PREVENCIÓN DEL PARTO PROLONGADO

Agro-ecology (Sevilla Guzmán and Woodgate, 1999; Altieri, 1987) is a “social and political movement” which aims to achieve sustainability in agriculture by using “environmentally and socially sensitive approaches’” (Banks and Marsden, 2001, p.114). The philosophy promotes: the regaining of local autonomy; the use of local resources (e.g. labour, knowledge); the valuing of heterogeneity (scale and farming methods); and, calls “to establish or assert new norms of production and consumption

development model include: (1) the crisis of modernity; (2) co-evolution; (3) local farmers’ knowledge; (4) endogenous potential; (5) collective forms of socialisation; (6) systemic strategies; (7) ecological and cultural diversity; and (8) sustainable societies (Sevilla Guzmán and Woodgate, 1999).

Sevilla Guzmán and Woodgate’s (1999) ‘crisis of modernity’ refers to the social and environmental ills associated with the industrial agrifood system and the alternative definition of sustainability that is espoused within the agroecological model (Marsden, 2003). ‘Co-evolution’ denotes the nature-society association and inseparability

(Marsden et al., 2001), whereas the use of ‘local farmers’ knowledge systems’ “allow for and promote both ecological and cultural diversity” and contrasts with the

destruction of diversity within the industrial model (Marsden, 2003, p. 230). ‘Endogenous potential’ not only refers to local knowledge potential, but also to the ability of local groups/social networks to promote alternatives to arrangements in the industrial agrifood system (Marsden et al., 2001). ‘Systemic strategies’ relates to the notion that in development, all factors are interlinked and should not be thought of independently, whilst ‘sustainable societies’ suggests that agriculture forms the basis for a sustainable society rather than viewing it as separate to society (Marsden, 2003).

Sevilla Guzmán and Woodgate’s (1999) final agroecological characteristic is that of ‘collective forms of social action’ (Marsden et al., 2001). This characteristic refers to “new forms of associationalism” that challenge the industrial agrifood model (Marsden et al., 2001, p.80; Marsden, 2003, p.172). The scoping study revealed that the processor and consumer have an intimate relationship via face-to-face sales (i.e. finding 7). This contrasts to the anonymity that is often present in the industrial food system, where consumers are unaware of who produced the product, its origin and how it was processed. This results in artisanal products being heavily laden with meanings when they reach the consumer. This phenomenon has been termed a ‘short food supply chain’ (SFSC) and is a collective form of social action that can challenge the industrial food model.

‘The Short Food Supply Chain’

‘Collective forms of social action’ can seek to challenge the dominance and

unsustainable practice that is often associated with the conventional food system. This characteristic is much more than a method of selling; rather, it can involve producer and consumer forming a relationship based upon the sharing of values, beliefs and

consumer is often absent in the industrial agrifood system. In direct selling, not only can the distance between producer and consumer be reduced, but also the intellectual gap is decreased, with consumers having significant knowledge surrounding the product. The SFSC does not entirely relate to distance, but rather the preservation and sharing of knowledge surrounding the product. As such, three types of SFSCs have been mentioned in the literature: face-to-face; spatial proximity (i.e. regional); and spatially extended (i.e. outside of the region) (Marsden et al., 2000a). As Van der Ploeg et al. (2000, p.399) suggests, these alternative food supply chains:

embody a fundamental shift away from the anonymous producer-consumer relations that characterised the ‘industrial model’ of food production in the modernisation epoch. There appears to be a general trend towards ‘short- circuiting’ long, complex and rationally organised industrial chains by constructing transparent chains in which the product reaches the consumer with a significant degree of value-laden information about its provenance.

In a conventional food supply chain, the commodity is often distributed to consumers who have no knowledge of where the product came from, who produced it, and under what conditions it was produced. The characteristics of a conventional food supply chain can include: spatially dispersed sourcing of produce (i.e. not place-based); mass production; spatially dispersed distribution; and, non-local ownership. As McMichael (1996, p. 90-91) suggests:

Instead of countries specialising in an export sector (manufacturing or agriculture) production sites in countries specialise in a constituent part of a production process spread across several countries … some exported manufactured goods to the First world or to sites in a commodity chain en route to the world market.

The SFSC can also be viewed as a development tool. The unique relationship that is formed between producer and consumer produces a transparency, which itself generates a concentration of meanings and characteristics that are attached to and embodied within the product. This offers significant value-adding potentialities. Furthermore, if the closing of the gap is in terms of distance, distribution costs are considerably reduced. Marsden et al. (2000a, p. 427-429) suggest that there are six common dimensions of a short food chain, which include:

(1) Removal or part removal from the conventional food supply chain (CFSC) context (i.e. chains associated with bulk food and complex food chains);

(2) “New relationships of association and institutionalisation” (situated at regional scale rather than national);

(3) Actors “have different relationships with the state” (i.e. the development of new products without the assistance of the state or are challenging the unfavourable outcomes of state policy);

(4) Development of innovations, which “combine or reconfigure the natural, quality, region and value constructions associated with food production and supply”; (5) “value-added gains in terms of farm-level income impacts over and above those which would have been possible through the commodity-oriented mainstream ‘industrial’ channel”; and,

(6) Significant diversity in the “types of associational and face-to-face interactions”.

These turns, alternatives and resistances have indicated to some authors that that there has been a development paradigm shift in the agrifood system. Marsden et al. (2001, p. 75) suggest that “there is strong evidence that a new, broader rural development paradigm is beginning to take hold in different parts of Europe.” This has been referred to as the rural development model. The following will explore this model and its alignment with principles of endogenous development will become evident.