Agroecology education programs that are closely tied to social movements and food sovereignty networks are more likely to have a transformative approach, regardless of their institutional setting

This article examines four agroecology education programs in Brazil and Spain that focus on promoting food sovereignty. The researchers analyzed two formal university programs and two non-formal programs run by social movements. They looked at three main aspects of each program: where it came from, who was involved, and how it was taught.

The study found that all four programs share some common goals:

1. They teach agroecology as a way to change current food systems.
2. They aim to empower farmers and rural communities.
3. They combine technical farming knowledge with political education about food systems.

However, there were significant differences between the formal and non-formal programs:

• Origin: The non-formal programs were started by farmers' organizations to meet specific needs of their movements. The university programs were started by researchers who wanted to bring a more critical approach to agricultural education.
• Participants: Non-formal programs mainly taught farmers and rural youth. University programs attracted more students with academic backgrounds and urban activists.
• Teaching methods: Non-formal programs used more participatory methods, including hands-on farm work and community organizing. University programs had more traditional lectures, though they tried to include some participatory elements.

The researchers identified some key features of what they call "agroecological education for food sovereignty":

1. It teaches students to think critically about current food systems.
2. It combines scientific knowledge with farmers' traditional knowledge.
3. It includes both technical farming skills and political organizing skills.
4. It often uses a method called "alternancia," where students alternate between classroom learning and practical work in communities.

The article suggests that while university programs face more barriers in implementing these approaches, it's still possible to teach agroecology in ways that promote social change within formal education settings. However, universities may struggle to fully incorporate some elements, like emotional learning and community organizing, that are central to non-formal programs.

The authors conclude that the most important factor in determining whether a program truly promotes food sovereignty is not whether it's formal or non-formal, but rather who is behind the program and what their goals are. Programs closely tied to social movements and food sovereignty networks are more likely to have a transformative approach, regardless of their institutional setting.