and Thapa (2011), Hellin et al. (2009), McCune et al. (2014), Isaac (2012) A2.6—Access to credit Ibid I-GADP-1 A6 A6.1—Participation in community-based working These social relations can influence crop diversifica- I-RAL-1, groups tion (Winters et al. 2006; Fuentes et al. (2012) and I-ASOR-1, income diversification (Winters, et al. 2002). Addi- I-MA-1 tionally, these social relations can be determined by social factors as culture Walsh–Dilley (2012) and by institutional factors as membership to farmers groups and/or agro-ecological networks Isaac (2012), Pretty and Smith (2004) A6.2—Participation in services exchanges Ibid Ibid A6.3—Participation in seeds exchanges Ibid Ibid Dependent variables RS5 RS5.1—Production of processed dairy Variable included in terms of processing activities – Kristjanson et al. (2007) RU5 RU5.1—Crop richness Variable included in terms of production activities – Kumar et al. (2012), Kasem and Thapa (2011), Velásquez-Milla et al. (2011), Sichoongwe et al. (2014) RU5.2—Small animal richness Ibid RU5.3—Number of cattle Variable included in terms of production activities – Delgado et al. (2008), Kristjanson et al. (2007) RU6 RU6.1—Dietary diversity produced Variable included in terms of consumption activities – Jones et al. (2014), Herforth (2010), Oyarzun et al. (2013) A8 A8.1—Importance of crops for self-consumption Variable included in terms of consumption activities – Marchetta (2013) A8.2—Importance of small animals for self -consump- Ibid – tion A8.3—Importance of traditional foods Variable included in terms of consumption activities – Velásquez-Milla et al. (2011) A8.4—Dependence of non-traditional purchased foods Variable included in terms of consumption activities – low in micronutrients Freire et al. (2013), Oyarzun et al. (2013) A8.5—Income diversification Variable included in terms of distribution activities – Marchetta (2014), Winters et al. (2002), Escobal (2001) 1 3 The agri‑food system (re)configuration: the case study of an agroecological network in the… 1319 Table 3 (continued) Second-tier Third-tier Linkages with system interactions and bibliographic Key informants a references A8.6—Importance of on-farm incomes Variable included in terms of distribution activities – Kasem and Thapa (2011) A8.7—Dependence on middlemen Variable included in terms of distribution activities – Abdelali-Martini et al. (2014) A8.8—Weekly frequency of sell Variable included in terms of distribution activities – Nsoso et al. (2004) A9 A9.1—Use of organic inputs on crops Variable included in terms of production activities – Altieri (1995) A9.2—Use of chemical inputs on crops Ibid – A9.3—Use of ethno-veterinary products Ibid – RS agro-ecosystem boundaries, RS3 size of resource system, RS4 human-constructed facilities, RS5 productivity of system, RS9 location, RU agro-ecosystem units, RU5 number of units, RU6 distinctive characteristics, GS agri-food governance system, GS4 property-rights systems, GS5 operational-choice rules, GS6 collective-choice rules, A agri-food system actors, A1 number of actors, A2 socioeconomic attributes, A6 social capital, A8 importance of resource, A9 technology available Based on previously analyzed narratives from key local informants (Vallejo-Rojas et  al. 2015). I-MA-1 movimiento Agroecológico de Amé- rica Latina y Caribe (MAELA) & Red Agroecológica Loja (RAL), I-FEN-1 Federación Nacional de Organizaciones Campesinas e Indígenas (FENOCIN), I-RAL-1 RAL I-, SON-1 “Amigos de la Naturaleza” association, I-ASOR-1 “San Antonio” association & RAL, I-COM-1 Comuna “Pueblo Viejo”, I-COM-2 Comuna “Ramos”, I- GADM-1 Autonomous decentralized government (GAD) of canton of “Loja”, I-GADP-1& I- GADP-2 GAD of rural parish of “San Lucas”, I-UNL-1 National university of Loja (UNL) Appendix 3 1 3 1320 V. Vallejo-Rojas et al. 1 3 Table 4 Relations between culture (indigenous Saraguro / mestizo), member of RAL (agro-ecological network of Loja) and strategies of income generation (marketing of agri-food products and off-farm work) with the third-tier SES intermediate and dependent variables Agri-food activities n Indigenous Saraguro Mestizo RAL Non-RAL Marketing Without market- Off-farm work Without off-farm work & third-tier SES of agri-food ing of agri-food variables products products Production  A2.5—Access to 116 % Yes 22.4 43.1 100.0 21.2 34.3 18.2 32.4 33.3 training % No 77.6 56.9 0.0 78.8 65.7 81.8 67.6 66.7 χ 4.74* 37.39*** 0.56 0.0  A2.6—Access to 116 % Yes 31.0 13.8 35.3 20.2 22.9 18.2 22.1 22.9 credit % No 69.0 86.2 64.7 79.8 77.1 81.8 77.9 77.1 χ 4.02* 1.13 0.0 0.0  A6.2—Participa- 116 % Yes 41.4 31.0 58.8 32.3 37.1 27.3 35.3 37.5 tion in services  Exchanges % No 58.6 69.0 41.2 67.7 62.9 72.7 64.7 62.5 χ 0.93 3.34 m.s 0.10 0.002  A6.3—Participa- 116 % Yes 39.7 25.9 76.5 25.3 35.2 9.1 33.8 31.3 tion in seed exchanges % No 60.3 74.1 23.5 74.7 64.8 90.9 66.2 68.8 χ 1.92 15.03*** 2.02 0.008  RU5.1—Crop rich- 116 number (S.D.) 17.7 (9.48) 15.2 (9.98) 19.7 (10.30) 15.9 (9.62) 17.2 (9.82) 9.2 (5.67) 16.3 (10.10) 16.7 (9.40) ness U 1387.00 658.00 297.00** 1570.50  RU5.2—Small 113 Number (S.D.) 2.5 (0.94) 2.5 (1.10) 2.6 (1.00) 2.5 (1.03) 2.6 (0.99) 1.4 (0.51) 2.4 (1.08) 2.7 (0.91) animal richness U 1534.50 767.00 163.50*** 1254.50  RU5.3—Number 85 Number (S.D. ) 4.3 (2.74) 3.6 (2.59) 4.3 (2.37) 3.9 (2.74) 4.0 (2.66) 1.0 (0.0) 3.7 (2.27) 4.2 (3.11) of cattle U 765.00 421.00 8.0* 855.50  A9.1—Use of 116 % Yes 27.6 31.0 64.7 23.2 30.5 18.2 33.8 22.9 organic inputs on  Crops % No 72.4 69.0 35.3 76.8 69.5 81.8 66.2 77.1 χ 0.04 10.13*** 0.25 1.13  A9.2—Use of 116 % Yes 17.2 17.2 0.0 20.2 18.1 9.1 19.1 14.6 chemical inputs On crops % No 82.8 82.8 100.0 79.8 81.9 90.9 80.9 85.4 χ 0.00 2.86* 0.11 0.15  A9.3—Use of 113 % Yes 22.4 31.0 82.4 17.2 28.6 9.1 19.1 37.5 ethno-veterinary  Products % No 77.6 69.0 17.6 82.8 71.4 90.9 80.9 62.5 The agri‑food system (re)configuration: the case study of an agroecological network in the… 1321 1 3 Table 4 (continued) Agri-food activities n Indigenous Saraguro Mestizo RAL Non-RAL Marketing Without market- Off-farm work Without off-farm work & third-tier SES of agri-food ing of agri-food variables products products χ 1.04 27.16 *** 1.06 3.96* Process  RS5.1—Produc- 78 Kg/week (S.D.) 9.8 (6.42) 7.70 (4.52) 9.4 (5.75) 8.6 (5.63) 8.8 (5.61) 2.7 (0.0) 8.2 (5.34) 9.4 (5.94) tion of processed dairy Distribution  GS5.1—Access to 105 % Yes 17.0 19.2 100.0 2.3 18.1 – 16.7 20.0 a retail  Location % No 83.0 80.8 0.0 97.7 81.9 – 83.3 80.0 2 – χ 0.002 85.34*** 0.03  A6.1—Participa- 116 % Yes 81.0 65.5 88.2 70.7 74.3 63.6 80.9 62.5 tion in  Community-based % No 19.0 34.5 11.8 29.3 25.7 36.4 19.1 37.5 working  Groups χ 2.82 1.47 0.16 3.96*  A8.5—Income 116 Number (S.D.) 4.1 (1.36) 3.5 (1.57) 4.2 (1.38) 3.7 (1.51) 4.0 (1.35) 1.5 (0.52) 4.1 (1.54) 3.4 (1.35) diversification U 1288.00* 696.50 45.50*** 1216.00*  A8.6—Importance 116 % (S.D.) 57.2 (25.95) 56.6 (24.87) 69.6 (17.10) 54.7 (25.90) 62.9 (18.15) 0.0 (0.0) 47.6 (21.06) 70.1 (25.14) of on-farm  Incomes U 1665.00 570.50* 670.50***  A8.7—Depend- 105 % Yes 41.5 34.6 17.6 42.0 38.1 – 41.7 33.3 ence on  Middlemen% No 58.5 65.4 82.4 58.0 61.9 – 58.3 66.7  A8.8—Weekly 105 % Less than once 11.3 21.2 11.8 17.0 16.2 – 21.7 8.9 frequency of sell % Once 64.2 73.1 58.8 70.5 68.6 – 66.7 71.1 % More than once 24.5 5.8 29.4 12.5 15.2 – 11.7 20.0 2 – χ 7.93* 3.20 3.84 Consumption  RU6.1—Dietary 116 Number (S.D.) 8.1 (1.04) 7.7 (1.76) 8.4 (1.06) 7.8 (1.50) 8.1 (1.32) 6.3 (1.79) 7.6 (1.61) 8.3 (1.10) diversity  Produced U 1563.50 634.00 223.50*** 1173.00**  A8.1—Importance 116 Number (S.D.) 98.3 (7.94) 98.4 (5.12) 99.0 (3.51) 98.2 (7.06) 98.1 (6.97) 100.0 (0.0) 98.5 (5.46) 98.1 (8.10) of crops for self- consumption 1322 V. Vallejo-Rojas et al. 1 3 Table 4 (continued) Agri-food activities n Indigenous Saraguro Mestizo RAL Non-RAL Marketing Without market- Off-farm work Without off-farm work & third-tier SES of agri-food ing of agri-food variables products products  A8.2—Importance 113 Number (S.D.) 90.5 (16.14) 91.0 (18.67) 94.1 (16.61) 90.2 (17.49) 89.9 (17.98) 100.0 (0.0) 90.26 (15.85) 91.5 (19.33) of small  Animals for self- U 1524.50 710.00 407.00* 1428.00 consumption  A8.3—Importance 116 % Low 13.8 19.0 11.8 17.2 15.2 27.3 19.1 12.5 of traditional  Foods % Medium 27.6 31.0 11.8 32.3 29.5 27.3 25.0 35.4 % High 56.8 50.0 76.5 50.5 55.2 45.5 55.9 52.1  A8.4—Dependence 116 % Low 24.1 27.6 52.9 21.2 26.7 18.2 29.4 20.8 of non-  Traditional pur- %Medium 50.0 36.2 47.1 42.4 45.7 18.2 42.6 43.8 chased foods low  In micronutrients % High 25.9 36.2 0.0 36.4 27.6 63.6 27.9 35.4 χ 2.41 11.90** 6.19* 1.32 Asterisks indicate significant differences after the non-parametric statistical tests (χ = Chi-Square; U = Mann–Whitney-U): m.s. (marginally significant) = 0.05 < p < 0.1; *p  ≤  0.05; **p ≤ 0.01; ***p ≤ 0.001 S.D.standard deviation Number of respondents Results of bivariate analysis (statistical value) are not shown because there are not significant relationships for any of the groups analyzed and/or the bivariate analysis is not applicable The agri‑food system (re)configuration: the case study of an agroecological network in the… 1323 Acknowledgements We thank Narcisa Medina and Rovin Andrade, Transnacionalismo, Redes e Identidades, edited by G. Herrera, local leaders of the rural Andean parishes Jimbilla and San Lucas of M. Carrillo, and A. Torres, 449–66. Quito, Ecuador: FLACSO the Loja canton; and, Nancy Huaca, coordinator of the Agroecological - Sede Ecuador. Network of Loja (RAL); who have shown their aperture for carrying Bernardi De León, R. 2009. Road development in podocarpus national out the research in eight communities of their locality and have shared park: An assessment of threats and opportunities. Journal of Sus- their experiences and knowledges. This research was part of a PhD tainable Forestry 28 (6–7): 735–754. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ study funded by the National Secretariat for Science, Technology and 10549 81090 29366 07 Innovation (SENESCYT) of Ecuadorian government. The correspond- Berti, P., C. Fallu, and Y. Cruz. 2014. A systematic review of the nutri- ing author has been funded by AXA Research Fund (2016) and Ramón tional adequacy of the diet in the central Andes. Revista Pan- i Cajal fellowship (RYC2018-025958-I) funded by Ministerio de Cien- americana De Salud Publica 34 (5): 314–323. cia, Innovación y Universidades (Spain). Berti, P., A. Jones, Y. Cruz, S. Larrea, R. Borja, and S. Sherwood. 2010. Assessment and characterization of the diet of an isolated population in the Bolivian Andes. American Journal of Human Funding Open Access funding provided thanks to the CRUE-CSIC Biology 22 (6): 741–749. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ ajhb. 21075. agreement with Springer Nature. Bezner-Kerr, R., C. Hickey, E. Lupafy, and D. Laifolo. 2019. Repairing rifts or reproducing inequalities? Agroecology, food sovereignty, Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attri- and gender justice in Malawi. Journal of Peasant Studies 46 (7): bution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adapta- 1499–1518. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 03066 150. 2018. 15478 97. tion, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long Binder, N., and Ch.R. Vogl. 2018. Participatory guarantee systems as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, in Peru: Two case studies in lima and Apurímac and the role provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes of capacity building in the food chain. Sustainability 10: 4644. were made. The images or other third party material in this article are https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ su101 24644. included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated Binimelis, R., M.G. Rivera-Ferre, G. Tendero, M. Badal, and M. Heras. otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in 2014. Adapting established instruments to build useful food sov- the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not ereignty indicators. Development Studies Research 1: 324–339. permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 21665 095. 2014. 973527. need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a Brem-Wilson, J. 2015. Towards food sovereignty: Interrogating peasant copy of this licence, visit http://cr eativ ecommons. or g/licen ses/ b y/4.0/ . voice in the United Nations Committee on World Food Security. The Journal of Peasant Studies 42 (1): 73–95. https://doi. or g/10. 1080/ 03066 150. 2014. 968143. Brondizio, E.S., E. Ostrom, and O.R. Young. 2009. Connectivity and References the governance of multilevel social-ecological systems: the role of social capital. Annual Review of Environment and Resources Abdelali, M.M., B. Dhehibi, and A. Aw-Hassan. 2014. Determinants 34 (1): 253–278. https:// doi. or g/ 10. 1146/ annur e v . envir on. of small scale dairy sheep producers’ decisions to use middlemen 020708. 100707. for accessing markets and getting loans in dry marginal areas in Castaing, G., and B.G. NajmanRaballand. 2015. Roads and diversifica- Syria. Experimental Agriculture 50: 438–457. https://doi. or g/10. tion of activities in rural areas: A Cameroon case study. Devel- 1017/ S0014 47971 30006 28. opment Policy Review 33 (3): 355–372. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ Agarwal, B. 2000. Conceptualising environmental collective action: dpr. 12111. Why gender matters. Cambridge Journal of Economics 24 (3): Castro, A., B. Martín-López, E. López, T. Plieninger, D. Alcaraz- 283–310. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1093/ cje/ 24.3. 283. Segura, C.C. Vaughn, and J. Cabello. 2015. Do protected areas Altieri, M. 1995. Agroecology: The scientific basis of alternative agri- networks ensure the supply of ecosystem services? Spatial pat- culture. Boca Raton, USA: Taylor and Francis Book. terns of two nature reserve systems in semi-arid Spain. Applied Altieri, M. 2009. Agroecology, small farms, and food sover- Geography 60: 1–9. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. apgeog. 2015. 02. eignty. Monthly Review 61 (3): 102. https:// doi. org/ 10. 14452/ MR- 061- 03- 2009- 07_8. Cepeda, D., P. Gondard, and P. Gasselin. 2007. Mega Diversidad Anderies, J.M., and M. A. Janssen. 2013. Sustaining the Commons. Agraria en el Ecuador: Disciplina, Conceptos y Herramientas Center for the Study of Institutional Diversity, Arizona State Metodológicas para el Analisis-Diagnóstico de Micro-Regiones. University In Mosaico Agrario, edited by M. Vaillant, D. Cedepa, P. Gond- Argumedo, A., and M. Pimbert. 2010. Bypassing globalization: Barter ard, A. Zapatta, and A. Meunier. Quito, Ecuador: SIPAE, IRD, markets as a new indigenous economy in Peru. Development 53 IFEA. (3): 343–349. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1057/ dev. 2010. 43. Chauveau, C., W. Carchi, P. Peñafiel, and M. Guamán. 2010. Agro - Asamblea Nacional. 2008. Constitución de la República del Ecuador. ecología y Venta Directa Organizadas, una Propuesta para Ecuador: R.O. N 449 de 20 de octubre de 2008. Valorizar Mejor Los Territorios de la Sierra Sur del Ecuador. Ávila, L. F. 2012. Disputas de Poder y Justicia: San Lucas (Saraguro). Cuenca, Ecuador: CEDIR-AVSF-FEM. In Justicia Indígena, Plurinacionalidad e Interculturalidad En Chiriboga, M., and J.F. Arellano. 2004. Diagnóstico de la Comerciali- Ecuador, ed. Boaventura de Sousa Santos and J. Grijalva, 373– zación para la Pequeña Economía Campesina y Propuesta para 430. Quito, Ecuador: Abya-Yala. una Agenda Nacional de Comercialización Agropecuaria. Quito, Bebbington, A., and Th. Perreault. 1999. Social capital, development, Ecuador: RIMISP. and access to resources in highland ecuador. Economic Geogra- Cole, D., F. Orozco, W. Pradel, J. Suquillo, X. Mera, A. Chacon, G. phy 75 (4): 395–418. Prain, S. Wanigaratne, and J. Leah. 2011. An agriculture and Belote, L. 2002. Relaciones Interétnicas en Saraguro 1962–1972. health inter-sectorial research process to reduce hazardous pes- Abya-Yala. ticide health impacts among smallholder farmers in the Andes. Belote, L., and J. Belote. 2005. ¿Que Hacen Dos Mil Saraguros BMC International Health and Human Rights 11 (2): S6. https:// en EE.UU. y España? In La Migración Ecuatoriana doi. org/ 10. 1186/ 1472- 698X- 11- S2- S6. 1 3 1324 V. Vallejo-Rojas et al. Cox, M., G. Arnold, and S. Villamayor. 2010. A review of design prin- Gray, C. 2009. Rural out-migration and smallholder agriculture in ciples for community-based natural resource management. Ecol- the southern Ecuadorian Andes. Population and Environment ogy and Society 15 (4): 38. 30 (4–5): 193–217. https://doi. or g/10. 1007/ s11111- 009- 0081-5 . Criollo, T. 1995. Economía Campesina y Estrategias de Sobrevivencia Gyau, A., S. Franzel, M. Chiatoh, G. Nimino, and K. Owusu. 2014. en Zonas de Altura Caso: San Lucas. Loja, Ecuador: CCE. Collective action to improve market access for smallholder Cueva, J.L. 2010. Elaboración y Análisis del Estado de la Cobertura producers of agroforestry products: Key lessons learned with Vegetal de la Provincia de Loja-Ecuador. España: Universidad insights from Cameroon’s experience. Current Opinion in Envi- Internacional de Andalucía. ronmental Sustinability 6: 68–72. https:// doi. or g/ 10. 1016/j. Deere, C. D. 2005. The Feminization of Agriculture? Economic cosust. 2013. 10. 017. Restructuring in Rural Latin America. Geneva, Switzerland: Herforth, A. 2010. Promotion of Traditional african vegetables in UNRISD Kenya and Tanzania: A case study of an intervention represent- Domeher, D., and A. Raymond. 2012. Access to credit in the develop- ing emerging imperatives in global nutrition. New York, USA: ing world: Does land registration matter? Third World Quarterly Cornell University. 33: 161–175. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 01436 597. 2012. 627254. Hellin, J., M. Lundy, and M. Meijer. 2009. Farmer organization, collec- Dudley, N. 2008. Guidelines for appling protected areas management tive action and market access in Meso-America. Food Policy 34: categories. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. 16–22. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. foodp ol. 2008. 10. 003. Ellis, F. 2000. The determinants of rural livelihood diversification in Hermann, M., K. Amaya, L. Latournerie, and L. Castiñeiras. 2009. developing countries. Journal of Agricultural Economics 51 (2): ¿Cómo Conservan Los Agricultores Sus Semillas en el Trópico 89–302. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1477- 9552. 2000. tb012 29.x. Húmedo de Cuba, México y Perú? Roma, Italia: Bioversity Ericksen, P. 2008. Conceptualizing food systems for global environ- International. mental change research. Global Environmental Change 18 (1): Howard, P.L. 2003. Women and plants: Gender relations in biodiversity 234–245. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. gloen vcha. 2007. 09. 002. management and conservation. London: Zed Books. Escobal, J. 2001. The determinants of nonfarm income diversification Instituto Nacional de Meteorología e Hidrología (INAMHI). 2014a. in Rural Peru. World Development 29 (3): 497–508. https:// doi. Análisis de Las Condiciones Climáticas Registradas en el Ecua- org/ 10. 1016/ S0305- 750X(00) 00104-2. dor Continental en el Año 2013 y su Impacto en el Sector Agrí- Espinosa, P. 1997. Raíces y tubérculos andinos cultivos marginados en cola. Quito, Ecuador. el Ecuador: situación actual y limitaciones para la producción. Instituto Nacional de Meteorología e Hidrología (INAMHI). 2014b. ABYA-YALA editor Boletín Climatológico Anual 2013. Quito, Ecuador. Fadiman, M. 2005. Cultivated food plants: Culture and gendered spaces Instituto Nacional Estádistica y Censos (INEC). 2010. Censo de of colonists and the Chachi in Ecuador. Journal Latin American Población y Vivienda 2010. http:// www. ecuad orenc ifras. gob. Geography 4: 43–57.ec/ siste ma- integ rado- de- consu ltas- redat am/. Fan, Sh., and C. Chan-Kang. 2005. Is small beautiful? Farm size, pro- Instituto Nacional del Patrimonio Cultural (INPC). 2012. Memoria ductivity, and poverty in Asian agriculture. Agricultural Eco- Oral del Pueblo Saraguro. Loja, Ecuador: Regional 7 Instituto nomics 32: 135–146. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 0169- 5150. 2004. Nacional de Patrimonio Cultural. 00019.x. Isaac, M. 2012. Agricultural information exchange and organizational Fonte, M. 2013. Food consumption as social practice: solidarity pur- ties: The effect of network topology on managing agrodiversity. chasing groups in Rome Italy. Journal of Rural Studies 32: 230– Agricultural Systems 109: 9–15. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. agsy. 239. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jrurs tud. 2013. 07. 003.2012. 01. 011. Freire, W., M. J. Ramírez, P. Belmont, M. J. Mendieta, K. M. Silva, Intriago, R., R. Gortaire Amézcua, E. Bravo, and C. O’Connell. 2017. N. Romero, K. Sáenz, P. Piñeiros, L. F. Gómez, and R. Monge. Agroecology in ecuador: Historical processes, achievements, 2013. Encuesta Nacional de Salud y Nutrición del Ecuador. and challenges. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems. 41 ENSANUT-ECU 2011–2013. Quito, Ecuador: MSP/INEC. (3–4): 311–328. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 21683 565. 2017. 12841 Fuentes, F., D. Bazile, A. Bhargava, and E. Martínez. 2012. Implica- 74. tions of farmers’ seed exchanges for on-farm conservation of Jones, A., A. Shrinivas, and R. Bezner-Kerr. 2014. Farm production quinoa, as revealed by its genetic diversity in Chile. Journal of diversity is associated with greater household dietary diversity Agriculture Science 150: 702–716. https://doi. or g/10. 1017/ S0021 in Malawi: findings from nationally representative data. Food 85961 20000 56. Policy 46 (June): 1–12. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. foodp ol. 2014. Gabrielsson, S., and V. Ramasar. 2013. Widows: agents of change in 02. 001. a climate of water uncertainty. Journal of Cleaner Production Kasem, S., and G. Thapa. 2011. Crop diversification in Thailand: Sta- 60 (12): 34–42. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jclep ro. 2012. 01. 034. tus, determinants, and effects on income and use of inputs. Land Garay, E., and J. Larrabure. 2011. Relational knowledge systems Use Policy 28: 618–628. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. landu sepol. and their impact on management of mountain ecosystems: 2010. 12. 001. Approaches to understanding the motivations and expectations Katz, E. 2003. The Changing Role of Women in the Rural Economies of traditional farmers in the maintenance of biodiversity zones of Latin America. In: Current and Emerging Issues for Economic in the Andes. Management of Environmental Quality 22 (2): Analysis and Policy Research. Volume I: Latin America and the 213–232. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ 14777 83111 11133 92. Caribbean, edited by B. Davis, 31–66. Rome, Italy: FAO. Giunta, I. 2014. Food sovereignty in Ecuador: Peasant struggles and Kennedy, G., T. Ballard, and MC. Dop. 2013. Guidelines for Measur- the challenge of institutionalization. Journal of Peasant Studies ing Household and Individual Dietary Diversity. Roma: FAO. 41: 1201–1224. https://doi. or g/10. 1080/ 03066 150. 2014. 938057 . Accessed on 10th February 2022 https://www .f ao.or g/publi catio Gliessman, S. 2002. Agroecología: Procesos Ecológicos en Agricultura ns/ card/ es/c/ 5aacb e39- 068f- 513b- b17d- 1d929 59654 ea/ Sostenible. Turrialba: CATIE. Kristjanson, P., A. Krishna, M. Radeny, and J. Kuan. 2007. Poverty González, V., J. Barkmann, and R. Marggraf. 2010. Social Network dynamics and the role of livestock in the Peruvian Andes. Agri- effects on the adoption of agroforestry species: Preliminary cultural Systems 94: 294–308. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. agsy . results of a study on differences on adoption patterns in southern 2006. 09. 009. Kumar, A., K. Pramod, and A. Sharma. 2012. Crop diversification ecuador. Procedias 4: 71–82. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. sbspro. in Eastern India: Status and determinants. Indian Journal of 2010. 07. 484. 1 3 The agri‑food system (re)configuration: the case study of an agroecological network in the… 1325 Agricultural Economics 67: 600–616. https:// doi. org/ 10. 22004/ Institute. Research Report 145. Washington, D.C., USA: Inter- ag. econ. 204840. national Food Policy Research Institute. La Vía Campesina. 2009. La Vía Campesina policy documents: 5th Neill, D.A., and P.M. Jørgensen. 1999. Climates. In Catalogue of the conference, Mozambique, 16th to 23rd October 2008. Interna- Vascular Plants of Ecuador, ed. Peter M. Jørgensen and Susana tional Operational Secretariat of La Via Campesina. Accessed on León-Yánez, 8–13. St. Louis, USA: Missouri Botanical Garden. 10th February 2022 at https://viaca m pesina. or g/en/ la- via- cam pe Nyéléni Movement for Food Sovereignty. 2015. Declaration of the sina- policy- docum ents/ international forum for agroecology. Nyeleni Forum for Food Leps, J., and P. Smilauer. 2003. Multivariate analysis of ecological data Sovereignty. Accessed 10th February , 2022. https://w ww.f oods using CANOCO. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.overe ignty. org/ forum- agroe cology- nyele ni- 2015-2/ decla ration- Loconto, A., and M. Hatanaka. 2018. Participatory guarantee systems: of- the- inter natio nal- forum- for- agroe cology- nyele ni- 2015/ Alternative ways of den fi ing, measuring, and assessing ‘Sustain - Nsoso, S.J., M. Monkhei, and B.E. Tlhwaafalo. 2004. A survey of ability.’ Sociologia Ruralis 58 (2): 412–432. https:// doi. org/ 10. traditional small stock farmers in Molelopole North, Kweneng 1111/ soru. 12187. district, Botswana: Demographic parameters, market practices Ministerio de Agricultura y ganadería (MAGAP). 2012. Creación de and marketing channels. Livestock Research for Rural Develop- Sellos de Calidad para Productos de Pequeños Productores. ment. 16: 100. Quito, Ecuador. Oksanen, J. 2013. Multivariate Analysis of Ecological Communities Major, J., Ch. Clement, and A. DiTommaso. 2005. Influence of market in R: Vegan Tutorial. orientation on food plant diversity of farms located on amazonian Oksanen, J., F. Guillem Blanchet, R. Kindt, P. Legendre, R. G. O’Hara, dark earth in the region of Manaus, Amazonas Brazil. Economic G. Leslie Simpson, Peter Solymos, H. Stevens, and H. Wagner. Botany 59 (1): 77–86. https://doi. or g/10. 1663/ 0013- 0001(2005) 2015. Vegan: Community Ecology Package. R Package Version 059[0077: IOMOOF] 2.0. CO;2. 3.2.2. http://cr an.r-pr oject. or g/pac kag e=v egan. Accessed 10 Feb Marchetta, F. 2013. Migration and nonfarm activities as income diver- 2022 sification strategies: The case of Northern Ghana. Canadian Ordoñez Sotomayor, A., and P. Ochoa Cueva. 2020. Ambiente, socie- Journal of Development Studies 34: 1–21. h t t p s : / / d o i . o rg / 1 0 . dad y turismo comunitario: La etnia Saraguro en Loja – Ecuador. 1080/ 02255 189. 2013. 755916. Revista De Ciencias Sociales 26 (2): 180–191. Marshall, G.R. 2015. A social-ecological systems framework for food Ortega-Cerdà, M., and M.G. Rivera-Ferre. 2010. Indicadores Inter- systems research: Accommodating transformation systems and nacionales de Soberanía Alimentaria: Nuevas Herramientas para their products. International Journal of the Commons 9 (2): una Nueva Agricultura. Revista Iberoamericana De Economía 881–908. Ecológica 14: 53–77. Martínez, L. 1996. Familia Indígena: Cambios Socio Demográficos y Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the commons. Cambridge: Cambridge Económicos. Quito, Ecuador: CONADE/FNUAP. University Press. Martínez, L. 1998. Comunidades y Tierra en el Ecuador, 173–188. Ostrom, E. 2009. A general framework for analyzing sustainability of Quito: Ecuador Debate. social-ecological systems. Science 325 (5939): 419–422. https:// Martínez, L. 2002. Economía Política de Las Comunidades Indígenas. doi. org/ 10. 1126/ scien ce. 11721 33. Quito, Ecuador: Abya-Yala. Ostrom, E., and T.K. Ahn. 2003. Una Perspectiva del Capital Social Martínez, L. 2005. Migración Internacional y Mercado de Trabajo Desde Las Ciencias Sociales: Capital Social y Acción Colectiva. Rural en Ecuador. In La Migración Ecuatoriana Transnacion- Revista Mexicana De Sociología 65 (1): 155–233. alismo, Redes e Identidades, ed. G. Herrera, M. Carrillo, and Ostrom, E., and M. Cox. 2010. Moving beyond panaceas: A multi- A. Torres, 147–168. Quito, Ecuador: FLACSO-Sede Ecuador. tiered diagnostic approach for social-ecological analysis. Envi- Martínez-Torres, M.H., and P. Rosset. 2014. Diálogo de Saberes in La ronmental Conservation 37 (04): 451–463. https:// doi. org/ 10. Vía Campesina: Food Sovereignty and Agroecology. The Jour-1017/ S0376 89291 00008 34. nal of Peasant Studies 41 (6): 979–997. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ Oteros-Rozas, E., F. Ravera, and M. García-Llorente. 2019. How does 03066 150. 2013. 872632. agroecology contribute to the transitions towards social-ecolog- MBS-SSDR/IFAD/IICA. 1991. Saraguro - Yacuambi - Loja Rural ical sustainability? Sustainability 11: 4372. https:// doi. org/ 10. Development Project Ecuador. Quito, Ecuador: IICA.3390/ su111 64372. McMichael, Ph. 2011. Food system sustainability: Questions of envi- Oyarzun, P., R. Borja, S. Sherwood, and V. Parra. 2013. Making sense ronmental governance in the new world (dis)order. Global Envi- of agro-biodiversity, diet, and intensification of smallholder fam- ronmental Change 21 (3): 804–812. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ily farming in the highland Andes of Ecuador. Ecology of Food gloen vcha. 2011. 03. 016. and Nutrition 52 (6): 515–541. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 03670 McCune, N., J. Reardon, and P. Rosset. 2014. Agroecological for-244. 2013. 769099. mación in rural social movements. Radical Teacher 98: 31–37. Patel, R. 2012. Food sovereignty: Power, gender, and the right to food. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5195/ rt. 2014. 71. PLoS Medicine 9: e1001223. h t t ps :/ / d o i. o rg/ 1 0 . 1 3 71 / j o ur n a l . McGinnis, M. 2011. An introduction to IAD and the language of the pmed. 10012 23. Ostrom workshop: A simple guide to a complex framework. Pelletier, D.L., V. Kraak, Ch. McCullum, U. Unsitalo, and R. Rich. Policy Studies Journal 39 (1): 169–183. 1999. Community food security: Salience and participation at McGinnis, M., and E. Ostrom. 2014. Social-ecological system frame- community level. Agriculture and Human Values 16: 401–419. work: Initial changes and continuing challenges. Ecology and Perreault, Th. 2003. Making space: Community organization, agrar- Society 19 (2): 30. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5751/ ES- 06387- 190230. ian change, and the politics of scale in the Ecuadorian Amazon. Meinzen-Dick, R., J. Behrman, L. Pandolfelli, A. Peterman, and A. Latin American Perspectives 30 (1): 96–121. https:// doi. org/ 10. Quisumbing. 2014. Gender and social capital for agricultural 1177/ 00945 82X02 239146. development. In Gender in agriculture, ed. A. Quisumbing, R. Pfeiffer, L., A. López-Feldman, and J.E. Taylor. 2009. Is off-farm Meinzen-Dick, T. Raney, A. Croppenstedt, J. Behrman, and A. income reforming the farm? Evidence from Mexico. Agricultural Peterman, 235–266. Netherlands: Springer. Economics 40 (2): 125–138. https://doi. or g/10. 1111/j. 1574- 0862. Minot, N., M. Epprecht, TT. Anh, and LeQ. Trung. 2006. Income 2009. 00365.x. Pohle, P., A. Gerique, M. Park, and M. F. L. Sandoval. 2010. Diversification and Poverty in the Northern Uplands of Viet- Human Ecological Dimensions in Sustainable Utilization and nam. Research Report of the International Food Policy Research 1 3 1326 V. Vallejo-Rojas et al. Conservation of Tropical Mountain Rain Forests under Global Animal Health and Production 44: 133–144. https:// doi. org/ 10. Change in Southern Ecuador. In Tropical Rainforests and Agro-1007/ s11250- 011- 9900-7. forests under Global Change, edited by T. Tscharntke, C. Leusch- Thompson, J., and I. Scoones. 2009. Addressing the dynamics of agri- ner, E. Veldkamp, H. Faust, E. Guhardja, and A. Bidin, 477–509. food systems: An emerging agenda for social science research. Environmental Science and Engineering. Berlin: Springer Environmental Science and Policy 12 (4): 386–397. https:// doi. Pretty, J., and D. Smith. 2004. Social capital in biodiversity conserva-org/ 10. 1016/j. envsci. 2009. 03. 001. tion and management. Conservation Biology 18 (3): 631–638. Trinh, L.N., J.W. Watson, N.N. De, N.V. Minh, P. Chu, B.R. Sthapit, https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1523- 1739. 2004. 00126.x. and P.B. Eyzaguirre. 2003. Agro-biodiversity conservation and Proaño, V., and P. Lacroix. 2013. Dinámicas de Comercialización para development in Vietnamese home gardens. Agriculture Eco- la Agricultura Familiar Campesina: Desafíos y Alternativas en el system and Environment 97: 317–344. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ Escenario Ecuatoriano. Ed. Verónica Proaño and Pierril Lacroix. S0167- 8809(02) 00228-1. Quito: SIPAE. Twyman, J., P. Useche, and C.D. Deere. 2015. Gendered perceptions Prosperi, P., Th. Allen, B. Cogill, M. Padilla, and I. Peri. 2016. Towards of land ownership and agricultural decision-making in ecuador: metrics of sustainable food systems: A review of the resilience Who are the farm managers? Land Economics 91: 479–500. and vulnerability literature. Environmental System and Decisions https:// doi. org/ 10. 3368/ le. 91.3. 479. 36: 3–19. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10669- 016- 9584-7. Vallejo-Rojas, V., F. Ravera, and M.G. Rivera-Ferre. 2015. Develop- Reardon, Th., J. Berdegué, and G. Escobar. 2001. Rural nonfarm ing an integrated framework to assess agri-food systems and its employment and incomes in Latin America: overview and policy application in the Ecuadorian Andes. Regional Environmental implications. World Development 29 (3): 395–409. https:// doi. Change. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10113- 015- 0887-x. org/ 10. 1016/ S0305- 750X(00) 00112-1. Vanwey, L., and T. Vithayathil. 2013. Off-farm work among rural Rosero, F., Y.C. Yonfá, and F. Regalado. 2011. Soberanía alimentaria, households: a case study in the Brazilian Amazon. Rural Soci- modelos de desarrollo y tierras en Ecuador. Quito: CAFOLIS. ology 78 (1): 29–50. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1549- 0831. 2012. Rosset, P., B. Sosa, A. Jaime, and D. Lozano. 2011. The campesino- 00094.x. to-campesino agroecology movement of ANAP in cuba: social Velásquez-Milla, D., A. Casas, J. Torres-Guevara, and A. Cruz- process methodology in the construction of sustainable peasant Soriano. 2011. Ecological and socio-cultural factors influenc- agriculture and food sovereignty. Journal of Peasant Studies 38 ing in situ conservation of crop diversity by traditional Andean (1): 161–191. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 03066 150. 2010. 538584. households in Peru. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine Rosset, P., and M. Altieri. 2017. Agroecology: Science and politics; 7 (1): 40. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1186/ 1746- 4269-7- 40. agrarian change and peasant studies. Black Point, NS, Canada: von Braun, J. 1995. Agricultural commercialization: Impacts on Fernwood Publishing Co LTD. income and nutrition and implications for policy. Food Policy Rozelle, S., J.E. Taylor, and A. DeBrauw. 1999. Migration, remittances, 20 (3): 187–202. https://doi. or g/10. 1016/ 0306- 9192(95) 00013-5 . and agricultural productivity in China. American Economic Walsh-Dilley, M. 2012. Indigenous reciprocity and globalization in Review 89 (2): 287–291. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1257/ aer. 89.2. 287. rural Bolivia. Grassroots Development 33: 58–61. Ruíz-Almeida, A., and M.G. Rivera-Ferre. 2019. Internationally-based Williams, L., J. Germov, S. Fuller, and M. Freij. 2015. A Taste of ethi- indicators to measure agri-food systems sustainability using food cal consumption at a slow food festival. Appetite 91: 321–328. sovereignty as a conceptual framework. Food Security 11 (6): https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. appet. 2015. 04. 066. 1321–1337. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s12571- 019- 00964-5. Winkel, T., L. Núñez-Carrasco, J. Cruz Pablo, N. Egan, L. Sáez-Ton- Sherwood, S., A. Arce, P. Berti, R. Borja, P. Oyarzun, and E. Bek- acca, P. Cubillos-Celis, C. Poblete-Olivera, N. Zavalla-Nanco, B. kering. 2013. Tackling the new materialities: Modern food and Miño-Baes, and M.-P. Viedma-Araya. 2020. Mobilising common counter-movements in ecuador. Food Policy 41: 1–10. https://doi. biocultural heritage for the socioeconomic inclusion of small org/ 10. 1016/j. foodp ol. 2013. 03. 002. farmers: Panarchy of two case studies on quinoa in Chile and Schreinemachers, P., M.A. Patalagsa, Md. Rafiqul Islam, Md. Nasir Bolivia. Agriculture and Human Values 37: 433–447. https://do i. Uddin, S. Sh Ahmad, Md. Chandra Biswas, R.-Y. Tanvir Ahmed, org/ 10. 1007/ s10460- 019- 09996-1. P. Yang, B.. S. Hanson, and C. Takagi. 2015. The effect of wom- Winters, P., R. Cavatassi, and L. Lipper. 2006. Sowing the seeds of en’s home gardens on vegetable production and consumption in social relations: the role of social capital in crop diversity. Bangladesh. Food Security 7: 97–107. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ Rome, Italy: FAO. s12571- 014- 0408-7. Winters, P., B. Davis, and L. Corral. 2002. Assets, activities and income Sichoongwe, K., L. Mapemba, G. Tembo, and D. Ng’ong’ola,. 2014. generation in rural Mexico: factoring in social and public capi- The determinants and extent of crop diversification among small- tal. Rome, Italy: FAO. holder farmers: A case study of southern province Zambia. Jour- Wittman, H. 2011. Food sovereignty: A new rights framework for food nal Agricultural Science 6: 150–159. https://doi. or g/10. 5539/ jas. and nature? Environment and Society 2 (1): 87–105. https:// doi. v6n11 p150.org/ 10. 3167/ ares. 2011. 020106. Simoncini, R. 2015. Introducing territorial and historical contexts and Zuur, A., E. Ieno, and C. Elphick. 2010. A protocol for data explora- critical thresholds in the analysis of conservation of agro-bio- tion to avoid common statistical problems. Methods in Ecology diversity by alternative food networks, in Tuscany, Italy. Land and Evolution 1 (1): 3–14. https://d oi.o rg/10 .11 11/j.2 041-2 10X. Use Policy 42: 355–366. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. landu sepol. 2009. 00001.x. 2014. 08. 010. Sistema Información Nacional Agricultura, Ganadería, Acuacultura Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to y Pesca (SINAGAP). 2000. III Censo Nacional Agropecuario. jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Quito. Steins, N.A., and V.M. Edwards. 1999. Platforms for collective action in multiple-use common-pool resources. Agriculture and Human Values 16: 241–255. Virginia Vallejo‑Rojas is currently working in the Forest and Farm Tegebu, F.N., E. Mathijs, J. Deckers, M. Haile, J. Nyssen, and E. Tol- Facility (FFF) of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United lens. 2012. Rural livestock asset portfolio in northern Ethiopia: Nations (FAO). In 2016 obtained her PhD in Sustainability, Technol- A microeconomic analysis of choice and accumulation. Tropical ogy and Humanism, Polytechnic University of Catalonia, Spain. Her 1 3 The agri‑food system (re)configuration: the case study of an agroecological network in the… 1327 research focuses on agri-food systems and policies for food security Federica Ravera , PhD in Environmental Sciences, in the Specialty of and sovereignty with a gender perspective, following a socio-ecological Ecological Economics and Political Ecology from the Autonomous Uni- system approach that interrelates health, territory and democracy to versity of Barcelona, is currently Ramón y Cajal senior researcher for the achieve sustainable agri-food systems. University of Girona (Spain). Her research line is focused on the analysis of socio-institutional innovations, collective actions and the role of tradi- Marta G. Rivera‑Ferre is Research Professor at INGENIO (CSIC-UPV). tional and local knowledge in adapting to global environmental changes, She was director of Chair in Agroecology and food systems at the especially in Mediterranean and high mountain contexts. With a feminist University of Vic-Central University of Catalonia (Spain). With a mul- political ecology perspective applied to adaptation and resilience studies, tidisciplinary profile in the analysis of the society and environment her research is focuses on understanding the power dynamics that create interactions within agri-food systems, she has a particular interest in inequalities, and the differential conditions that create new opportunities alternative agri-food systems following the food sovereignty paradigm in the transformations of socio-political systems. and more recently, in the analysis of feminists and commons theories as to be adopted in agri-food research. 1 3

Journal

Agriculture and Human ValuesSpringer Journals

Published: Dec 1, 2022

Keywords: Andes; Food sovereignty; Mestizo peasants; Saraguro; Indigenous people; Socio-ecological system

There are no references for this article.