Latin America and the Caribbean, like the rest of the world, faces the extremely serious environmental consequences of the agro-industrial model and the corporate agri-food system (McMichael 2006). This is a technological, economic, and cultural system that, by functioning analogously to an industrial metabolic process, generates erosion, compaction, salinization, acidification, loss of organic matter, and a decrease in soil biological activity. It is also implicated in the dramatic reduction of insects due to pesticide use and consumes 70% of the world's water, which is returned contaminated to the water cycle (MEA, 2015). Agro-extractivism contributes 12% of global emissions that cause climate change, although it can account for up to half of all greenhouse gas emissions if the entire food system is included. It also causes the eutrophication of rivers, lakes, and ocean coasts, and is associated with deforestation and the concomitant loss of biodiversity (the region has lost 30% of its biodiversity in the last 20 years). A monoculture like soy, to cite just one iconic example in Latin America, is responsible for the deforestation of 20 million hectares in Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, and Bolivia (WWF 2014). But in addition to deforestation, this unsustainable model has simplified ecosystem complexity, favoring the presence of pests and diseases, which increases dependence on agrochemicals, as well as reducing the biocultural diversity upon which the food supply of communities depends, not only due to the standardization of fields, but also due to the introduction of genetically modified seeds. We can confirm that the agri-food sector generates the largest ecological footprint worldwide, acting as the greatest driving force of biophysical transformations on the planet (Tilman 2001; Foley 2005; Weis 2013; Rockström et al. 2017).

The development and consolidation of the corporate food regime occurs under the aegis of neoliberal globalization: a particularly cruel stage of globalized capitalism that has transformed Latin America and the Caribbean into the most unequal region on the planet, with disparities at the national level. Here, 32 people accumulate the same wealth as the poorest 300 million people (Oxfam, 2015). Fifteen thousand people, whose net worth exceeds $30 million, concentrate wealth that could have eliminated extreme poverty in Brazil, Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, and Peru (XXX). This extreme inequality is further accentuated when we consider that the region is also the most unequal in the world in terms of land distribution (Oxfam, 2016). The largest 1% of farms control more than half of the region's agricultural land; that is, these farms control more land than the remaining 99%. But if we also consider the distribution of land from a gender perspective, we will find that women represent only 12% of those who have access to and control of land benefiting from agrarian reform processes.

This phenomenon, far from improving, has worsened in recent years. According to data compiled by LandMatrix (2019), since 2000, transactions affecting more than 9 million hectares have taken place in Latin America and the Caribbean. These lands are being used primarily for planting monoculture forests and monocultures of soy, oil palm, corn, and sugarcane, as well as for expanding cattle ranches (Giraldo, 2015). If we add the land grabbing for agribusiness to the dispossession for extractive projects, such as mega-mining, hydroelectric dams, hydrocarbon extraction, and large infrastructure projects promoted by governments, we can understand how this predatory and exclusionary economic and political model affects the ways in which rural inhabitants live, preventing young people from remaining in the countryside and thus exacerbating the serious problem of migration to cities and the United States.

In reality, the growth of the agri-food model must be viewed within the context of the poverty affecting the region. In the middle of this decade, some 165 million people—more than 25% of the total regional population—were poor, and some 70 million lived in extreme poverty (ECLAC, 2015). Currently (2018), the situation remains similar, with approximately 30% of the population living in poverty (some 182 million people) and 10.2% in extreme poverty (some 63 million people) (ECLAC, 2018). Poverty has increased from 28.5% in 2014 to 37% in 2017, representing an increase of 19 million people affected (FAO/PAHO/WFP/ and UNICEF, 2018). Poverty disparities are even greater when comparing urban and rural areas. In 2017, almost 50% of the rural population lived in poverty, and 20% of this population lived in extreme poverty. Similarly, extreme urban poverty increased by 2.6%, while urban poverty has remained relatively stable over the past five years (ECLAC, 2018). Poverty and extreme poverty among Indigenous and Afro-descendant populations have remained constant during this decade, but have increased in both categories among the non-Indigenous population (ECLAC, 2018: 98). However, the differences are striking. Poverty is 10% higher among Indigenous and Afro-descendant populations than among the non-Indigenous population, and extreme poverty has steadily increased among the non-Indigenous population, but is almost 10% lower among Indigenous and Afro-descendant populations. In short, according to these statistics, extreme poverty is prevalent in rural, Indigenous, and Afro-descendant communities. That is, in the area of ​​food production at a regional level.

The agro-industrial and corporate food model has failed in its promise to eliminate hunger, while bringing with it an epidemic of chronic degenerative diseases associated with an industrialized diet. Indeed, in the region, the number of people suffering from hunger or undernourishment has increased over the last decade, reaching nearly 40 million, or 6% of the Latin American and Caribbean population. Malnutrition and overweight are two resulting consequences. Childhood overweight affects 7.5% of children under 5 years old, that is, nearly 4 million children under 5. Nearly a quarter of the region's adult population suffers from obesity, and the trend indicates that by 2030 this will increase to nearly a third of the region's adult population. Conversely, nearly 700 children suffer from acute malnutrition. The rapid increase in hunger in the region is such that, from 2015 to 2017, some 600 people joined the ranks of the hungry. Haiti and Venezuela are the countries where hunger has increased most sharply, while Brazil, Cuba, and Uruguay remain below the global average in this regard. In the region, dietary patterns or habits have transformed over the last three decades as a consequence of the global agri-food system, the international trade in highly processed foods, and increasing urbanization (FAO/PAHO/WFP/ and UNICEF, 2018). This has also caused chronic non-communicable diseases (cancer, cardiovascular diseases, diabetes) to displace infectious diseases as the leading cause of death.

Among other effects, the agri-food model has been key to the perpetuation of the armed conflict in Colombia, has displaced the rural population, indebted farmers, and eroded the social fabric of the region.

Agroecology is a transdisciplinary field of knowledge for the design and implementation of actions and institutions to achieve food system sustainability. However, it is still not equipped with sufficient analytical tools and criteria to define collective action strategies that would allow it to move beyond local experiences, encourage their generalization, and shape alternative food systems at broader territorial scales. This Working Group's main objective has been to develop this political dimension of agroecology, its theoretical and methodological foundations, as an emerging field of theoretical and practical work: Political Agroecology (PA).

The aim has been to establish a common framework for analyzing collective agroecological action. It seeks to lay the groundwork for an agroecological strategy at different levels, considering collective action and the instruments with which it can be developed, including public policies. Analyzing the experience already accumulated in this area in our region is one of our main tasks, as it responds to the growing demands of the Latin American agroecological movement, which is increasingly involved in spheres of action beyond the farm or the community, including government administration.

The link between politics and agroecology is not new. However, the necessity of politics and all that it entails has not been fully internalized by various actors within the Latin American agroecological movement. "Technical" perspectives on agroecology are increasingly influential. Ignoring politics or relegating it to a secondary role prevents these experiences from achieving the breadth and scale necessary to become an alternative to the Corporate Food Regime (CFR). Agroecology is a "transformative science," an analytical approach that incorporates a critique of the governance mechanisms adopted in the CFR, in order to design and build social dynamics of change toward socio-ecological sustainability. This is precisely what agroecology addresses, since this practical dimension of agroecology requires the political—that is, the design and implementation of institutions that make the sustainability of food systems possible. However, agroecology has not sufficiently developed these aspects nor established a clear strategy to guide change. The aim is to develop, discuss, and, where possible, reach consensus on the theoretical and methodological foundations of a common agroecological strategy that encompasses the different levels of collective action and the instruments with which it can be implemented. To this end, three thematic areas of inquiry are proposed:

1) Theoretical and Methodological Development of PA: A commonly accepted definition of PA that delimits its multidisciplinary field of study remains to be developed. It could be said that PA is the application of Political Ecology to the field of food systems. Fortunately, in Latin America, a current of Political Ecology that analyzes the "politics of environmental change" and the study of socio-ecological change in political terms is gaining traction. From this latter perspective, we understand PA as the application of Political Ecology to the analysis of socio-ecological change in the food system.

But little progress has been made in this area of ​​agroecology. As happened four decades ago, Latin American agroecology is once again called upon to play a key role in its definition, imbuing it with a strong social component and an unwavering commitment to socio-ecological change. The aim is to move forward in this direction to make it a benchmark for a comprehensive and committed approach with global reach.

Agroecological conservation (AC) must begin with a biophysical characterization of societies and the determining role of their institutional arrangements. This approach applies to agroecosystems as the materialization of socio-ecological relationships in agriculture and food, and to the key role of institutions in regulating their dynamics. These institutional arrangements are subject to dispute among different social groups, some favoring the maintenance of the current agricultural system (RAC) and others its transformation. It is important to establish the key role of AC in order to recognize its role in generating a sustainable social order. Agroecological experiences serve as examples of social innovation and the pre-configuration of an alternative food system. The current agricultural system, often labeled "corporate" due to the influence of large transnational corporations in decision-making over states, is based on an institutional framework characterized by neoliberal globalization, free trade, deregulated markets, international agreements to dismantle obstacles (national legislation), and the creation of international organizations to guarantee it. It is important to delve deeper into its modes of operation and the obstacles it poses to the development of sovereign food practices. Given that the agroecological transition is not possible without a change in the current institutional framework, the main objective of agroecological action should be the implementation of a new cognitive framework for institutional design based on agroecological principles, understanding collective agroecological action as a multi-level action that transcends the liberal dichotomy between the state and civil society, between the struggle of social movements and public policies.

2) Designing strategies for scaling up agroecological experiences: This involves developing a shared understanding of the character, nature, and functioning of the food system at different scales and creating a general narrative of the transformations experienced in the ways food is produced, distributed, and consumed within food cultures. It is essential to identify the driving forces behind this change and the institutional arrangements that have made it possible. This is crucial for designing an effective strategy for scaling up agroecological experiences. Clarifying the types of norms and regulations that sustain the current food model in Latin America is also vital. It is worthwhile to characterize the nature of the current food crisis and the real possibility that its persistence will lead to the collapse of the food system. Regaining popular and food sovereignty in decision-making becomes a central point of the agroecological scaling-up strategy. It is essential to discuss how to promote the metamorphosis of the food system and its gradual replacement by an alternative regime. Agroecological experiences are the foundation for this transformation.

3) Design and evaluation of public policies in favor of agroecology: The need to intervene in the State's political environment seems beyond doubt, given its capacity to impose an order favorable to agroecological practices. Otherwise, the transformative capacity of agroecological experiences will be neutralized, rejected, or stifled. The State is ultimately responsible for the dynamics of agroecosystems and their degree of sustainability. No single political actor (social movements or the State) can achieve the institutional changes necessary for scaling up agroecological experiences. Public policies are, therefore, an essential instrument for establishing a new, alternative regime for food systems. Many governments have been forced to implement public policies in favor of agroecology, at least nominally, under pressure from agroecological movements and public opinion, which is increasingly involved in defending food sovereignty. However, academic literature on public policies in favor of agroecology is very scarce, and reports from international organizations on this topic are even more limited. This would be the scope of inquiry for axis 3.