2

ARGUMENT

Context

The problems of food insecurity in the Americas are currently expressed in the paradoxical coexistence of hunger, malnutrition, and obesity: part of a sce-nario where dependence on the supply of basic foods is growing and, at the same time, positive agricultural trade balances are reported. These phenomena result from social, economic, political, and environmental processes that cross the food systems from the field to the table, dividing societies and territories.

In June 2018, the Permanent Seminar on Agricul-ture, Food and City was inaugurated. It was coor-dinated in collaboration between the Programa Universitario de Estudios sobre la Ciudad of the UNAM and the Centro de Estudios Mexicanos y Centroamericanos (CEMCA), in order to articu-late efforts of academia and civil society around the problems of peri-urban agriculture, supply and consumption of food in metropolitan regions, and re-gional territorial integration (rural-urban).

The International Congress on Food Justice and Sovereignty in the Americas (JySALA) seeks to create a space for reflection and debate on po-litical transformations in the Americas. The con-text is also that of global change and of the new approaches to sustainability inferred by the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. We pro-pose to articulate the discussion from the notions of food justice and sovereignty, notions that come from differentiated academic, political, and geo-graphical contexts, but that share interest in the social consequences of the paradoxes described above. They also question the processes that slow down or encourage—at different scales—access to quality food of the entire population.

From the focus of food studies in the social scien-ces and from a perspective that aims to encompass theory, practice, and art, the JySALA congress will be a space for reflection and debate on the in-equalities of access to food, the marginalization of farmers on the continent and the socio-environ-mental consequences of such phenomena. At the same time, it will be a space to share, discuss,

and imagine opportunities to solve them. We seek to provide analysis that transcends the binary and normative thoughts about producing and eating “well” or “badly,” and analyzing food systems in their complexity, paying particular attention to the interdependencies between table and field.

theoretiCal PersPeCtives: Favor ConCePtual dialogue and FoCus as muCh on nutrition as on agriCulture

The definition of food justice proposed by FAO in 1996 is one of the most common references in the field. Since then, the ideas and debates around food security have been substantially modified and new concepts, whose development is closely linked to so-cial and political movements that look to generate alternative proposals to combat food insecurity and its repercussions; among these are the ideas of food sovereignty and food justice.

The focus of food sovereignty comes as an answer to of the proposed global strategies to guaran-teeing food security, outlining the importance of the the right of peoples, their countries or unions of states to define their food and agricultural po-licies without dumping vis-à-vis third countries (Via Campesina, in the World Food Summit,1996). The movement for food justice seeks to respond to the limits of the global food system as well as those of sustainable food alternatives and increased di-fferences in access to food. It highlights the need to equitably distribute the risks and benefits of how food is produced, processed, transported, distri-buted, consumed (Gottlieb and Joshi, 2010).

The American continent plays a key role in the emergence of these concepts, with the defense of food sovereignty emerging from the south and damands for food justice coming from the United States. The theoretical objective of this congress is to put forward a collective reflection from the spe-cificities of the social, political, economic, environ-mental organizations that characterize the continent from north to south. We also aim to question the relevance of the use of these concepts to unders-tand the wide variety of conditions currently linked to food insecurity in the Americas and the rest of the world (Edelman, 2016). Far from wanting to limit ourselves to the study of American cases, proposals from other continents will be considered, both to

3

observe the circulation and reappropriation of con-cepts in other contexts and to clarify the situations of injustices and food dependencies in the Americas from other perspectives.

At the theoretical level, we also want to favor a conceptual dialogue from a perspective that incor-porates visions of “food” with agricultural studies. It’s about observing and analyzing the inequalities that cross all the agro-alimentary systems: (at the level of production locations, processing, transport, commercialization, distribution, consumption, was-te, recycling) but also the systems of actors and networks (Rastoin et Ghersi, 2012). Beyond defini-tions, food justice work has been led mainly led by North American cities, while the challenges of food sovereignty have been addressed from the produc-tion problematic and with family farming. We wish to concordantly contemplate the elements of food systems, from the land to the individual and social body, with their complexity and interdependencies. This also implies working with all types of relations-hips between city and rural areas. Indeed, the pro-blematization of relationships (or non-relationships) between food, agriculture, justice, sovereignty, is not enough to understand the situations of food inse-curity (Hochedez and Le Gall, 2016). It seems neces-sary on the one hand to clarify the relationships of inequality and dependence, and on the other hand to place justice and sovereignty at the heart of food systems (Slocum et al., 2016). It is a matter of ex-ploring the spheres of praxis (Slocum et al., 2016; Beisher et Corbett, 2016).

regional PersPeCtive: ameriCan integrations and transitions

Throughout Latin America, free trade agreements and treaties— consolidated (MERCOSUR, 1991; ALBA-TCP, 2004; CAFTA, 2006-2009), emerging (SICA-UE, 2012; TPP, 2016), or renegotiated (NAF-TA, 1994; now USMCA, 2018)—are central in the organization of intra- and extra-continental trade relations, in the reshaping of the role of the different actors linked to production and distribution, but also in territorial and social reconfigurations. The majority of these integration policies were defined from neoliberal rationale of open commerce, privi-

leging comparative advantages and specialization of productive spaces. However, it is long evident that these integration policies have had profound and lasting impacts on family farming economies, on rural societies, and on market dynamics. At the same time, they have very markedly transformed food practices as well as the relationship between the consumer and the food product/producer, with strong impacts on health, well-being, and the deci-sion-making capacity of consumers.

Faced with challenges in terms of public health im-posed by a double nutritional burden closely linked to disparity in food and nutrition access, the natio-nal political guidelines play a fundamental role both locally—in the metropolis, for example—as well as on the national level, from the perspective of food dependence or security of a given country. Within the framework of the different political transitions that have occurred on the continent in recent years (Brazil, Mexico, Guatemala, Colombia, Honduras, the United States, etc.), it is necessary to attentively observe strategic orientations and concrete measu-res that influence justice and food sovereignty, in different cases of study.

Six WoRkiNG GRoUpS ANd ThREE TRANSvERSAl TAblES

The colloquium is carved from different perspectives of the social sciences related to agriculture, ecolo-gy and food. It aims to address the set of spaces and processes, from field to table, from a systemic perspective. It also calls for a perspective from agro-nomy, nutrition, natural sciences, economics, politi-cal science and territorial planning. The colloquium is carved from different perspectives of the social sciences related to agriculture, ecology and food. It aims to address the set of spaces and processes, from field to table, from a systemic perspective. It also calls for a perspective from agronomy, nutri-tion, natural sciences, economics, political science and territorial ordering. The goal of the meeting is to bring together the great heterogeneity of views on the processes that can improve access to agriculture and food, proposing an interdisciplinary approach (central to food studies) and integrating agriculture as a fundamental element of the discussion.

4

To meet this objective, we propose six working groups and three round tables1.

Six WoRkiNG GRoUpS

These are three-hour work spaces for exchange about the proposals selected by the scientific com-mittee. The person in charge may moderate each working group according to their own modalities. They will be followed by appraisal of proposals (dissemination notebooks, special issues of scienti-fic journals, etc.).

Working grouP 1. land, Water, agro-diversity and agriCultural teChnologies

Debates about access and land management have multiplied in the Americas. The mechanisms of tenure, appropriation, advance of the agricul-tural frontier, land distribution and concentration of ownership give witness to situations that entail re-lationships of domination, violence, dispossession, and negotiation between social groups and agra-rian reforms. In parallel, access to fertile soils and agricultural inputs and their effects on the abilities of communities to define their food strategies have become central elements of control and autonomy, with important consequences for human and envi-ronmental health in territories.

This axis seeks to articulate the production structures from family peasantry to transnational corporations, with the aim of understanding the power relations that are woven around the earth. These are unders-tood not only as a resource, capital, or means of production but also as a combination of heteroge-neous elements that include material substances, technologies, discourses, and social and cultural practices that take different forms in different contexts.

The reduction of agrodiversity (from wild to cultiva-ted species) in the last four decades is the result of multiple factors. From soil fertility, reduction in the labor force, homogenized prices that don’t factor in the richness of agricultural diversity, the commercial circuits’ favoring of product homogeneity has led 1 The bibliographic references of these working groups and round tables are not mentioned in the text, but are indicated in the general final bibliography.

to an accelerated loss of agrodiversity with stan-darization of diets and the health of consumers as consequences.

The unequal use and distribution of water, agricul-tural technologies and materials of production are fundamental to understanding differences in pro-duction capacities, strategies, and survival of the multiple actors involved in different territories. Ac-cess to seeds, the growing importance of interna-tional certifications, intellectual property disputes, the massive application of synthetic agrochemicals, and the use of new information technologies (such as the so-called “precision agriculture”) are some of the the issues that best explain the complex ways in which small-scale family farmers are unequally linked to large agro-export enterprises (for exam-ple, through contract farming or renting plots). But they also become the forms that mediate access and control over land and territories, based on the dynamics of agricultural extractivism and the dis possession of land, understood as a violent pro-cess of sociospatial reconfiguration, where the abi-lities that individuals and communities have to deci-de on their livelihoods and ways of life are limited.

Topics:• Dispossession of land• Seed commodification, monopolies

of agricultural materials• Unequal access to water• Loss of agrodiversity• Synthetic biotechnology.

Working grouP 2. labor and emPloyment in agriCulture and agro-Food industries

This panel seeks to reflect on the practices and wor-king conditions associated with food production, both in small peasant production and in global pro-duction chains. These laboral situations, which de-clined under different modalities (peasants, wage earners, working mobilities, jobs in the packing industry, in supermarkets, and in new distribution companies), are closely related to the social orga-nization of work, the dynamics of labor markets, and to the rise of new modes of production and consumption. What do they reveal of the games of actors at different scales, or about the relations of power and subordination between the public

5

and private sectors? What do they tell us about the logics of resistance in the agrifood sector?

In recent decades, rural areas have seen the emer-gence of agroindustrial complexes and enclaves that carry out activities associated with extractivism and the production of commodities. These comple-xes compete not only for natural resources but also for local peasant labor, generating migrations to these labor markets. Elsewhere, migrations origina-ting from the rural world fuel an agrifood sector in need of labor. In parallel, peasant economies per-sist and reproduce by associating capital in diffe-rent ways, becoming important not only for self-con-sumption and the provision of family labor, but also for the provision of food to the urban population. What shows the diversity of strategies, opportuni-ties, and circulations that affect productive spaces? Are they signs of the causes and effects of growing inequalities and the interdependencies of American economies?

While the active agricultural population decreases as the urban population grows, the agrifood sector continues to supply constant labor. However, since it attracts a population with a low skill level, the sector is pierced by growing logics of precarious-ness, flexibility, and by the cohabitation between formal and informal, legal and illegal, visible and invisible. What are the situations of risk? Why and how do they lead to revendication and denounce-ment? What do they say about the value accorded to agricultural and alimentary trades that are essen-tial to human food security? Attention will be paid to the most vulnerable (women, children, the elderly, migrants, students). But it will also be possible to give rise to intermediaries, highly qualified actors linked to the sectors of innovation, marketing, and finance, because they also participate in the increa-se of differences with respect to job opportunities.

Problems associated with employment in the agro-food sector lead to debate on (the presence or absence of) public policies and legislation, trade union action, private sectors, civil organizations, and activism. The margins of action against the living and employment conditions of workers and innovations, including social innovations, must be pointed out to be improved.

Topics:• Forms of employment and family labor in

the field• Vulnerable workers vs. skilled jobs• Working and living conditions in agro-food

systems• Public policies and labor legislation,

unions, organizations, associations, trade union action

• Flexibility, precarization.

Working grouP 3. distribution, CommerCialization and aCCess to quality Foods

Commerce networks with their different forms (mar-kets, supermarkets, fairs, etc.) which connect produ-cers with consumers are necessary for populations’ access to food. At the global level, there is growing interest in alternative food networks (short chains, producer fairs, food pockets) for local and responsi-ble consumption and for organic or agro-ecological production, in response to the limitations of traditio-nal commercial channels. These are approached from the perspective of their potential benefactors in terms of public health, social ties, economic viability for producers, territorial cohesion at a metropolitan scale and, in some cases, their lower environmental impact. However, who are the beneficiaries of such proposals? How do they generate new opportuni-ties for producers and consumers and also diffe-rentiated forms of integration among actors? What happens to those producers that fail to join the value chains? What development alternatives are observed for those producers that are only partially integrated into the formal markets?

The purpose of this panel is to discuss the historical construction, social structuring, economic and en-vironmental feasibility of complex production, dis-tribution, and commercialization of fresh food for South and North American consumers. It attempts to open discussion about the type of commercial networks that bring solutions to the quandry: how to supply and feed 9 billion people in the most equitable way possible without putting ecosystems at risk. We propose reflecting on the actions of both intermediaries and new marketing actors (last kilo-meter, distribution, but also food banks, solidarity shops), on the coexistence of short circuits and long circuits, and on the roles of all kinds of platforms

6

(wholesale markets, fairs, collection centers, inter-net networks, etc.) in feeding an increasingly urban population. We seek to understand the tools with which commercial logistics can be a useful element to promote more equalitable food systems for terri-tories (traceability, standardization, dematerializa-tion, alternative currency systems, complementarity between local and regional networks, etc.).

Topics:• Heterogeneity of actors in marketing and

distribution• Alternative feeding networks and inclusive

chains • Logistics, flows, transport, inequalities and

inequalities• Agricultores’ marketing strategies• Consumers, demand, and marketing and

distribution systems.

Working grouP 4. territories and inequalities in aCCess to Food

Inequalities of access to food and agriculture are at the heart of the problems of food justice and sove-reignty. In this work group, unequal social relations between territories or between class categories, gender, ethnicity, marginalized groups are conside-red structural dimensions of access or inaccessibi-lity to sufficient quantity or quality of food. Topics of interest are the processes that create scena-rios of inaccessibility to foods linked to segregation in urban areas, which have influenced the appea-rance of “food deserts;” but also in the difficulties to access and own land in rural areas that favor food insecurity. The objective of the working group is also to critically reflect on the concept of food accessibility, which allows for drawing attention to access inequalities but raises other questions: How is access articulated with the daily strategies of the inhabitants to feed themselves? Does it in-tegrate the structural relations of power that cross them?

Faced with issues of food accessibility, the syner-gies of actors with diverse statuses participate in the emergence of alternative systems (short circuits, organic foods, local consumption), which seek to reconfigure accessibility and food security. How do such devices transform the modes of access to

food, practices and values, the territories of life? How do they really participate in strategies of justice or food sovereignty? The support in a critical perspective opens the debate on the new forms of injustices that appear with the emergence of alter-natives to the conventional agro-alimentary system. Who benefits from the new political and social events? How should new induced social transfor-mations (among people, ecogentrification, food gentrification) be faced? Emphasis is placed on the way in which these alternatives are part of the reproduction of unequal power relations, between goods and/or producers, between different social or racial groups. The question is how to modify this geometry of power, if food justice and sovereign-ty are not only summarized as a lack of food security or lack of food access, but basically de-pends on a system of relationships characterized precisely by asymmetry.

Topics:• Accesibility, food sovereignty and justice • Inequalities of access to food and spacial

consequences • Ownership and access to land• Alternative agroalimentary systems, food

and social policy • Critical thought

Working grouP 5. Food heritage, identities and soCial inequality

During periods of food insecurity, the concern—of societies, institutions and actors—for the origin, qua-lity, equity, and conservation of food becomes evi-dent. Likewise, it is possible to observe enthusiasm for “food traditions,” whether inherited or reinven-ted and for the ethical values associated with them: health, environmental conservation, equity, justice, and conviviality. This situation is accompanied by initiatives that promote the fight against the disa-ppearance of biodiversity and social inequities. In a context marked globally by distrust of the agroin-dustrial sector, the policies of heritage conservation, ancestral knowledge and territories are imposed as tools for promoting local identities.

The objective of this working group is to exami-ne the phenomenon of patrimonialization of food and how it is articulated with identities, territories,

7

and the fight against social inequality and the des-truction of biodiversity. The processes of transmis-sion, circulation, re-appropriation and redefining “food traditions,” led by actors with often-divergent interests, will be the center of our reflection. We will question each other about the role of food and territory in the construction of collective identities, paying special attention to the processes of tourism control and promotion (nation/region branding) and their effect in terms of development as well as social, cultural, and territorial exclusion.

Topics:• Models of food sovereignty• Invention of food traditions in contexts of

social exclusion• Tourism, territory, and food heritage• Culinary knowledge and indigenous

movements.

Working grouP 6. bodies and Food: models oF beauty, health, environment

Bodies, the first victims of diseases with varying levels of irreversibility linked to the processes of pro-duction, transformation, and consumption of food, reveal the dysfunctions of food systems. Dominant aesthetic patterns form part of the logics of social exclusion, highlight the unequal relations between social categories, classes, genders, ethnic groups, ages, and their main historical evolutions. At the same time the land, cultures, and food have be-come resources used to seek repair of bodies and spirits, to rebuild the social and intergenerational link, from the perspective of “care.” In this working group, the following questions will be discussed: What role do bodies play in situations of increa-sed or reduced food injustices? What relations of power are outlined when we observe at the same time sovereignty of intimate bodies and that of po-litical bodies?

The first objective of this working group is to reflect on the relationships between food, bodies, and cor-poralities. Beyond the nutritional act indispensable for the survival of individuals, bodies are products of a food, family, school, social, political, material and immaterial environment: what do they tell us about the unequal relations between states, social groups, and individuals? How do they speak of the

diversity of influences that define “good” or “bad” food in a normative and often contradictory way? What do they teach us about resistances and de-mands, the rational of self-definition of individuals and societies? “Junk” food, fast food, traditional street food, organic foods, prepared, processed, or transgenic: these food consumption practices are nutritional experiences which also generate repre-sentations and corporal staging of the individual and of the social groups that need to be analyzed.

The second objective is to reflect on the relations-hip between the health of individual and social bodies and the health of the planet, the care of the body and territories. In what ways are bodily diseases, morbidity and mortality rates indicating threats to land and water? To what extent does the representation of bodies in good or bad health re-veal the unequal exposure of individuals to risks and environmental injustices? Can the psycholo-gical suffering that leads to a high suicide rate among farmers be considered as a product of food injustice? These questions will open an area of debate that includes everything from nutritional and nutritional aspects to more recent notions of environmental empathy, global responsibility, and its consequences on the apprehension of food systems.

In this working group, we seek to create a dialogue about nutrition, medicine, social and environmen-tal sciences to discuss the multi-causality of physical and bodily problems. Artistic proposals will also be included to sublimate these problems and pro-pose other responses to situations of food insecurity.

Topics:• Nutrition, injustice, socioeconomic inequali-

ties, power relationships• Food environment, eating behaviors, and

bodies• Models, norms and alimentary influences• Diseases, health of individuals, public heal-

th and the environment• Care, agriculture, and food.

three tables With transversal reFleCtions

We propose working in three tranversal axes to re-flect on the problems of food insecurity. Participants

8

are invited to give an important and explicit place to these three concerns in their presentation propo-sals in order to spark a transversal and common debate in this congress.

table a. researCh ethiCs, methods, and FinanCing: dilemmas oF the division betWeen PubliC and Private

In the last decades, public funds for research have decreased substantially worldwide. This has cau-sed academics to seek funding from the private sec-tor. In parallel, the influence of the food industry on research has been put under scrutiny, with resear-chers and public officials being accused of partne-ring with the industry to hide the perverse effects of the products of the food industry (Kearns et al 2016; Nestlé 2002). This discussion table talks about issues related to ethics, methods, policies, and legitimacy that arise from partnerships between the public and private sectors.

We will consider the ethics of private research fun-ding and how it is modified to the extent that pu-blic funding for research is decreasing worldwide. Under what terms should academics collaborate with the industry or accept funds from private ins-titutions? What steps can we take to maintain a critical distance from the interests of the industry? In practice, research in academic and commercial fields not only implies different research objectives but also different measures of legitimacy, temporary organization of work, ways of working, and com-munication methods (Gershon 2017; Wilf 2016; Goulet et al. 2015). How can researchers work to establish a common vocabulary with their interlocu-tors in the private sector?

While some disciplines have developed a set of parameters regarding the terms under which aca-demics can accept private funding (Cosgrove et al., 2009), the responsibility to reflect on ethical issues and negotiate specific collaborations often falls on individual researchers, while commercial entities have at their disposal more experience and greater resources (legal and otherwise) to negotiate the terms of these associations. How can we deal with the power of relationships that often characte-rize public/private partnerships? How do the stig-mas surrounding private funding further limit the su-pport available for research when negotiating such

agreements?

We will question the dichotomy between public and private funds and their implications for research, in terms of the type of projects obtained and the claim of legitimacy on the part of researchers. How do notions about the “dirty” nature of private financing (Jones 2014) reinforce inequalities among resear-chers, causing an increasingly small group of re-searchers to have access to public funds that are considered exempt from ethical concessions?

Topics:• Public/private associations• Financing investigation• Conflicts of interest• Ethics.

table b. PubliC PoliCies and territories

This table seeks to promote reflection around the scale with which food justice and sovereignty is de-fined and sought to be implemented. Although such debates are commonly raised by the nation-state and regional governments according to their res-ponsibilities regarding public policies, the gover-nance of food systems is done at different scales, with intersections and/or tensions between them.

We observe the emergence of cities as key entities in food governance, but international and trans-ma-ritime decisions (linked, for example, with migra-tion, international agreements such as ALENA and T-MEC) have a strong impact on the relationships between food, agriculture and inequities, beyond the national and regional levels. At the same time, and to broaden the reflection, if metropolitan go-vernance systems become dominant, this raises dis-cussion regarding the risk of erasing the agricultural and food particularities of small and medium-sized cities, as well as rural spaces and villages. Does food governance serve the interests of consumers, producers, or intermediaries? What are these in-terests? In what ways could governance promote ethnic and gender equity, self-determination by all and for all? In what ways can indigenous peoples participate in this governance? On the other hand, the agricultural and food policy in a given place (for example: a region, a state, or a nation) and the way in which justice or sovereignty is addressed

9

are influenced by the same sociopolitical environ-ment. The position of a political structure towards sovereignty depends on that situation and demo-cracy and human rights impact the formulation of social justice issues through agrifood policies.

These perspectives question the lack of adaptation between the extension of agricultural and food networks and the political divisions where they are deployed. Likewise, when we think about the ar-ticulation between public and territorial policies and globalization, an important question arises: What is the risk of ideological change when food self-sufficiency is associated with autonomy? What are the implications in terms of national security, protectionism, food sovereignty and security in the era of global interdependence? Who decides our food? How do calls for decolonization (for exam-ple, of indigenous peoples) and territorial justice form part of food policy initiatives? What roles do researchers and grassroots movements play in these efforts?

Topics:• Agricultural policy, food policy• International/transregional governance• Environmental/territorial justice• Decolonization and/or reparations (for

example in the context of the United States)

table C. soCio-eCologiCal imPaCts and soCial inequality

Contemporary food systems profoundly impact socio-ecological systems, both from production it-self, through distribution and marketing channels, and finally through agroindustrial transformation processes. Patterns of consumption, type of diet, food waste, and waste generation are expressions of the complex interrelations between agricultural

systems, the ecological environment, and food sys-tems. In the last decades, radical changes to agri-food systems have had repercussions both on the quality of food and on the medium and long-term viability of the productive systems, as well as on the state of the socio-ecological systems on which social welfare and environmental health depend.

This table makes up a transversal dimension of analysis and reflection, in which we wish to pro-mote a discussion on the differentiated impacts of food systems on socio-ecological systems. Food patterns, deregulated food markets, and marketing and distribution by large transnational monopolies have unequal effects on both agricultural systems and the ecological integrity of the systems. Large and small farmers unevenly experience the environ-mental costs generated. The erosion and fragility of soils, pollution, and overexploitation of surface and subsoil waters, climate change and threats of extreme hydrometeorological events have unequal effects among farmers. These impacts further affect and marginalize the most vulnerable sectors of the rural and urban populations, deepening inequali-ties and hindering the construction of food justice. In this scheme of control and dispossession of agro-ecological systems, we want to discuss and make the social marginalization and vulnerability of farming and peasant families visible that searches for healthier and more ecological alternatives for the production and distribution of food.

Topics:• Impacts on socioecological systems• Socioecological inequality and vulnerability• Agro-ecological and food interactions• Food and socioenvironmental justice• Consumption patterns and their agroecolo-

gical effects.

10

FoRMAT

The call for work is open to researchers at any level and discipline, institutions, civil society organiza-tions, and actors from privacy industry. As part of your proposal, you may indicate in which of the six work groups you would like to to partici-pate, together with your personal and institutional data in the Google Form on the webpage, as well as include an introduction of less than 700 works. We ask that this summary be structured as follows:

• Challenges and questions in the studied case

• Approach and methodolgy• Main results• How does your research or experience

relate to the issues posed in each of the three transversal table discussions? Indicate how these topics are echoed in your work 1) ethics, methods, and financing; 2) public or territorial policy; 3) environmental impact and social inequality.

Scientific committee members will select the sum-maries. Once the participants have been selected, each person in charge will moderate their work group as they wish, either under the “classic” moda-lity of presentations with previous exchanges about the presentation content, or under a more dynamic modality of discussion around central questions or approaches. Each head of a working group will be responsible for proposing a summary of the results and scope of their group in the three round tables that will take place on the last day of the congress.

Accepted languages are Spanish, English, French, and Portuguese.

REGiSTRATioN

Registration cost is US $100 for researchers with degrees and professionals with institutional support; US$50 for doctoral students.

After 15 July, the fee will be raised to US$130 and US$70, respectively.

Once the participants are selected, payment may be made through the website.

Three grants are available to cover the costs of transport and registration of students or members of civil society who do not receive other financing. If you would like to apply for a grant, indicate that in your registration process.

CAlENdAR

April 15: Registration deadline. May 15: Notification to candidates. July 15: Registration payment deadline (initial fees).October 26-27: Guided visits and excursions in the field open to participants.October 28-31: Congress in Mexico.

11

oRGANizATioN CoMMiTTEE ANd iNSTiTUTioNAl oRGANizERS

Julie Le Gall The Center of Mexican and Centro American Studies – CEMCA, Lyon University , The Urban School of Lyon

Delphine PrunierThe University Urban Studies Program – PUEC UNAM

Ayari Pasquier The University Sustainability Coordination Office -– CoUS --of the Institutional Development Ministry - SDI UNAM

Dulce María Espinosa de la MoraPolitical and Social Science School - FCPyS UNAM

Bernard TalletDirector of The Center of Mexican and Centro Ame-rican Studies – CEMCA

Javier DelgadoDirector of The University Urban Studies Program – PUEC UNAM

SCiENTiFiC CoMMiTTEE

Sarah Bak Geller CoronaInstituto de Investigaciones Antropológicas (UNAM). MéxicoGrupo de trabajo 5

Matías García Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET), Departamento de Desarrollo Rural de la Facul-tad de Ciencias Agrarias y Forestales (Universidad Nacional de La Plata), Instituto de Ingeniería y Agronomía (Universidad Nacional Arturo Jauretche). ArgentinaGrupo de trabajo 2

Sebastián Grenoville Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). ArgentinaGrupo de trabajo 3

Camille HochedezUniversité de Poitiers, laboratoire RURALITES. Francia Síntesis y Grupo de trabajo 2

Elena Lazos ChaveroInstituto de Investigaciones Sociales, UNAM. MéxicoMesa C

Andrés León ArayaCentro de Investigaciones y Estudios Políticos (CIEP), UCR. Costa RicaGrupo de trabajo 1

Flaminia Paddeu Université de Paris 13-Villetaneuse, laboratoire PLEIADE – EA 7338. FranciaGrupo de trabajo 4

Kristin ReynoldsThe New School et Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies. Estados UnidosMesa B

Charles-Édouard de SuremainCIESAS Unidad CDMX. México / UMR 208 PaLoc (IRD-MN-HN). FranciaGrupo de trabajo 5

Chelsie Yount AndréUniversité de Montpellier MUSE, CIRAD/SupAgro. FranciaMesa A

CoNTACT

Email: jysala2019@gmail.comWebpage: jysala2019eng.puec.unam.mx