https://doi.org/10.37815/rte.v37n1.1285

Original articles

Social Justice and Sustainability of Peasant
Family Farming

Justicia
social y sostenibilidad de la agricultura familiar campesina

Ramón
L. Espinel1 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4998-2063,

Nayeth
Solórzano2  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5642-334X

1Centro de
Vinculación e Investigaciones Rurales, Escuela Superior Politécnica del Litoral,, Guayaquil, Ecuador

[email-masked]

2Facultad de
Arte Diseño y Comunicación Audiovisual, Escuela Superior Politécnica del
Litoral, Guayaquil, Ecuador

[email-masked]

Sent:       2025/03/01

Accepted:       2025/06/03

Published:       2025/06/30

Abstract

Summary: Introduction, Method and Methodology, Analysis and Results, Discussion of the
Results, Conclusions.

How cite: Espinel, R.
& Solórzano, N. (2025). Social Justice and Sustainability of Peasant
Family Farming. Revista Tecnológica - Espol, 37(1), 89-103.
https://rte.espol.edu.ec/index.php/tecnologica/article/view/1285

Peasant family farming in Ecuador
is responsible for producing over two-thirds of the food required to sustain
the country's nutrition and significantly contributes to agricultural exports.
Despite this, rural areas in Ecuador experience the highest levels of poverty,
leading to widespread undernutrition, particularly among pregnant women and
infants. This stark disparity presents a social justice issue that demands
urgent attention. Some analysts argue that the inefficiencies of peasant
agriculture contributes  these issues,
labelling it as unsustainable due to its perceived low productivity and
profitability. However, such assessments often overlook the sector's crucial
role in food security, biodiversity preservation, and environmental balance.
Family farming sustains local food supplies and promotes ecological stability
through diverse, sustainable practices. Public policy orientation, particularly
in support of small-scale farmers, is essential in determining these rural
communities' sustainability and improved livelihoods, especially in the face of
increasing pressures from modern corporate agriculture. Addressing these
structural inequalities is key to ensuring that peasant family farming is
economically viable, socially just, and environmentally sustainable.

Keywords: social problems, rural
environment, rural emigration, sustainability, food supply, biodiversity,
multi-cropping.

Resumen

La agricultura familiar campesina
en Ecuador es responsable de producir más de dos tercios de los alimentos
necesarios para sostener la nutrición del país y contribuye significativamente
a las exportaciones agrícolas. A pesar de ello, las zonas rurales en Ecuador
experimentan los niveles más altos de pobreza, lo que conduce a una extendida
desnutrición, especialmente entre mujeres embarazadas y niños. Esta marcada
disparidad representa un problema de justicia social que exige atención
urgente. Algunos analistas argumentan que las ineficiencias de la agricultura
campesina contribuyen a estos problemas, calificándola como insostenible debido
a su aparente baja productividad y rentabilidad. Sin embargo, tales
evaluaciones a menudo pasan por alto el papel crucial del sector en la
seguridad alimentaria, la preservación de la biodiversidad y el equilibrio
ambiental. La agricultura familiar sostiene el suministro local de alimentos y
promueve la estabilidad ecológica a través de prácticas diversas y sostenibles.
La orientación de las políticas públicas, en particular el apoyo a los pequeños
agricultores es esencial para determinar la sostenibilidad de estas comunidades
rurales y la mejora de sus condiciones de vida, especialmente frente a las
crecientes presiones de la agricultura corporativa moderna. Abordar estas
desigualdades estructurales es clave para asegurar que la agricultura familiar
campesina sea económicamente viable, socialmente justa y ambientalmente
sostenible.

Palabras clave: problemas sociales,
entorno rural, emigración rural, sostenibilidad, suministro de alimentos,
biodiversidad y policultivo.

Introduction

Family
farming, a system of small-scale agricultural production, starkly contrasts
with the modern "conventional" agriculture that dominates developed
nations. While conventional agriculture emerged alongside the rise of
industrial capitalism, characterized by capital-intensive practices and
monoculture, family farming remains rooted in diverse, labor-intensive, and
subsistence-oriented practices. This form of agriculture is crucial in food
security, biodiversity conservation, and rural livelihoods globally and within
Ecuador. Thus, this type of agriculture is not only a phenomenon of low-income
nations; Central European countries and other developed countries, such as
Japan, for decades have also favored this type of agriculture, which exists, to
a greater or lesser extent, throughout the world (Mazoyer, 1997).

Historically,
the shift from feudal systems to modern capitalism, particularly following the
Industrial Revolution, significantly altered global agricultural practices. The
enclosure movement in England, which privatized communal lands and displaced
peasant labor to urban centers, marked the beginning of large-scale commercial
agriculture. With innovations like the internal combustion engine and the steel
plow in the 19th century, agriculture became increasingly mechanized and
specialized in monocultures—large tracts of land dedicated to single crops,
aiming to maximize profits and land rent (Marx [1867] 1990). This
transformation entrenched capitalism as the dominant economic system,
separating landowners and capitalists from the labor force, which increasingly
migrated to cities.

In the 20th
century, as colonial empires dissolved, a new global division emerged. The
so-called developed countries began to differentiate themselves from the
undeveloped countries, as described by Hobsbawm (1989) and as explained by
Wallerstein (1980) in his work. This event has two marked consequences.
Developed countries seeking to secure agricultural production turned to
plantation agriculture in former colonies. This form of agriculture, which
closely mirrors the capital-intensive model seen in industrialized nations,
primarily serves global commodity markets (Ferrer, 2000). However, within many
developing countries, including Ecuador, a large segment of the rural
population remains engaged in small-scale, subsistence-oriented family farming.
This mode of production, marked by its reliance on the labor of peasant
families, has persisted despite continuous economic and social challenges
(Mançano Fernandes, 2014).

Family
farming differs fundamentally from commercial monoculture in several key ways.
First, it operates on small and medium-sized plots of land, where production is
geared toward self-sufficiency rather than profit maximization. These farms are
often characterized by polyculture, growing multiple crops to ensure food
security and resilience. This multi-crop system starkly contrasts with the
monoculture model of modern agriculture, which focuses on the large-scale
production of a single commodity.

Family
farming lacks financial capital and depends on multiple crop production.
Without significant investments, these farms rely on the labor of peasant
families and the surrounding community, creating a social system based on
reciprocal labor rather than monetary exchange. This system supports the
economic survival of these families and fosters strong community ties and
mutual aid.

Additionally,
it is important to highlight that these minority groups of family farming
contribute significantly to biodiversity. Unlike monoculture, which often
depletes the soil and reduces ecological diversity, family farming integrates
natural ecosystems into its production processes. Peasant farmers maintain
diverse crops and rely on the natural environment, such as wild plants and
traditional irrigation methods, to support their agricultural activities. This
biodiversity is crucial for the sustainability of family farming, as it
provides resilience against environmental and economic shocks (Espinel, 2006).

However,
family farming is often associated with poverty and social marginalization
despite its sustainability and food security contributions. Peasant families,
particularly in countries like Ecuador, frequently experience low incomes,
limited access to basic services, and exclusion from broader economic
opportunities (Espinel, 2010a; Milanovic, 2011). These issues raise important
social justice concerns, as these communities are disproportionately affected
by policies and economic systems that favor large-scale commercial agriculture.

This study
investigates the significance of peasant family farming in Ecuador, exploring
its contributions to sustainability, biodiversity, and rural livelihoods. It
also seeks to understand the social justice issues that impact these farming
communities, particularly regarding income inequality, access to resources, and
the marginalization of peasant farmers. By examining these factors, this
research will highlight the importance of preserving and supporting family
farming as a key component of sustainable agricultural development in Ecuador.

Literature
Review

It is
essential to understand any concept and previous research regarding social
justice, food chain sustainability, and the role of peasant family farming and
commercial agriculture in the context of the field discussed in the current
study. Besides, looking into other investigations with similar objectives as
confirmatory references helped the orientation of the current research.

The role of family farming

Family
farming is essential to Ecuador's agricultural landscape, representing 88% of
the country's production units and covering 41% of its cultivated land.
According to the Agricultural Census of Ecuador in 2000, family farming
contributes approximately 45% of the total agricultural production in the
country, and it significantly supports Ecuador's food security and rural
livelihoods. This sector not only plays a vital role in domestic consumption,
accounting for 80% of the country's food supply but also supports 747,000
households, equating to 26% of Ecuador's total population. It represented 29.4%
of the economically active population and generated 26.8% of employment,
according to the National Statistics Institution data (INEC, 2021) [see Figure 1].

The family
farming model contributes approximately 4.05% to Ecuador’s GDP from the 9% of
the agriculture contribution, and its importance extends beyond its economic
contributions. Family farms are small to medium-sized, averaging 7 hectares,
and employ different levels of labor depending on their classification. These
farms provide subsistence for families and, in many cases, are essential for
maintaining local economies. The model is characterized by its low reliance on
hired labor, with subsistence farms relying entirely on family labor and other
farms occasionally hiring external workers (Wong, 2009).

Figure 1

Peasant Family Farming Production

Despite its
critical role, family farming is closely associated with rural poverty in
Ecuador. The most recent statistics indicate that, in 2021, 42.96% of the rural
population lived below the poverty line, with 20.3% in extreme poverty (INEC,
2021). Family farmers, particularly those operating on smaller plots of land,
face significant economic challenges. They often rely heavily on off-farm
income, with the smallest farms deriving up to 32% of their income from
non-agricultural activities. This disparity highlights the vulnerability of
small farmers, who struggle to sustain themselves in agriculture alone.

Adding to
the social justice issue, the poverty rates in Ecuador's rural areas have
worsened, particularly in provinces like Los Ríos, Manabí, and Esmeraldas,
which are among the country's most impoverished regions. The unequal
distribution of land and resources, alongside the lack of a comprehensive rural
development program, exacerbates these inequalities. Ecuador has one of the
worst land distribution ratios in Latin America, with a Gini coefficient of
0.81, highlighting the stark contrast between wealthy landowners and
impoverished rural communities (Espinel, 2010a). These systemic inequities
between countries which affect large groups of producers, especially in the
agricultural sector (Milanovic, 2013), reflect a larger issue of social
justice, where the contributions of family farmers are undervalued, and they
receive minimal support for sustainable development.

Family farming and biodiversity in Ecuador

Family farming plays a critical role in Ecuador, not only in food
production but also in maintaining biodiversity. Peasant agriculture is
characterized by crop diversity, which is essential for ecological
sustainability. Even the smallest family farms, averaging around 0.5 hectares,
cultivate various plant species—sometimes as many as a dozen. This biodiversity
helps ensure the resilience of these farming systems and protects the
environment from the impacts of monoculture (Espinel et al., 2006). Unlike large
commercial farms, most family farming production is not marketed, with less
than 30% of the produce sold, except in consolidated family farms. The
remaining crops are consumed by the family or exchanged locally, forming part
of a communal economy that operates largely outside of formal markets.

Family farming also relies on internal labor,
as most farms lack the resources to hire external workers. Often based on
mutual aid, labor exchanges strengthen community ties and ensure that farming
operations continue even without monetary income. Bartering remains a vital
component of rural economies, with labor being exchanged for goods and
services, especially in subsistence farming. Local examples, such as farmers
exchanging rice for seedlings in the Abras de Mantequilla sector, illustrate
the importance of these reciprocal systems in rural Ecuador (Espinel et al.,
2006).

This biodiversity-based agricultural model is
an essential survival strategy for small farmers. The multi-cropping system
that characterizes peasant agriculture[1] is mixed cropping, or the cultivation of different species within the
same plot, which has allowed family farms to withstand market fluctuations and
environmental challenges. By diversifying their crops, small-scale producers
protect their families from food insecurity. This agricultural practice fosters
biodiversity and helps preserve essential ecological systems, such as soil
health, pollination, and water retention, which are crucial for sustainable
farming (Wilkes, 1987). For example, the former author mentioned that Mexican
peasant producers rely on nature's support to produce their plots due to the
scarcity of capital. Thus, trees and shrubs are conserved to act as windbreaks,
certain plants with a root system help retain moisture in the soil, birds and
insects are preserved to promote the pollination of plants that are not nearby,
and other species have medicinal properties for family use, some are
decorative, and others allegedly ward off evil spirits[2].

On the other hand, the monoculture model has
evolved primarily through genetic selection and improvement. It gained
significant productivity through the Green Revolution, where the development of
plant varieties through hybridization methods allowed for the widespread use of
chemical inputs and irrigation systems (Hesser, 2009). The remarkable
achievements obtained in maize and wheat at CIMMYT in Mexico and in rice at the
IRRI in the Philippines set the stage for the development of modern agriculture
based on the combination of large land areas and capital under the monoculture
system (Mann, 2018). The research and development of modern agriculture have
evolved since the Green Revolution, based on input-intensive technology that
allowed plants to tolerate large amounts of fertilizers, insecticides,
herbicides, and even high volumes of irrigation water. However, the technology
of the Green Revolution soon generated alarm among environmental and social
activists, such as Carson (1962) and Shiva (2016), due to its environmental and
social impacts. The breakthrough occurred with knowledge technology, which
prevails in agriculture today. This technology relies on using mathematics,
information technology, and genetics, requiring high-capacity and high-speed
computers, which have enabled the sequencing of plant genomes upon which modern
biotechnology is based. As a result, research processes today are referred to
as "in silico," indicating that plant biology is now guided by
applied mathematics, statistics, informatics, and robotics (Espinel, 2005).

Overall, despite the importance of the
practices of multi-cropping systems from peasant agriculture versus monoculture
agriculture, they have been poorly studied, especially in comparison to the
modern commercial agriculture model, which often prioritizes monoculture and
technological innovation over ecological sustainability (Bardel et al., 2008).

Modern Commercial Agriculture and Peasant Agriculture
Divergence

In recent years, the conversation around agricultural development has
largely focused on the tension between modern commercial agriculture and family
peasant agriculture. Modern commercial farming, often supported by genetic
engineering, large-scale monoculture, and capital-intensive production,
prioritizes high productivity and market efficiency. Companies such as Plant
Genetic Systems and Monsanto have invested significantly in technologies like
the transgenic insertion of the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis in cotton
plants, known as “Bt Technology," to control the bollworm insect and
"Roundup Ready" soybean seeds to elicit the use of herbicides in soy
crops, which deliver short-term productivity gains but raise long-term concerns
over environmental sustainability and social equity (Robin, 2008).

On the other hand, family peasant agriculture is built on principles of
environmental harmony, using time-honored practices that prioritize
biodiversity and ecological sustainability. These small-scale farms rely on
traditional methods such as recycling waste, using natural fertilizers, and
employing manual crop selection, making them an integral part of local
ecosystems. As highlighted by Tisdell (2005), peasant agriculture plays a
critical role in maintaining soil fertility and local biodiversity, which are
often undermined by the mechanized processes of commercial monoculture.

The rise of organic agriculture has created a niche for family farming
in the global market, where consumers are increasingly willing to pay premiums
for food perceived as more natural, healthier, and closer to the environment
(Roep & Wiskerke, 2007). This shift in consumer behavior has brought
attention to the ecological and cultural benefits of smallholder farming, as
opposed to the capital-driven, monoculture-based commercial agricultural model.

Production and Productivity in Family Farming

Family
farming is often critiqued for its low productivity, especially compared to
modern commercial agriculture. This view perpetuates that small farms are
inefficient and struggle to compete in a market dominated by large-scale,
high-output agricultural enterprises. Critics argue that family farmers'
inability to produce at the scale of industrial farms leads to higher food
prices, as farmers must charge more to cover their production costs. McMurtry
(1998) explains that this economic disparity creates a vicious cycle in which
small farmers are marginalized by a system that values efficiency and
productivity at the expense of equity and sustainability.

Agricultural marketing and markets are other aspects considered issues
related to the production volume rather than productivity itself, with the
intention to promote bilateral agreements between economies. The trend in the
relationship with developed countries has been towards establishing bilateral
agreements to promote trade. Free trade agreements imposed by the North were
presented as an alternative. However, as Munck (2005) explains in his work on
globalization and social exclusion, it has become evident that the asymmetry
between economies of unequal weight can have disastrous effects on less
developed and vulnerable economies. In the case of Ecuador, Wong (2009) analyzes
the impact of free trade agreements on family farming and sheds light on the
issue.

In countries like Ecuador, it is found that a significant portion of the
production from small rural producers is lost due to post-harvest handling.
According to Dufumier (2004), these losses can average up to forty percent for
perishable products and sixteen percent for grains. This matter is primarily
due to the poor organization of agri-food chains, which affects peasant
production.

On the other hand, agricultural policies in Latin America tend to
reinforce these assumptions by favoring monoculture and large-scale farming.
Hidalgo (2014) describes the dominant discourse in the region, where
development is synonymous with capitalist enterprise, and peasant farming is
seen as backward. This viewpoint leads to policies that disproportionately
benefit large commercial farms, further widening the gap between industrial
agriculture and family farming. However, as scholars like Espinel (2010b) point
out, these narratives overlook the structural economic forces perpetuating
poverty among small-scale farmers and undervalue the unique contributions of
family farming.

Method and
Methodology

This section describes how the study employs a social constructivism
paradigm, emphasizing the role of societal context in shaping the realities of
family farmers. The methodology uses a mixed method, mostly a qualitative
viewpoint, for analyzing systematic literature reviews (SLR). Some quantitative
evaluations are taken from statistical bureaus such as the National Statistics
Institution, Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas y Censos (INEC), and the
Central Bank of Ecuador. Previous studies, the SLR, and statistical-related
data were analyzed, aiming to confirm the arguments of the main researcher’s
field investigation that need to be expanded upon, linking it to previous works
(e.g., Wilkes, 1987, on biodiversity and smallholder agriculture, and Espinel, 2018).

As part of the methodological strategy, the guiding Table 1, creates and identifies the topics involved in
this research and the scope for each topic, facilitating the criteria to
identify sources for the SLR and Statistics data, useful to accomplish the
proposed described scopes and the outcomes that needed to be discussed to
accomplish the aim of the current study.

Table 1

Topics to
identify sources for the SLR and Statistics data Analysis

TOPIC

SCOPE

DESCRIPTION OF
SCOPE

AIMED OUTCOME FOR DISCUSSION

Family Farming

Importance/role of Family Farming

Identify
literature and statistical data regarding the contribution of family farming
to Ecuador's agricultural output, population involvement, and impact on food
security.

Economic
Contributions and Challenges of Family Farming

Biodiversity

Family
Farming and Biodiversity

Identify literature and statistical
data to discuss how family farms contribute to biodiversity preservation and
food sustainability through mixed cropping systems.

The Social and Environmental Impacts of Family
Farming

Agriculture

Modern Commercial Agriculture vs. Family Peasant
Agriculture

Identify literature and statistical data to explain how large-scale
commercial agriculture differs from family farming in production,
environmental impacts, and societal outcomes.

Biodiversity,
Innovation, and Social Justice in Family Farming

Production

Production and Productivity in Family Farming

Identify
literature and statistical data to discuss the misconceptions about
productivity in family farming, showing how efficiency is miscalculated when
focusing on commercial methods.

The Complexity of
Measuring Productivity in Family Farming

Social Justice

Social
Justice in Peasant Family Farming

Identify
literature to address the poverty and inequity experienced by peasant
families, underlining the disparities in land ownership and the challenges
posed by modern agricultural policies.

Implication of all
the scopes in Social Justice for Peasant Family Farming

Analysis and Results

The results of this study build on the extensive body of literature that
highlights the critical role of family farming in promoting food security,
biodiversity, and rural livelihoods, particularly in developing countries like
Ecuador. Statistical data from national agricultural surveys and global reports
underscore the economic and environmental contributions of family farming,
which represents approximately 80% of all farms worldwide and produces over
half of the world's food supply (FAO, 2014). Despite these contributions,
family farmers often face structural disadvantages, including limited access to
land, financial resources, markets, and socio-economic inequalities that hinder
their ability to thrive.

This section examines the social justice issues
affecting family farming in Ecuador, using empirical data to assess the
sector's challenges about land inequality, poverty levels, and access to
resources. The findings consider the aimed outcome for discussion proposed in
Table 1 to provide a nuanced understanding of how the identified issues
intersect with sustainability, offering insights into the need for targeted
policies that support small farmers and promote equitable agricultural
development.

Economic
Contributions and Challenges of Peasant Family Farming

Family farming contributes to Ecuador's
economy, impacting food security, employment, and rural development. It is
responsible for a significant portion of the country's agricultural output,
especially in key crops like rice, coffee, corn, and tomatoes. It employs 29.4%
of the economically active population (INEC, 2021). However, in some cases,
particularly for very small farms, much of the production—nearly 70%—is
consumed locally, and only a third of it is sold in markets, limiting the
ability of family farmers to generate significant income from their work
(Espinel et al., 2006).

The reliance on local consumption underscores
the undervaluation of family farming's output. While vital to food security,
this production is often not accounted for in official market transactions,
leading to a skewed perception of the sector's productivity and economic value.
Additionally, the costs associated with family farming, including purchasing
fertilizers and pesticides, further strain small farmers' already limited
financial resources. These expenditures highlight the sector's struggle to access
quality inputs, as many farmers resort to recycling seeds, which negatively
impacts crop yields.

Despite these challenges, family farming
remains crucial for Ecuador's economy, contributing around $4.5 billion, about
half of the agricultural GDP. However, the average productivity per hectare,
while significant, varies widely due to inconsistencies in data collection and
land tenure. Family farmers often operate on small plots of land, averaging
just 0.47 hectares per unit, limiting their ability to scale up production and
compete with large commercial farms (INEC, 2021).

One of the most pressing issues family farmers
face is the lack of social justice in land distribution and agricultural
policy. Ecuador's rural development policies have historically favored
large-scale commercial agriculture, disadvantaging family farmers. The failure
of the agrarian reform program in the 1970s, which aimed to redistribute land
more equitably, has left small farmers without secure property rights or access
to the resources needed to improve their livelihoods. As a result, rural
poverty persists, and the benefits of Ecuador's agricultural growth are
disproportionately concentrated among wealthy landowners (Espinel, 2010a).

The
Social and Environmental Impacts of Family Farming on Biodiversity

Family farming's reliance on biodiversity
creates several social and environmental benefits, which are often overlooked
in traditional economic analyses. The smallholder farms that dominate rural
Ecuador produce food in a manner that sustains the environment while also
fostering social justice. The mixed cropping systems employed by peasant
farmers ensure food security for individual families and preserve various
living organisms, from plants to animals and microorganisms. This diversity is
vital for maintaining the ecological balance of farming regions, as it reduces
the need for external inputs, such as chemical fertilizers and pesticides,
which can harm the environment (Martínez Allier, 2004).

Furthermore, preserving biodiversity on small
farms is directly related to social justice. Family farmers, particularly those
in rural Ecuador, are often marginalized by national policies that favor
large-scale commercial agriculture. These farmers have limited access to
financial resources, technological innovations, and markets, which forces them
to rely on traditional farming methods. The resistance of peasant agriculture
to accept some current agricultural techniques and modernization attempts, often
dismissed by economists as risk aversion, is, in fact, a rational response to
the needs of the local environment and the socio-economic realities of rural
communities, that is more a decision to preserve an ancestral form of
organization and efficiency within their farms (Schultz, 1964; Popkin, 1979)[3].

While large-scale agriculture benefits from
government subsidies and technological advancements, family farming is
undervalued and under-supported. For decades, peasant farmers have been forced
to rely on nature’s services, such as birds for pollination and trees for
windbreaks, due to a lack of capital for more modern farming technologies
(Wilkes, 1987). Despite these constraints, family farming systems have proven
to be remarkably resilient. Their reliance on biodiversity allows them to adapt
to environmental changes and market fluctuations in ways that large monoculture
farms cannot.

However, these traditional practices are under
threat. As global agricultural policies continue to push for industrialized
farming models, the ecological and social benefits of family farming are being
eroded. Modernization efforts that encourage monoculture and heavy reliance on
external inputs often fail to consider the long-term sustainability of these
systems. Historically contributing to preserving biodiversity and protecting
ecosystems, family farmers risk being displaced or marginalized by policies prioritizing
short-term economic gains over ecological resilience.

Biodiversity,
Innovation, and Social Justice in Family Farming

Family peasant agriculture fosters biodiversity
in ways that large-scale commercial agriculture cannot. For instance, on small
farms, production is not exclusively market-driven; much of the produce is used
for local consumption, often exchanged through labor or goods bartering systems
within communities (Espinel et al., 2006). These farming systems typically
involve a combination of crops, animal husbandry, and aquaculture, contributing
to a highly diverse environment that sustains the family and the ecosystem.
Studies have shown that family farms rely on practices such as multi-cropping,
which protect against environmental risks and market fluctuations, ensuring
greater food security for small-scale producers (Martínez Allier, 2004).

The interaction between family farming and
biodiversity is mutually reinforced. For example, using "bioles," or
organic teas made from recycled farm waste, has been found to have hormonal
effects that boost plant immunity, enhancing crop resilience against pests and
diseases. The Biotechnological Research Center (CIBE) at ESPOL in Guayaquil has
made significant progress in studying bioles in cocoa farms of Guayas; the use
of bioles led to a dramatic increase in yields—from 300 pounds to over two
metric tons per hectare—without resorting to harmful chemical pesticides. This
innovation exemplifies how peasant farming practices can increase productivity
while maintaining ecological balance.

Despite its advantages, family farming is
marginalized in global agricultural policy, which often prioritizes large-scale
commercial farms. The lack of support for family farmers exacerbates social
justice issues, particularly regarding access to resources and property rights.
As has been noted elsewhere (Espinel, 2018), the survival of family peasant
agriculture depends on its biodiverse environment, and conversely, biodiversity
in agricultural areas is sustained by family farms. Policies that favor monoculture
and genetic engineering often overlook this symbiotic relationship, leading to
market failures that result in the exploitation of rural communities and the
erosion of biodiversity.

Moreover, there is a significant disparity in
the treatment of intellectual property rights in agriculture. Large
corporations that engage in genetic engineering often extract genetic material
from biodiverse regions—many of which are cultivated by small-scale
farmers—without proper recognition or compensation for the original custodians
of that biodiversity (Van Huylenbroeck & Espinel, 2007). This practice
raises critical concerns about the privatization of genetic resources and the
exclusion of rural farmers from the benefits of technological advancements.

The
Complexity of Measuring Productivity in Family Farming

Family farming differs fundamentally from the
monoculture model that dominates conventional agriculture. As a result,
productivity metrics that work for large farms are misleading when applied to
small-scale farming. Conventional farms often comprise hundreds of hectares of
a single crop, making measuring output in tons or kilograms per hectare easy.
In contrast, family farms—typically less than 5 hectares—are polyculture,
growing crops in small, mixed plots (Salcedo & Guzmán, 2014). Measuring
productivity by crop output alone fails to capture the ecological, economic,
and social benefits of family farming.

One critical factor in understanding family
farm productivity is energy efficiency. Rather than relying on external inputs
like chemical fertilizers and pesticides, peasant farmers often use local
resources to maintain their farms. These practices include recycling organic
waste, using natural fertilizers, and employing manual labor from the family or
community, resulting in a more sustainable and efficient energy balance than in
large-scale commercial farms (Espinel, 2018). Using local inputs reduces costs
and fosters greater resilience in economic and environmental challenges.

Another important consideration is that family
farming often produces for self-consumption or local markets. A significant
portion of the output from small farms is used to feed the farmer's family or
is exchanged within local economies through bartering systems. These aspects
make family farms less reliant on external markets and buffer them against
price fluctuations. However, it also means that much of their productivity goes
unrecorded, as it does not go through formal market channels. This aspect of family
farming is often overlooked by policymakers, who equate success with the
ability to produce for global markets.

The misconception that family farming is
unproductive is further perpetuated by agricultural policies shaped by the
Green Revolution. These policies have historically promoted the adoption of
technologies—such as chemical inputs and mechanization—developed for
large-scale monoculture. However, these technologies are often inappropriate
for small-scale polyculture farms and can undermine their sustainability by
introducing chemicals that degrade soil health and reduce biodiversity. As de
Janvry et al. (1995) argue, agricultural policies that ignore the unique needs
of small farmers exacerbate rural poverty and fail to capitalize on the
strengths of family farming systems.

Nevertheless, it is feasible to initiate rural
development programs to enhance production conditions, productivity, and market
dynamics in specific areas that could be considered pilot initiatives to adopt
this approach. Implementing programs that favor the development of family
peasant agriculture requires a first step to improve the livelihood of the
people in rural areas in order to provide basic principles of justice as
established by John Rawls in part two of his book “Justice as Fairness” (Rawls,
2001), also following suggestions enquiring the reasons why poorest countries
are falling behind and what can be done about it (Collier, 2007).

Discussion
of the Results

Addressing social justice in Ecuador's family farming sector reveals the
vital role of small-scale farmers in the agricultural landscape and their
substantial challenges. Family farming is critical to Ecuador's food security,
rural employment, and local economies. However, the sector is plagued by
significant social justice issues, including poverty, land inequality, and
restricted access to essential resources. These problems highlight the
structural disadvantages that small farmers experience, with their
contributions to food production and biodiversity often undervalued and
excluded from broader economic development benefits.

To combat these social justice challenges, Ecuador must adopt policies
prioritizing family farming as a cornerstone of sustainable development.
Improved access to land, water, infrastructure, and targeted support for
increasing productivity and income could alleviate some of the burdens
small-scale farmers face. Equitable agricultural policies should also address
the historical imbalances that have marginalized rural communities,
particularly regarding land distribution and the absence of rural development programs.
By fostering these changes, Ecuador can ensure that small farmers are included
in and benefit from the nation's economic growth.

Family farming's importance extends beyond food production and is
intrinsically tied to biodiversity preservation. Peasant farmers in Ecuador,
typically excluded from the benefits of modern agricultural development, are at
the forefront of maintaining ecological systems. Their reliance on biodiversity
is an environmental strategy and a means of survival, supporting food security
and sustainable practices within their communities. However, without adequate
government support, biodiversity and these farmers' livelihoods are at risk.

Ecuador must reorient its agricultural policies to favor family farming
to support biodiversity and promote social justice. These policies include
providing financial resources, access to sustainable technologies, and
recognizing the value of traditional farming methods prioritizing ecological
balance. Ecuador can ensure environmental conservation and social equity by
supporting small-scale farmers through biodiversity-friendly policies. Family
farming should be viewed as a central pillar of a just and sustainable society,
where protecting ecological diversity also safeguards the livelihoods of rural
communities.

The gap between commercial agriculture and family farming also
underscores deeper social justice issues. Peasant farmers face barriers
limiting their access to markets, technologies, and fair compensation for their
biodiversity and food security contributions. As modern agriculture becomes
more advanced than peasant family farmers, agricultural policies must protect
the rights of small farmers, ensuring they benefit from technological progress
and market access.

Achieving socially just agricultural policies requires recognizing
family farming's role in biodiversity conservation and rural livelihoods.
Legislation must protect the intellectual property of small farmers, ensuring
they benefit from genetic resources and technological advancements.
Infrastructure investment is also needed to enable family farmers to compete in
local and global markets. Ultimately, by addressing these structural
inequalities and prioritizing sustainability and equity, agricultural policies
can ensure that family farming remains a key part of Ecuador's economic and
environmental future.

Conclusions

In conclusion, family farming in Ecuador plays a crucial role in food
security, biodiversity conservation, and rural livelihoods. Family farmers face
significant social justice challenges despite these contributions, including
poverty, land inequality, and exclusion from broader economic benefits.
Addressing these issues requires policies that support family farming as both
an economic pillar and a sustainable agricultural model. By improving access to
land, resources, and infrastructure, Ecuador can empower small farmers to
increase their productivity and income while preserving ecological systems.

Social justice in agriculture is an economic necessity and a matter of
human rights. Recognizing the value of family farming and integrating
traditional practices into agricultural development strategies will promote
environmental sustainability and social equity. Future agricultural policies
must prioritize the needs of family farmers, ensuring that they are included in
technological advancements and market opportunities. This approach will reduce
rural poverty and strengthen Ecuador's food security and biodiversity.

Future Research Directions

Future research should focus on enhancing social justice within peasant
agriculture to improve food security and reduce poverty. This continued study
should explore policy frameworks that increase market access, sustainable
technologies, and financial resources for family farmers. Further studies could
also examine the role of biodiversity in family farming systems, identifying
how traditional practices can be integrated into national agricultural
strategies to foster resilience against climate change. By deepening the
understanding of these issues, future research can help create more inclusive
and sustainable agricultural policies that benefit rural communities and the
environment.

Acknowledgments

Our special
thanks to the Escuela Superior Politécnica del Litoral (ESPOL University),
which sponsors the presentation of this work. We also want to acknowledge all
the research teams and other institutions collaborating on this study.

Following
the credit taxonomy, we specify the contributors’ roles: RamónL. Espinel, Ph.D.
– Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition,
Investigation, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation,
Writing – original draft. Nayeth Solórzano, Ph.D. – Formal analysis,
Methodology, Software, Validation, Visualization, Writing – review and editing.

References

Bardel, P. , Pape, G.,
& Sorin, P.. (2008). L’Arbre et la Haie, Mémoire et Avenir du Bocage.
Presses
Universitaires de Rennes-Écomusée du Pays de Rennes. France.

Bartra, A. (2006). El Capital en su
Laberinto: de la Renta de la Tierra a la Renta de la Vida. UNAM, Mexico.
CEDRSSA; Itaca.
https://www.historiadahistoriografia.com.br/revista/article/download/1234/756/5278

Breuer, N. (2003).-
Linking sustainability, food security, and improved worker livelihoods in an
Ecuadorian agroecosystem. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida)
University of Florida Digital Collections.
https://original-ufdc.uflib.ufl.edu/UF00081813/00001. , PhD dissertation.

Carson, R. (1962). Silent
Spring. Houghton Mifflin Company.
https://archive.org/details/fp_Silent_Spring-Rachel_Carson-1962, New York.

Chayanov, A. V. (1974). La organización de
la unidad económica campesina. Buenos Aires: Editorial Nueva Visión. Retrieved
from
https://espai-marx.net/elsarbres/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/UNFV_ANTROPOLOGIA_Chayanov_Alexander_V._La_organizaci_n_de_la_unidad_econ_mica_campesina.pdf​.

Collier, P. (2007).
The Bottom Billion. Why the Poorest Countries are Falling and What Can Be
Done About It. Oxford University Press. https://cmc.marmot.org/EbscoAcademicCMC/ocn181744112.

de Janvry, A.,
Fafchamps, M., & Sadoulet, E. (1995). Transaction costs, public choice, and
induced technical innovations. In B. Koppel (Ed.), Induced innovation theory
and international agricultural development (pp. 97–118). The Johns Hopkins
University Press. https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:5d0e286c-3ff3-4323-923a-06d4e3fda04e

Dufumier, M.
(2004). Agricultures et Paysanneries des Tiers Monde. Paris: Karthala. https://shs-cairn-info.acces.bibl.ulaval.ca/agricultures-et-paysanneries-des-tiers-mondes--9782845865488?lang=fr

Enriquez, J.(2005).
As the Future Catches You: How Genomics and Other Forces are Changing Your
Life, Work, Health, and Wealth. New York: Crown Publishing Corporation.
Three Rivers Press https://archive.org/details/asfuturecatchesy00juan

Espinel, R. (1991).
The Modernization of Ecuadorean Agriculture (Doctoral dissertation
University of California, Berkeley). ProQuest Dissertations & Theses
Global. https://biblioteca.culturaypatrimonio.gob.ec/cgi-bin/koha/opac-detail.pl?biblionumber=176484

Espinel, R. (2005). Ingeniería Agrícola
y Biológica: la Agricultura del Conocimiento. Presentation to the
Polytechnic Council for the creation of the Agricultural and Biological
Engineering program, Guayaquil , Ecuador. Escuela Superior Politécnica del Litoral (ESPOL).

Espinel, R. (2006). La Globalización y
sus efectos en a la agricultura: los pequeños y medianos productores y sus
alternativas. In ALASRU (Eds.), Análisis latinoamericano del medio
rural. Exclusión y Resistencia Social, VII Congreso. Universidad de
Chapingo, México. https://www.chapingo.mx

Espinel, R. et al., (2006). Sondeo de
los Pequeños Productores en la Zona de Influencia de la Estación Experimental
Tropical Pichilingue del INIAP (Technical report). INIAP-UF-ESPOL.University of
Florida. https://repositorio.iniap.gob.ec/handle/41000/3642

Espinel, R. (2009). La Economía Política de
la Biodiversidad: Conocimientos ancestrales y derechos de propiedad. En F.
Martín Mayoral (Ed.), Deuda externa y economía ecológica (pp. 151-166). FLACSO.  https://biblio.flacsoandes.edu.ec/libros/digital/41793.pdf Espinel, R.
(2010a). "Access to Land and Food Sovereignty: The Case of Ecuador."
Department of Food and Resource Economics. University of Florida, Gainesville.

Espinel, R. (2010b). Ruralidad y
soberanía alimentaria en América Latina y el Caribe. Ecuador Debate,
(79),151-162. FLACSO Ecuador https://repositorio.flacsoandes.edu.ec/bitstream/10469/3528/1/RFLACSO-ED79-09-Espinel.pdf

Espinel, R. (2018).
Smallholder's Agriculture, Biodiversity, and Food Security. Food Security
and Food Safety: the role of universities. Proceedings of TROPENTAG 2018.
Ghent University, Belgium. https://www.tropentag.de/2018/abstracts/full/48.pdf

Food and
Agriculture Organization  (2014). World
agricultural statistics, Rome. FAO. https://www.fao.org/statistics/en/

Ferrer, A. (2014). Historia de la
Globalización II: la Revolución Industrial y el Segundo Orden Mundial. Fondo de Cultura
Económica.  Available at:
https://www.fcede.es/colecciones/historia-de-la-globalizacion-ii-la-revolucion-industrial-y-el-segundo-orden-mundial/

Hesser, L. (2009). The
man who fed the world: An authorized biography of Nobel Prize Laureate Norman
Borlaug and his battle to end world hunger. Righter’s Mill Press.
Princeton, New Jersey. https://www.worldcat.org/title/man-who-fed-the-world-an-authorized-biography-of-nobel-prize-laureate-norman-borlaug/oclc/427644258

Instituto Nacional
de Estadísticas y Censos (2021). Encuesta de los sectores productivos
agrícolas y pecuarios ESPAC. INEC.  https://www.ecuadorencifras.gob.ec/encuesta-de-superficie-y-produccion-agropecuaria-continua/

Mann, C. (2018). The
wizard and the prophet: Two remarkable scientists and their dueling visions to
shape tomorrow’s world. Alfred A. Knopf. New York. https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/546260/the-wizard-and-the-prophet-by-charles-c-mann/

Hidalgo, F. (2014). Contextos y
tendencias de las agriculturas en Latinoamérica actual, in F. Hidalgo, F.
Houtart y P. Lizárraga (Eds.), Agriculturas campesinas en Latinoamérica.
Propuestas y desafíos. (p. 80). Instituto de Altos Estudios Nacionales (IAEN),
Quito. Retrieved
from: https://editorial.iaen.edu.ec/libros/agriculturas-campesinas-en-latinoamerica-propuestas-y-desafios/

Hobsbawm, E.
(1989). The age of empire, 1875–1914. Vintage Books, New York. https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/80646/the-age-of-empire-1875-1914-by-eric-hobsbawm/

Mançano Fernandes, B. (2014). Cuando la
agricultura familiar es campesina. In F. Hidalgo, F. Houtart y P. Lizárraga
(Eds.), Agriculturas Campesinas en Latinoamérica: propuestas y desafíos.
Instituto de Altos Estudios Nacionales (IAEN), Quito. https://www.ippri.unesp.br/Modulos/Noticias/328/agriculturas-campesinas-propuestas-y-desafios-web.pdf

Martínez Alier, J. (2004) El ecologismo
de los pobres: conflictos ambientales y lenguaje de valoración. Icaria, Barcelona.
https://icariaeditorial.com/antrazyt/4179-el-ecologismo-de-los-pobres-conflictos-ambientales-y-lenguajes-de-valoracion-6a-ed-ampliada.html

Mazoyer, M. & Roudart, L.
(1997). Histoire des agricultures du monde. Du néolithique à la crise
contemporaine. Éditions du Seuil, Paris.
https://www.seuil.com/ouvrage/histoire-des-agricultures-du-monde-du-neolithique-a-la-crise-contemporaine-marcel-mazoyer/9782020323970​

Marx, K. (1990). Capital.
A Critique of Political Economy, (Vol. I, ch.27). Penguin Classics.
(Original work published 1867)
https://archive.org/download/capital-vol.-1-penguin/Capital%20-%20Vol.%201%20Penguin.pdf

McMurtry, J.
(1998). Unequal Freedoms: The Global Market as an Ethical System.
Connecticut: Kumarian Press.
https://www.rienner.com/title/Unequal_Freedoms_The_Global_Market_as_an_Ethical_System

Milanovic, B.
(2011). he haves and the have-nots: A brief and idiosyncratic history of
global inequality. Basic Books.
https://archive.org/details/haveshavenotsbri0000mila

Milanovic, B.
(2023). Visions of inequality: From the French Revolution to the end of the
Cold War. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674294639

Munck, R. (2005).
Globalization and Social Exclusion: A Transformationalist Perspective.
Connecticut: Kumarian Press. https://doi.org/10.3362/9781565495485

Popkin, S. (1979). The
Rational Peasant. The Political Economy of Rural Society in Viet Nam.
University of California Press, Berkeley. https://www.ucpress.edu/book/9780520039544/the-rational-peasant

Rawls, J. (2001). Justice
as Fairness. A Restatement. Belknap Press of  Harvard University Press. Cambridge,
Massachusetts. https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674005112

Robin, M.-M. (2008). Le
monde selon Monsanto. Éditions La Découverte/Arte Éditions.
https://archive.org/details/mondeselonmonsan0000mari

Roep, D.,  & Wiskerke, H. (2007). Nourishing
Networks: fourteen lessons about creating sustainable food supply chains. Sociology Group, Wageningen University.

Salcedo, S. & L.
Guzmán (2014). Agricultura
Familiar en América Latina y el Caribe: recomendaciones de política. Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la
Alimentación y la Agricultura (FAO). Santiago, Chile.

Schultz, T.W.
(1964). Transforming Traditional Agriculture. Yale University Press.

Shiva, V. (2016). The
Violence of the Green Revolution. Third World Agriculture, Ecology, and
Politics. University Press of Kentucky.

Tisdell, C. (2005).
Economics of Environmental Conservation. Edward Elgar.

Van Huylenbroeck, G., & Espinel, R.
(2007). Importance of institutions and governance structures for market access
and protection of property rights of small farmers in developing countries. In E. Bulte &
R. Ruben (Eds.). Development Economics between Markets and Institutions:
Incentives for Growth, Food Security and Sustainable Use of the Environment. (pp.179-196).
Wageningen Academic Press.

Wallerstein, I.
(1980). The capitalist world economy (Chapter 6: The rural economy in
modern society). Cambridge University Press., London. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511572210

Wilkes, G. (1987). Good
Farmers: Traditional agricultural resource management in Mexico and Central
America. University of
California Press, Berkeley.

Wong, S. (2009). Apertura Comercial y
Agricultura Familiar en Ecuador. ESPAE-ESPOL.

[1]
This topic has been addressed for decades in several studies one can review
(Espinel, 1991), which was part of his doctoral dissertation at the University
of California, Berkeley.

[2]
For further reference to cases observed in Ecuadorian agriculture, see
(Espinel, 2009).

[3]
Extensive discussions on this topic can be found in McMurtry's (1998) and
Bartra (2006) works.