Growing through Connections – A Multi-Case Study of Two Alternative Food Networks in Cluj-Napoca, Romania

In a context of urgent global socio-ecological challenges, the aim of this paper has been to explore the potential of localised and socially connected food systems. More specifically, through a multi-case study of two alternative food networks in the city of Cluj-Napoca, Romania, their contribution to a sustainable food paradigm has been explored. An important synergy within the networks is how good food is equated with peasant produce, but issues regarding quantity, delivery arrangement, power relations and inclusiveness constitute potential conflicts. Although challenged by unfavourable trends on national and EU levels, the networks are becoming more embedded horizontally, through an intrinsic focus on community in one case and through quality food stimulating good relations in the other case. The networks contribute to a sustainable food paradigm by promoting agroecology, by reclaiming socio-cultural factors of food provisioning and by being part of a (re)-peasantisation process. Exploring how these kinds of initiatives can emerge, be sustained and be developed is of relevance, especially considering their potential for improving the prospects of environmentally sustainable and socially just futures in Romania and beyond.

Bridging Perspectives

People’s ability to change their social and economic circumstances may be constrained by various forms of social, cultural and political domination. Thus to consider a social actor’s particular lifeworld in which the research is embedded assists in the understanding of how and why different trajectories of change occur or are hindered and how those changes fundamentally affect livelihood opportunities and constraints. In seeking to fulfill this condition this thesis adopted an actor-oriented approach to the study of rural livelihoods. A comprehensive livelihoods study requires grasping how social reality is being historically constituted. That means to understand how the interaction of modes of production and symbolical reproduction produces the socio-space. Research is here integrated to action through the facilitation of farmer groups. The overall aim of the groups was to prompt agency, as essential conditions to build more resilient livelihoods. The smallholder farmers in the Mabalane District of Mozambique are located in a remote semi-arid area. Their livelihoods customarily depend at least as much on livestock as on (mostly) rain-fed food crops. Increased climate variability exerts pressure on the already vulnerable production system. An extensive 10-month duration of participant observation divided into 3 periods of fieldwork structured the situated multi-method approach that drew on a set of interview categories. The actor-oriented appraisal of livelihoods worked in building a mutually shared definition of the situation. This reflection process was taken up by the facilitation of the farmer groups, one in Mabomo and one in Mungazi, which used an inquiry iteratively combining individual interviews and facilitated group meetings. Integration of action and reflection was fundamental for group constitution as spaces for communicative action. They needed to be self-organized and to achieve understanding intersubjectively, as well as to base action on cooperation and coordination. Results from this approach focus on how learning as collaboratively generated was enabled, or at times hindered, in (a) selecting meaningful options to test; (b) in developing mechanisms for group functioning; and (c) in learning from steering the testing of options. The study of livelihoods looked at how the different assets composing livelihoods are intertwined and how the increased severity of dry spells is contributing to escalated food insecurity. The reorganization of the social space, as households moved from scattered homesteads to form settlements, further exerts pressure on the already scarce natural resource-based livelihoods. Moreover, this process disrupted a normative base substantiating the way that the use of resources is governed. Hence, actual livelihood strategies and response mechanisms turn to diversification through income-generating activities that further increase pressure on the resource-base in a rather unsustainable way. These response mechanisms are, for example, the increase in small-livestock keeping, which has easier conversion to cash, and charcoal production. The latter results in ever more precarious living and working conditions. In the majority of the cases such responses are short-term and reduce future opportunities in a downward spiral of continuously decreasing assets. Thus, by indicating the failure of institutions in the mediation of smallholders’ adaptive capabilities, the livelihood assessment in Mabomo and Mungazi sheds light on the complex underlying structure of present day social vulnerability, linking the macro-context to the actual situation. To assist in breaking this state of “subordination”, shaped by historical processes, weak institutions and food insecurity, the chosen approach to facilitation of farmer groups puts farmer knowledge at the center of an evolving process of intersubjective co-construction of knowledge towards emancipation.

Factors influencing the success of animal husbandry cooperatives: A case study in Southwest Iran

This survey study aimed at identifying the factors influencing the success of animal husbandry cooperatives in Southwest Iran. Using a questionnaire, the data were collected from 95 managing directors of the cooperatives who were chosen through a multi-stage stratified random sampling method. This study showed an essential need for a systemic framework to analyze the cooperatives’ success. The results showed that the “Honey Bee”, “Cattle (dairy)”, and “Lamb” cooperatives were the most successful among different kinds of the cooperatives. Also, among individual attributes, “interest”, “technical knowledge”, and “understanding the concept of cooperative”; among economic variables, “income” and “current investment”; and among external factors, “market access” have significant correlation with the success while structural variables have no significant relation. Furthermore, among all the factors, four variables (“interest”, “understanding the concept of cooperative”, “market access”, and “other incomes”) can explain the variations of the success.