Agriculture and Human Values https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-023-10529-0 Intersectional coalitions towards a just agroecology: weaving mutual aid and agroecology in Barcelona and Seville Francesco Facchini1 · Daniel López‑García2 · Sergio Villamayor‑Tomas1 · Esteve Corbera1,3,4 Accepted: 4 December 2023 © The Author(s) 2023 Abstract Although in theory social justice is considered as a core dimension of agroecological transitions, alternative food initiatives related to agroecology have been criticised for their exclusionary practices based on important social and economic biases. In this article, we adopt the lens of political intersectionality to study two cases of Agroecology-oriented Food Redistribu- tion Coalitions in Spain that emerged to address the rising levels of food insecurity during the COVID-19 pandemic. We find that the coalitions represent a convergence of diverse social struggles, placing intersectionally marginalized groups at the centre of their activism. However, we also uncover that coalition members participate in different ways depending on their socioeconomic profiles, which could perpetuate inequalities in organizational practices. One major point of tension is the need to balance the goal of providing access to healthy and sustainable food with the affordability of such produce. This leads to the adoption of hybrid food networks that include conventionally produced food. We also highlight that while the predominance of women in these coalitions reflects the unequal distribution of food-related care work in society, the col- lectivization of such work through AFRCs practices points to a transformation of gender relations. Territorialized alliances between actors from urban and rural settings and between urban centers and peripheries are established through the coali- tions. However, such networks fall short on involving large numbers of agroecology-oriented initiatives and providing direct encounters between consumers and producers. Overall, the article underscores the importance of addressing intersecting inequalities within alternative food initiatives and argues that intersectional coalitions offer an intriguing example of how to promote such understanding and pave the way towards (more) just agroecological transitions. Keywords Agroecology · Intersectional coalitions · Convergence · Food insecurity · Mutual aid · COVID-19 Abbreviations AFRCs Agroecology-oriented food redistribution * Francesco Facchini coalitions francesco.facchini@uab.cat RAMUCA​ Red de redes de apoyo mutuo de Sevilla Daniel López‑García daniel.lopez@cchs.csic.es Sergio Villamayor‑Tomas Introduction sergio.villamayor@uab.cat Esteve Corbera The agroecological perspective was initially developed to esteve.corbera@uab.cat examine the negative effects of the green revolution on 1 Institute of Environmental Science and Technology, rural areas and propose sustainable agroecosystem man- Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (ICTA-UAB), UAB agement at the farm scale (Altieri 2018; Sevilla Guzmán Campus, 08193 Bellaterra, Spain 2006). However, the focus of agroecology has expanded 2 Institute of Economics, Geography and Emography, Spanish to encompass the transformation of the entire agri-food National Research Council (IEGD/CSIC), Albasanz 26‑28, system (Mason et al. 2021; Gliessman 2007), and to the 28037 Madrid, Spain analysis of power and governance aspects in transitions 3 Institució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avançats (ICREA), to agroecology-based food systems (Anderson et al. 2021; Passeig Lluís Companys 23, 08010 Barcelona, Spain González de Molina et al. 2019; Rosset and Altieri 2017). 4 Departament de Geografia, Universitat Autònoma de Despite claims that social justice is a core component of Barcelona, UAB Campus, 08193 Bellaterra, Spain Vol.:(0123456789) F. Facchini et al. agroecological transitions (Anderson et al. 2021; Sevilla or sexuality (Ciccia and Roggeband 2021; Crenshaw 1991; Guzmán and Woodgate 2013), the social dimension of alter- hooks 1986). native food initiatives promoting these transitions has been The COVID-19 pandemic also offers a relevant context to underexplored and primarily researched by white, male, assess the social promise of the agroecological movement. Global North scholars in Global South countries (Gómez Existing calls for transitions towards agroecology and food et al. 2012). This lack of attention to social justice has been sovereignty to provide alternatives to the corporate-driven criticized for potentially perpetuating class, gender, and race food regime have acquired new relevance in this conjunc- divides and promoting elitist consumption practices within ture (Van der Ploeg 2020; Altieri and Nicholls 2020; Loker alternative food movements (Simón-Rojo 2019; Zitcer 2015; and Francis 2020). A myriad of AFRCs emerged to tackle Goodman et al. 2012; Alkon and Agyeman 2011; Connelly the inequalities caused by the vulnerabilities of global food et al. 2011; Guthman 2011; Slocum 2007; Agyeman and systems based on industrial agriculture—that were exposed Evans 2004). during the pandemic (Rivera-Ferre et al. 2021; Clapp and In this article, we examine the potential of the con- Moseley 2020). The pandemic exacerbated already exist- cept of intersectional coalitions in understanding how the ing socio-economic inequalities, with an additional 5 mil- social justice dimension of agroecology is put in practice. lion people (from 119 to 124 million) pushed into extreme For this purpose, our research focuses on two case studies poverty during 2020 (Lakner et al. 2021). This also meant of food redistribution coalitions in Barcelona and Seville, a worldwide increase in food and nutritional insecurity lev- Spain, where different grassroots and Agroecology-oriented els (FSIN 2023; FAO 2021; HLPE 2020; IPES-Food 2020; Food Redistribution1 Coalitions (AFRCs)2 emerged during Khorsandi 2020). Said inequalities can be traced back to a COVID lock-downs (2020) to address the problems of rising food regime based on corporate power and neoliberal ideas food insecurity and hunger (Fernández de Casadevante et al. (Tilzey 2018; McMichael 2009), and rooted in a history 2022; Nel·lo and Checa 2022). These self-managed initia- of racist, patriarchal, and colonial relations that prioritise tives weave together a diverse array of social organizations capital accumulation over the right to food (Anderson et al. and individuals into intersectional coalitions converging 2021; Pimbert and Lemke 2018; Holt-Gimenez and Harper against food insecurity with an orientation towards agro- 2016). ecological principles. Drawing on such case studies, we ask: By promoting food redistribution practices based on What are the characteristics of these coalitions? How are mutual aid, solidarity and participatory governance, AFRCs intersectional axes of difference (class, gender, race and eth- also aimed to provide alternatives to conventional food aid nicity, territory) reflected upon and tackled in the coalitions? (Fernández de Casadevante et al. 2022; Nel·lo and Checa And what lessons can be learned from these experiences for 2022). In the context of processes of neoliberal reconfigura- the advancement of a (more) just agroecology? tion of state intervention and the dismantling of government Opening a dialogue with political intersectionality safety nets (Harvey 2007), food insecurity reduction in so- debates represents a way to tackle the social justice gap in called ‘rich’ countries of the Global North has mainly taken agroecological studies and practices. Political intersection- the form of food aid and has been uptaken by food banks, ality allows us to critically interrogate the ways in which philanthropic organizations and charities (Riches 2018). In different axes of inequality are combined in situations of Spain, 16% of the food-insecure population relied on these marginalization, and to investigate the creation of coalitions entities for food relief in 2021 (Moragues-Faus and Magaña- based on intersectional solidarity, i.e. forms of cooperation González 2022). Large numbers of leadership roles in Span- between groups that address a diversity of issues and injus- ish food banks are occupied by ex-representatives of the tices across social divisions, such as gender, class, ethnicity, agri-business industry, as part of a clear marriage between food philanthropy and the corporate world (Viladrich et al. 2018). The use of surplus produce to feed the hungry seems 1 We prefer to adopt the term ‘redistribution’ over ‘distribution’ or to be aligned with the interests of this sector globally, which ‘delivery’ to underscore the coalitions’ orientation towards food jus- annually throws away millions of tons of food that cannot tice, rather than mere food aid. be competitively placed in the market (Dowler 2003). This 2 Grassroots initiatives composed of networks of social organizations model responds to the logic of distributing ‘left-over’ food to and individuals that mobilize to collect and/or purchase food in local ‘left behind’ people (Riches 2018). Charities and food banks markets and shops and then redistribute it among food insecure peo- ple (mainly marginalized groups like women, migrants, and other dis- have been criticized as a form of ‘uncritical solidarity’ that advantaged communities). The redistribution of food happens based does not question structural causes of food insecurity (Pérez on mutual aid and collective action, with participants serving as both de Armiño 2014). It has been argued that these organizations volunteers and beneficiaries. In the considered case studies, mutual inadvertently contribute to the very food insecurity they aim aid initiatives created alliances with agroecology-oriented producers and retailers in order to redistribute sustainable, healthy food through to alleviate (Riches and Silvasti 2014; Poppendieck 2014; their networks. Dowler 2003). Intersectional coalitions towards a just agroecology: weaving mutual aid and agroecology… Theoretical framework of these initiatives has been highlighted and criticized by several authors (e.g. Zitcer 2015; Goodman et al. 2012; In this section, we draw attention to a noteworthy gap in Connelly et al. 2011; Guthman 2011; Slocum 2007; Agye- the study of social justice within agroecology literature. man and Evans 2004). In particular, critical accounts have We also delve into critical viewpoints that shed light on pointed out the potential exclusion from these ‘alterna- the socio-economic biases associated with agroecology- tives’ of a large part of society (Goodman et al. 2012). In oriented food initiatives. The concept of political inter- fact, there seems to be a social and economic bias as these sectionality is introduced and underlined, suggesting that spaces tend to be available only to those who have the bridging these fields can enrich our understanding of the economic means as well as social and cultural resources to social justice aspect of agroecology. This approach simul- access them (Guthman 2011). This potentially contributes taneously broadens the debate on political intersectionality to the reproduction of class, gender and race divides (Zit- beyond its traditional focus on feminist social movements. cer 2015; Goodman et al. 2012; Slocum 2007). Moreover, trends in political and ethical consumption of sustainable and healthy food can result in new forms of social dis- Agroecology and social justice tinction, whereby elitist practices within alternative food movements establish differences between those who eat Agroecology is a holistic approach that comprises a set good food and others who are ‘industrial eaters’ (Alkon of farming methods, a science and a social movement and Agyeman 2011). In some cases, alternative food initia- (Rivera-Ferre 2018; Wezel et al. 2009). It integrates issues tives as those related to agroecology have also been found such as food sovereignty, food security and agency (HLPE to promote both farmers’ and consumers’ self-exploitation, 2019), and has been presented as “the ecology of the entire showing some negative features hidden by ‘moral econ- food system” (Mason et al. 2020). Agroecologists strongly omy’ discourses (Galt 2013). argue for fair bottom-up governance and multi-actor par- Most literature addressing social (in)justice in agroeco- ticipatory processes as ways to tackle power imbalances logical transitions focuses on gender and emerges from the in food systems transitions towards agroecology (López- intersections with feminist scholarship and practice (e.g. Di García et al. 2021; Anderson et al. 2021; Méndez et al. Masso et al. 2022; Silva et al. 2022; Zaremba et al. 2021; 2017), along what has been called ‘Political Agroecology’ Maisano 2019; Morales et al. 2018; Zuluaga Sánchez et al. (González de Molina et al. 2019). Assemblages of different 2018; Busconi 2017; Khadse 2017; Siliprandi 2015; Pérez actors along the food chain, as well as non-human actors and Soler 2013). Less attention has been given to the study and infrastructures, are needed in order to enable food of how injustice and inequalities emerge from the intersec- movements and agroecology-oriented farmers to access tionality of social divisions that include, but are not limited the decision-making spaces regarding food systems sus- to, gender differences. tainability (López-García and González de Molina 2021; Marsden et al. 2018). Claims for the scaling of a trans- Political intersectionality, coalitions and food justice formative agroecology highlight the importance of the creation of plural subjects and coalitions with other move- The term “intersectionality” emerged from the critiques and ments and struggles, especially in the urban contexts of struggles of Black feminists in the United States (e.g. Collins the Global North (Anderson et al. 2021; López-García and 2015; Crenshaw 1991; hooks 1986; Davis 1983; Combahee González de Molina 2021; Tornaghi and Dehaene 2020; River Collective 1977), subsequently joined by racialized Dale 2019), while grassroots experiences are pointing at and indigenous women from across the globe. These activ- the creation of an intersectional agroecological movement ists challenged the class and race biases dominating main- (Snipstal 2017). stream feminist discourses, which had primarily centered Despite the theoretical claim that social justice and on the experiences of middle-class, Western white women. equity represent core dimensions of alternative food net- Intersectionality points at “how lived identities, structural works and broader agroecological transitions (Anderson systems, sites of marginalization, forms of power, and et al. 2021; Sevilla Guzmán and Woodgate 2013; Dumont modes of resistance intersect in dynamic, shifting ways” et al. 2016; Feenstra 1997), the social dimension of (May 2020, p. 21). It advocates for matrix-based analysis alternative food initiatives has been explored much less of systems of oppression and coalitional responses that go compared to the environmental one, and has been mainly beyond single-axis orientations to challenge systematic ine- developed by white, male and Global North researchers in qualities (Collins 2015). In particular, political intersection- Global South countries (Gómez et al. 2012). The lack of ality focuses on intersectionality as a praxis (Townsend-Bell attention to social justice in the study of the sustainability 2009), and has been mainly applied in the analysis of women and feminist social movements (e.g. Irvine et al. 2019; Roth F. Facchini et al. 2017; Lépinard 2014; Verloo 2013; Ferree 2009; Beckwith and Patel-Campillo 2014). While mainstream approaches 2000). Political intersectionality critically analyzes the ways to food insecurity rely on market-based solutions and neo- in which disadvantaged groups are (or are not) represented liberal ideas, a radical feminist stance on food insecurity and empowered within organizations, and the creation of points at tackling the issue from a food justice perspective coalitions3 across different social divisions, such as gender, (Sachs and Patel-Campillo 2014). Some authors have also class, ethnicity, sexuality, etc. (Collins and Chepp 2013). pointed out the need to link food justice and environmental Based on political strategies of convergence (Borras et al. sustainability approaches to address food insecurity, around 2018; Tramel 2018), these alliances between movements the ideas of agroecology and food sovereignty (Di Masso are considered examples of 'intersectional solidarity', that et al. 2022; HLPE 2019). is, forms of cooperation between groups mobilizing differ- ent constituencies defined by social divisions (Ciccia and Roggeband 2021; Townsend-Bell 2021). Intersectional soli- Methodology darity involves an “ongoing process of creating ties and coa- litions across social group differences by negotiating power The use of case studies has been a recurring feature in inter- asymmetries” (Tormos 2017, p. 712). Some authors aim to sectional analysis of social movements and coalitions (e.g. identify levels of intensity and ‘transformative potential’ Acciari 2021; Alver 2021; Corradi 2021; von Wahl 2021; of intersectional solidarity (Ciccia and Roggeband 2021), Terriquez et al. 2018). This can be traced back to the tradi- while others draw on the idea of active solidarity to examine tion of intensive case study research in social sciences that the degree to which movements enact intersectional soli- emphasizes the complexities of social life and allows to darity in their organizational practices (Einwohner 2019). delve into its diversity, variation, and heterogeneity (McCall Other studies focusing on coalitions from an intersectional 2005; Ragin 2000). This article draws on two case studies of perspective have pointed to the role of ‘bridge actors’ and intersectional coalitions in the city of Seville and the metro- how their engagement in a decolonial-intersectional logic of politan area of Barcelona. These coalitions bring together a action can be essential in the construction of these alliances diverse array of social organizations and individuals, which (Townsend-Bell 2021; Roth 2004). Problems associated in turn mobilize different social and political constituencies with these coalitions have also been documented, such as the to address the enhanced food security challenges brought by ossification of LGBTQ+ and immigrant rights movement the pandemic. The two coalitions redistributed food based alliances around goals that matter to the most privileged on mutual aid relations, inspired by agroecological princi- segments of their respective communities (Adam 2017). ples. However, they differed in the extent to which these Calls have been made for an extension of the intersec- principles were translated in practice, as will be shown later. tionality debate beyond feminist movements, and also to the They also differed in their level of institutional formaliza- ones not necessarily defined by gender, sexual orientation, tion and working logic, e.g. in features such as the degree class, or race—e.g. the environmental or the agroecological of formalization and spontaneity of the initiatives, the more movement—as every social movement is shaped by multiple or less centralized logistics, or the contextual nature of their intersecting inequalities and power dynamics (Roth 2021; action. These differences and similarities made these cases Einwohner 2019; Collins and Chepp 2013). Such extensions relevant to make eventual comparisons. of the debate should recognize the role and struggle of Black Fieldwork activities were conducted by the first author feminism in the development of intersectionality theory, in both cities, between November and June 2022. These and be aware of not reproducing the very political relations consisted of 25 semi-structured, in-depth interviews with intersectionality scholarship critiques and sets to transform mutual aid group members, farmers, promoters, shop owners (Hancock 2016). The adoption of intersectionality con- and a cooperative representative. Interviewees were selected cerns in agroecology-related literature is still incipient and according to purposive sampling and snowballing (Kelly mostly related to food sovereignty and food justice struggles 2010), based on each individual’s role in each coalition (e.g. Motta 2021; Montenegro de Wit 2021; Smith 2019; (See Table 1). Interviews were realized in Spanish and trans- Bezner Kerr et al. 2018; Brent et al. 2015; Sachs and Patel- lated by the first author. Participant observation was also Campillo 2014). In fact, food insecurity and hunger often conducted to triangulate interview insights with the direct converge in marginalized social groups as a result of inter- involvement in the two selected AFRCs. Since the initia- locking systems of class, race, gender, and ethnicity (Sachs tive in Seville ended after the most dramatic moment of the pandemic (March-June 2020), direct engagement in this case was limited to a community kitchen that was still considered 3 an element of the formerly existing coalition. In Barcelona, Fundamentally, coalitions refer to situations where different social movement organizations collaborate to achieve a shared objective participant observations were realized during the activities (Van Dyke and McCammon 2010). of the cooperative that deals with the logistics of Alterbanc, Intersectional coalitions towards a just agroecology: weaving mutual aid and agroecology… Table 1  Fieldwork activities and interviews characteristics Alterbanc RAMUCA​ Total interviews n = 11 n = 14 Gender of interviewees Male (n = 6); Female (n = 5); Non-binary (n = 0) Male (n = 3); Female (n = 11); Non-binary (n = 0) Role of interviewees Farmer/Producer participant in coalition (n = 4) Farmer/Producer participant in coalition (n = 2) Mutual aid group participant in coalition (n = 4) Mutual aid group participant in coalition (n = 9) Alterbanc promoter (n = 2) Shop owner (n = 3) Logistics cooperative representative (n = 1) Participant observation Logistics cooperative activities: organizing and delivering produce Community kitchen activities: cooking, prepara- bought by Alterbanc; tion and redistribution of meals; Mutual aid groups activities in two neighborhoods: assemblies, col- lection of surplus food from shops and markets, preparation and redistribution of food boxes; as well as in food redistribution events and assemblies of two to the agroecological movement and especially to the con- mutual aid groups. Participant observation in the two set- sidered food initiatives by facilitating spaces for debate and tings especially allowed us to investigate more in-depth the reflection. The study design initially entailed a participatory social relations that characterized each initiative. Interview process to delve more thoroughly into the relation of the transcriptions and field notes were coded and analyzed with coalitions with agroecology and their potential to enhance NVivo software. The coding process involved two rounds: the social justice dimension of agroecological transitions. the initial round employed an inductive approach to identify However, different factors prevented the realization of this recurring themes and arguments, while the second round process. Notably, activists deeply involved in numerous ini- was dedicated to refining and systematizing themes informed tiatives expressed reservations about participating in addi- by theoretical considerations. Interview excerpts were cho- tional processes due to feelings of being overwhelmed and sen to highlight and support the main argument, with a focus a lack of free time. Some research participants also raised on their relevance to patterns observed in the broader data- concerns about being involved in too many interviews and set, representing more general views. research activities without witnessing meaningful feedback We believe that adopting a political intersectional per- from the academic community. Furthermore, others under- spective also implies acknowledging that knowledge itself— scored the limitations of participatory methodologies based including the one produced in this article—is situated (Hara- on past experiences, even pointing out potential manipula- way 1988) and that “data, facts, and experiences are always tive consequences associated with participatory research. ‘located’ in terms of gender, class, race/ethnicity, color/cast, sexuality, culture, language, status, age, ability, and geopolit- ical background” (Corradi 2021, p. 153). For this reason, we Characterizing the AFRCs consider important to unveil our own positionality. Although we may differ in the degree of work precariousness in the Background academic context, we are all white-skinned cis-men situated geopolitically in the Global North. We consider ourselves to In the neighborhoods of many Spanish cities and metropoli- be working towards self-awareness of the social, economic tan areas different grassroots, AFRCs have emerged dur- and political privileges that this position guarantees us. Our ing the lockdowns related to COVID-19 sanitary control direct involvement with the agroecological movement var- measures in the spring of 2020. AFRCs aimed to address ies, but we share the willingness to contribute with critical the problems of rising poverty, food insecurity and hunger reflections to address and question its biases. This commit- (Fernández de Casadevante et al. 2022; Nel·lo and Checa ment guided our decision to initiate this study, as we iden- 2022). AFRCs share similar features with the solidarity food tified several captivating aspects within AFRCs related to banks and pantries that were established in Spain during and both the overcoming and the reproduction of such biases. after the 2008 economic recession, and with other solidar- The connection of some of the authors to the Spanish agro- ity networks that emerged in Southern European countries ecological movement also played a role in the selection of to provide services and goods—beyond food—in response the case studies. In these specific instances, we recognized to neoliberalization processes and austerity measures in the that agroecological activists played pivotal roles in guiding aftermath of the economic and immigration ‘crises’ (see coalitions, steering them towards agroecological principles. Carney 2021; Villamayor-Tomas and García-López 2021; As we started this project, our idea was also to give support Alberich 2016; Cabot 2016; Rakopoulos 2016). Neoliberal F. Facchini et al. conditions of austerity and privatization indirectly contribute Alterbanc uses such funds to buy fresh fruits and veg- to the creation of systems of mutual aid that concurrently etables from the peri-urban agroecology-oriented farmers function as forms of protest, organizing and social care (Izlar who have joined the network, and pay for the logistics work 2019). Solidarity networks offer community-based care and provided by a distribution cooperative. A truck collects the support services to both citizens and non-citizens—includ- produce from the outskirts of Barcelona and delivers it to ing immigrants and refugees—bypass market intermediaries mutual aid groups that exist in distinct neighborhoods of the and temporarily serve as a substitute for state welfare (Rako- metropolitan area—known as xarxes de suport mutu.6 These poulos 2015). Besides neoliberal processes, the pandemics groups also collect surplus food in local markets and shops, conjuncture determined a renewed emergence and preva- and place it together with the organic fruits and vegetables lence of such networks, as part of how oppressed communi- from Alterbanc in boxes that are distributed among food- ties ensured their ‘collective survival’ to the crisis (Bell et al. insecure members. Alterbanc is thought of as a collaboration 2019). In the context of food actions, these voluntary asso- between collectives that are considered to be marginalized ciations are considered to be pursuing a ‘critical’ solidarity by capitalism and the corporate food regime, especially peo- leaning toward food justice, and are often part of broader ple suffering food insecurity and food poverty, and economi- movements that aim to transform social conditions, with cally precarious small-scale agroecology-oriented farmers. food being just one of their many grievances (Bell 2021; Alterbanc claims to empower and dignify the participating Viladrich et al. 2018). Participants in these initiatives are collectives by acknowledging the work of farmers—by pay- considered to be both volunteers and recipients of help, fol- ing a fair price for their produce—as well as the right of lowing a community-based approach rooted in collective marginalized people to fresh and quality food. Alterbanc action (Viladrich et al. 2018; Shepard 2015). promoters frame it as an alternative, agroecology-oriented AFRCs redistribute surplus foodstuffs from shops and model to conventional food aid, an example that they want supermarkets, conventional food purchased ex-profeso in to give to show—especially to the local government insti- small retailers, as well as fresh produce provided by peri- tutions—that there can be another way of addressing the urban agroecology-oriented farmers among the neighbors problem of food insecurity. Alterbanc’s advocacy efforts – especially women, migrants and marginalized social groups. encountered various obstacles, ranging from bureaucratic These self-managed initiatives often weave together a diverse red tape to legal constraints within the administrative sys- array of social organizations and individuals, such as neigh- tem. The primary outcome was sporadic funding acquisition, borhood community groups, grassroots unions, agroecol- rather than a more transversal and transformative shift in ogy-oriented farmers, local grocery shops, and associations local food aid policy. struggling for women’s and migrants’ rights. They can thus be The Red de redes de apoyo mutuo de Sevilla (RAMUCA)7 conceived as coalitions in which different social movements also emerged in the first days after the declaration of the pan- (neighborhood, feminist, agroecological, migrants’ rights, sex demic. A group of activists from the city center was worried workers’ rights, etc.) converge against food insecurity with an about the potential impact that the pandemic would have on orientation towards agroecological principles. urban disadvantaged groups. RAMUCA aimed then to create a mutual aid group and a solidarity fund to support people Case studies’ history, functioning and objectives hit by the crisis, including precarious or informal workers who lost their jobs or elderly people who were afraid of Created in the spring of 2020, as soon as the COVID-19 going to the groceries. The initiative spread rapidly from pandemic started its dramatic outspread, Alterbanc defines the center to other neighborhoods of the city, leading to the itself as an ‘agroecological food bank’4 that aims to redis- creation of twenty-eight mutual aid groups in a few weeks, tribute organic and fresh produce to marginalized people which became known as ramuquitas. Several taxi drivers through mutual aid groups based on solidarity and partici- also supported the network, by delivering food, medicines, pation. Although Alterbanc started as an informal network or clothing. A ‘food group’—encompassing mostly women of activists and farmers, it soon became a formal associa- engaged in the local agroecological movement—was also tion in order to be eligible for public funding, which soon established to collect help demands and offers, and channel after arrived together with individual donations and private donations accordingly. Each ramuquita established a con- grants.5 nection with a local grocery store, where the donation of the person who wanted to collaborate was gathered. The money was devoted to buying fresh vegetables and basic foodstuff at 4 https://​alter​banc.​org/ 5 Public funding was obtained on different occasions by the munici- pality and the autonomous community government, while private 6 money came from individuals, philanthropic foundations and solidar- Mutual aid networks. 7 ity economy foundations. Network of mutual aid networks of Seville. Intersectional coalitions towards a just agroecology: weaving mutual aid and agroecology… Table 2  Participant profiles based on socioeconomic characteristics and forms of participation Race and Ethnicity Class Gender Previous involvement Forms of participation in social movements Profile 1 Racialized people, migrants, Lower Predominance of women No Majority in mutual aid groups pueblo gitano Profile 2 White people, Spanish origin Middle / Predominance of women Yes Majority in steering groups Lower middle and coordination the store, while the individual or family needing support was common to other mutual aid groups in Barcelona’s metro- invited to collect it. Agroecology-oriented producers also politan area, and to RAMUCA as well, especially in the col- contributed to the network with food donations. The initia- laboration with a community kitchen working with women tive worked autonomously from local administrations, and victims of gender-based violence—mainly coming from the activity of RAMUCA ended shortly after the pandemic’s Latin America—and an association for the rights of immi- lockdown period, when activists joined other local social grants with African origins. RAMUCA also encounters the organizations in a public denouncement of the unrespon- struggle of Sevilla’s sex workers who self-organized for the siveness and inefficiency of the local government and other recognition of their rights and denounced the injustices cre- institutional actors to address the social issues exacerbated ated by current related legislation. One of the leaders of this by the crisis, including food security. group explained in an interview how the pandemic made their work impossible, like other informal jobs. RAMU- Diversity in coalitions and intersectionality CA’s donations and support contributed to alleviating their of struggles already precarious living conditions, and provided an oppor- tunity to meet other activists and organizations. As reported The two studied AFRCs emerged as diverse assemblages by the activist, the ‘Feminisms of the Souths’9 is a new ini- of a wide array of organizations and initiatives that belong tiative that: “Began to be woven in times of pandemic, when to different social movements. In Hospitalet del Llobregat they would call me from another collective, for example, (metropolitan area of Barcelona), the mutual aid group that the day laborers or the caregivers, […] because there were works with Alterbanc has been mainly promoted by local comrades who had no place to sleep and were sleeping on solidarity economy initiatives, but is based on a complex the street” (Mutual aid group participant 1, RAMUCA). The network structured in nodes. In these nodes, collaborative alliance—seeking feminism from below and pushing against relations—e.g. channeling donations or goods, exchang- mainstream and institutionalized versions of it—reunites day ing information, providing spaces for redistribution activi- laborers of the massive greenhouses of Huelva, caregivers ties, etc.—are created among remarkably different sorts of collectives, sex workers and other feminist organizations and social actors. The network is weaved together by commu- individuals. In this encounter, the sex workers’ collective is nity groups such as formal neighborhood associations, but also getting to know about new topics such as sustainable also by migrant women groups who help each other while farming and agroecology. struggling for their rights, entities that represent the pueblo gitano8 and promote their culture in the neighborhood, as well as grassroots initiatives who advocate for basic hous- Exploring political intersectionality in AFRCs ing rights. Economic actors are also present in the network, including the above-mentioned local solidarity economy Participant profiles and forms of participation initiatives, organic or conventional food retail shops and agroecology-oriented cooperatives and farmers. Two participant profiles can be identified in the studied Through the relations that are created across this network, AFRCs according to their socioeconomic background the objective of the mutual aid groups and their practices (Table 2). The first profile is predominant in the mutual intersect with other issues and struggles. In Hospitalet, it aid groups, and larger in size. It mainly includes women, mainly encounters the struggle of migrant, racialized women lower-class, racialized or migrated people who did not nec- working as caregivers and the pueblo gitano, both margin- essarily have previous experience in social movements and alized social groups mobilizing to face different sorts of grassroots political action. Having a precarious economy oppression. The intersection with migrant organizations is 9 https://​www.​elsal​todia​r io.​com/​femin​ismos/​la-​revol​ucion-​de-​las-​ 8 Romani people. comad​res F. Facchini et al. is a distinguishing element of people in this profile. As a “The tenders [mainstream food banks] make purchases ramuquita coordinator in the working-class neighborhood that are very detached from the territory; they are of Pino Montano points out: “They were either single-parent mainly tuna, milk, canned food […] There is another families, or migrants who did not have any resources at that side of the coin, they are distributing junk food. […] It time. Families of gitanos who were going through very bad seems very irresponsible to me that the public admin- times and then families with a very precarious economy, istration is promoting this type of food. It’s like saying who could not rely on other safety nets” (Mutual aid par- ‘you are poor, eat some Doritos and shut up!’” (Logis- ticipant 2, RAMUCA). In Barcelona, participants of the tics cooperative representative, Alterbanc). mutual aid groups share similar characteristics with those Farmers contributing to both AFRCs shared this criti- of ramuquitas and they predominantly include migrated cal view, and emphasized the right of impoverished social women with children, who were either unemployed or held groups to healthy and fresh produce. For instance, farm- informal jobs as caregivers. ers who have joined Alterbanc declared to be aware of the The second profile—named ‘steering group members’ limitations of sustainable food in terms of accessibility, and hereafter—is predominant in the steering groups which often stated that in their projects they are trying to offer initially promoted the initiatives and mainly assumed coor- fairer prices. Nevertheless, with Alterbanc their produce dinating roles. Both in Alterbanc and RAMUCA, the indi- arrives to people who could not prioritize these foods over viduals who started the initiatives are white lower-middle to others at all, because they are in a much more precarious middle-class activists who were already involved in social situation compared to the ones they usually work with. movements before the pandemic and were born in Spain. Mutual aid group members appreciated, indeed, the qual- As one of the interviewees explains, in the RAMUCA food ity of the fresh produce received. One of them noted: group: “We were around ten people, coming from social movements, some producers, a baker, etc. I would say most “For sure you notice the quality, you cannot compare of us, if not all, were activists from social movements, espe- a celery arriving from Alterbanc with a celery that cially from the agroecological movement for food sover- we collect from the market, they are different things. eignty” (Mutual aid group participant 3, RAMUCA). In And people are very happy knowing that we have the Alterbanc the steering group is also formed by white peo- donation of Alterbanc because their products are very ple active in environmentalist, agroecology and solidarity good, they are organic, and the taste is also different” economy movements, most of them men. All of these par- (Mutual aid group participant 1, Alterbanc). ticipants rely on an income thanks to more or less precarious However, the food redistributed through AFRCs is gen- jobs in the field of agroecology and the social and solidarity erally not sustainable or organic. In the case of Barcelona, economy – some in logistics and advisory cooperatives, oth- mutual aid groups rely on other sources of provision besides ers as producers, and others as researchers. Alterbanc. The food collected with them in local shops and Women’s predominance in the steering and the mutual markets during the participant observations is mostly pro- aid groups was a remarkable feature of both AFRCs. The duced conventionally. Likewise, even though the promoters RAMUCA food group was composed of women only, and of RAMUCA belong to the agroecological movement and the report they produced to measure their estimated impact try to collaborate with farmers and local agroecology-ori- noted that over 70% of food package beneficiaries were also ented shops and cooperatives, most of the food they actu- women (RAMUCA 2020). In Barcelona, mutual aid groups ally redistribute is also bought in conventional local shops. were also mostly female, with men being rarely involved. A recurring source of internal debates in the coalitions is The only exception is Alterbanc’s steering group which has the tension between the prices of sustainable and local pro- a stronger presence of men compared to women. duce and the need to cover the food security needs of as many people as possible. As an agroecological activist and Alternative food redistribution activities researcher reports in Seville: “Agroecological products are more expensive because we seek a fair remuneration for the The main objective of Alterbanc and RAMUCA is the farmers, and this leads to contradictions when considering redistribution of food, but steering group members are very the right to food or proposing campaigns for food insecurity specific about the fact that it is not just any kind of food. reduction” (Mutual aid group participant 4, RAMUCA). Interviewees across both initiatives suggested that they rep- Steering group members from both cities note that debates resented an alternative to conventional food aid, which is emerged recurrently as many AFRCs participants proposed normally based on low quality surplus from large distribu- to buy or collect food in large supermarkets instead, in order tion companies and industrial agriculture. For example, a to obtain more food with fewer resources. In disadvantaged member of the agroecological logistics cooperative which neighborhoods away from the city center of Seville, buying collaborates with Alterbanc suggested that: Intersectional coalitions towards a just agroecology: weaving mutual aid and agroecology… organic or agroecological foods was not even considered as cases seemed to give less space to debate compared to the an option. matter of quality and production practices, and food was According to the research participants, the issue of con- distributed according to the specific needs of participants. trasting prices across food produce is linked to a broader problem concerning the perceived exclusivity of sustainable Solidarity relations and quality foods within public opinion, and the actual class and cultural biases of the agroecological movement. In both Mutual aid and solidarity are the most important principles coalitions, activists highlighted how the price barrier results that inspire the work of AFRCs. As an interviewee in Bar- in a discourse affirming that agroecological consumption celona explained, “This project is based on ‘you give me is only for the middle-class, the bourgeois, the ‘eco-posh’. and I give you’. You give me your energy, you give me your For an interviewee in Seville, this class bias is not just a time, it doesn’t need to be a whole day, even if it is just an perception based on a discourse, but a reality, inasmuch as hour, two hours a week, and then on Saturday the products “Unfortunately, agroecological initiatives move in a field are distributed equally to all people” (Mutual aid group par- of privilege that is very difficult to relocate or deconstruct, ticipant 1, Alterbanc). These principles are translated to reci- precisely because a large part of the consumers belonging procity and horizontal relations among participants, which to agroecological initiatives come from socioeconomic con- according to the latter distinguish them from conventional texts quite far from those where processes of food insecurity charities. While charities are based on a difference between occur” (Mutual aid group participant 4, RAMUCA). ‘the helper’ and the ‘helped’—inevitably putting the latter These biases and differences in privileges also point to on a lower level—food insecure people joining the mutual the problem of who has the right to decide over what is an aid groups participate directly in the activities needed for the appropriate diet. In RAMUCA, a steering group member redistribution to work, such as food collection and placing reported an anecdote of an issue that originated a lot of dis- in boxes, or the assemblies where these activities are coor- cussion within the AFRC: dinated and organized. The horizontality provided by the solidarity relation does “A boy from a supermarket in the 3000 Viviendas, not correspond to a homogeneity in the forms and frequency which is a very disadvantaged neighborhood in Seville, of participation of AFRCs members. In both cases, it was sent a shopping list for €50. He managed to squeeze in observed that there was normally a leading group of people many things. He is from that neighborhood and hangs who were responsible for most of the tasks, while many oth- out every day with these people. He said ‘Look, for ers only joined in specific and easier jobs, or just showed up 50 euros I offer all this. I know this is what people eat to collect food. Mutual aid and steering group members in here’. And some comrades began to propose another Barcelona seem to accept these unequal degrees of partici- shopping list for that small supermarket, following pation, and in some cases highlighted that it is important to agroecological criteria. […] On the one hand, it was acknowledge the diversity of ways in which a member can okay, we were all for agroecology, but on the other contribute: “There are people who will not be interested in hand, where the hell are we leaving the class axis? being in the space where to think about the organization, […] It generated a lot of conflict for me. […] Intersec- there can be people who are just interested in more specific tionality was conspicuous by its absence every time tasks such as unloading the truck, more logistical tasks'' agroecology was put above anything else” (Mutual aid (Mutual aid group participant 2, Alterbanc). RAMUCA’s group participant 5, RAMUCA). model based on private donations and activists coordinat- As previously stated, the RAMUCA food group, com- ing the purchase and delivery of groceries also relates to pelled by the pressing demand to meet increased food a diversity of participation practices. As pointed out by an requirements, quickly moved away from agroecological- interviewee, “There were people putting their bodies and only criteria. Instead, they began to collaborate with local others supporting economically” (Mutual aid group partici- conventional food retailers yet excluded large supermarkets. pant 1, RAMUCA). In many cases, this diversity reflected The ramuquitas were always let free to decide what to offer the social and class differences between areas of the city, in food boxes. Mutual aid groups participants in both cities with central neighborhoods being the main origins of dona- talked about nutritious and quality food—highlighting the tions and peripheral ones the main receivers. importance of working with local actors against the power Such diversity of participation strategies facilitates of large corporations of food retail—while its sustainability widespread engagement, but is not exempt from problems and relation to agroecology often took second place. Fur- and contradictions. One of the steering group members thermore, it was always stressed how important it was to in Hospitalet explained how the conditions of marginali- adapt food boxes’ content to participants’ realities, including zation of the neighborhood resulted in the multiplication religion, or the number of children in the household. These of public social services and social economy cooperatives F. Facchini et al. interventions. According to her, such a welfarist model has got together thanks to empathy, acknowledging the needs of contributed to the spread of a culture of passive expectation others, and the fact that today you are middle class and that of help among the most vulnerable residents, which needs tomorrow you are lower class” (Mutual aid group participant to be addressed and is not always easily subverted through 1, RAMUCA). the mutual aid group. In Seville, RAMUCA is more clearly divided between ‘help givers’, including the food group in Territorial networks the center and the ramuquitas in the other neighborhoods, and ‘help receivers’, including those collecting food boxes. Alterbanc and RAMUCA established important alliances As one of the founders of the food group highlighted in an across spaces and territories in two ways, between the rural interview: and the urban and between the center and the periphery in urban areas. Alterbanc connects mutual aid groups and soli- “The aid was actually mutual among some people, darity economy projects in the neighborhoods of Barcelona and then other people used the services. But come on, with peri-urban and rural agroecology-oriented farmers. The in those moments you're not going to get purist. Of promoters of the initiative highlighted how while belong- course, there would be about 200 or 300 people who ing to different spaces, the city and the rural or peri-urban were part of the network. That does not mean that the areas, the two groups share situations of precariousness and help was only between them, they helped other people marginalization, and form an alliance in order to face them. who may not be actively involved in the network. […] A key actor in facilitating the intersection between the two In the end, it had its share of welfarism, and its share groups and spaces is an agroecology-oriented logistics coop- of mutual aid, self-management of a part that provides erative, which deals with collecting the produce from the help and support to another part” (Mutual aid group farms and transporting it to the neighborhood where it will participant 5, RAMUCA). be redistributed by the mutual aid groups. In the case of Many interviewees pointed out that the solidarity rela- Seville, the relations with farmers coming from peri-urban tions developed through Alterbanc and RAMUCA were and rural contexts are more loose, mainly consisting in underpinned by feelings of love, care, and empathy. The exceptional solidarity donations of fresh vegetables and meat coordinator of a community kitchen part of RAMUCA from agroecology-oriented farmers. However, RAMUCA describes these relationships as: “Bonds, or love pacts allows for the coordination and organization between the that have to do with the acceptance and understanding of center and the periphery of the city, which according to the other, the other in his/her singularity, that you do not the research participants is something unusual for the local intend to change, what you want is to share lentils, love, social movements’ context. As an experienced activist from hope and political activism” (Mutual aid group participant the central neighborhood of La Macarena pointed out: 6, RAMUCA). The initiative is organized by a non-profit “There were ramuquitas in neighborhoods that are feminist organization that offers support to women who never structured with (social movements from) the have been victims of violence, and provides them with a rest of Seville, (and) […] that has never happened safe space to share different sorts of activities. The com- in Seville. […] There were Poligono Sur, Poligono munity kitchen was initially thought of as an opportunity San Pablo, Cerro Amate, Pajaritos, (peripheral and to spend time together, share food and recipes and social- impoverished) neighborhoods that historically […] ize. The kitchen’s life stories heard during fieldwork were do not coordinate with us (from city central neighbor- tragic but the atmosphere cheerful, with people laughing and hoods) […], because we do not know how to do it, dancing ‘cumbia’. Besides the beneficial effects that taking among other things. On this occasion we were close care of each other has on the participants in the kitchen, the to thirty territories, coordinated and organized. And kitchen’s coordinator explained that care assumes a political that was very exciting” (Mutual aid group participant value through the project. Empathy is pointed out by par- 5, RAMUCA). ticipants in both AFRCs as a facilitating factor in bringing together individuals who have different life histories, belong Although territorial alliances are established through to distinct social classes, and come from diverse countries. the coalitions, the number of agroecology-oriented produc- Some interviewees highlighted that the conditions given by tion and distribution initiatives that are involved in these the COVID-19 crises provided an opportunity to be more networks is limited, and these have some specific charac- empathetic across classes, as many people that thought to teristics. They are mostly economically consolidated pro- be able to rely on an economic security—and to belong to jects, in which participants are used to dedicate time to the ‘middle class’—were suddenly vulnerabilized because activism, beyond their economic activity. An interviewee they could not work. As a RAMUCA member pointed out: from the cooperative that collaborates logistically with “Here in Seville what I saw was that many of our comrades Alterbanc emphasized that only three out of the fourteen Intersectional coalitions towards a just agroecology: weaving mutual aid and agroecology… agroecological farms which regularly participate in the on an increased acknowledgment of the interconnectedness cooperative displayed a genuine commitment to Alterbanc. of multiple crises and issues created by patriarchal capital- In this regard, and based on fieldwork insights and inter- ism and corporate-led food systems (Borras 2018; Tramel views, three main reasons for such limited engagement can 2018). Recognizing oppression as constituted by multiple be identified. First, a lack of a political culture of grass- and interacting social structures, activists in social move- roots participation in decision-making might be discourag- ments are more and more aware of the intersectionality of ing agroecological practitioners from joining assemblies or lived experience, showing what has been called ‘intersec- seeing the AFRCs as a priority for their farms. Second, the tional consciousness’ (Greenwood 2008). This awareness economic precariousness that characterizes many agroecol- manifested clearly in the way mutual aid groups have cared ogy-oriented farmers often results in them being worried for vulnerable members of their community during the pan- about their own livelihoods, rather than being focused on demic, in the considered case studies and elsewhere (e.g. projects that may benefit other disadvantaged social actors, Lofton et al. 2022; Lloro 2021; Markowitz 2020). Activists such as the AFRCs. Third, the difficult conciliation of work specifically identified women, elders, migrants and other and family life is also a barrier to participating in AFRCs, racialized groups, low-income families, and the unemployed especially for female farmers. because of their unique vulnerability to COVID-19 and the Another challenge observed in the establishment of ter- resulting economic and food insecurity issues. Intersectional ritorial alliances was the limited number of direct encoun- consciousness is the basis for intersectional solidarity and ters between consumers and producers that occurred in the intersectional activism (Tormos 2017; Doetsch-Kidder coalitions, at least during fieldwork. As the agroecological 2012), which in the studied cases emerged in different ways. model is normally based on the creation of close relation- Intersectional forms of solidarity adopt a strategy of affirma- ships between these actors, Alterbanc’s contributing farm- tive advocacy (Strolovitch 2007), which entails redirecting ers initially proposed to create opportunities for encounters, the political agenda—and the allocation of resources—of such as farm visits. However, even after the end of lockdown social movement organizations, interest groups, and advo- mobility restrictions these farm visits have never been real- cacy groups to the issues that affect intersectionally mar- ized. Some tentative attempts to engage with consumers ginalized groups. In both RAMUCA and Alterbanc, activ- entailed farmers sending instructional videos to the mutual ists mobilized to redistribute resources to marginalized aid groups featuring recipes on how to prepare specific groups—with a clear reorientation of goals in the case of vegetables. agroecology activists and farmers—and made pressure on governmental institutions to tackle their issues. Concerning political advocacy, the studied coalitions show an intersec- Discussion tional approach by advocating for policies that address mul- tiple forms of oppression, e.g. the lack of access to healthy The coalitions studied in this article weaved together a very and sustainable food for marginalized social groups and the diverse array of actors and created platforms where dif- marginalization of small-scale agroecology-oriented farm- ferent struggles intersect and are tackled simultaneously. ers by the corporate food regime in the case of Alterbanc. While the main goal of the coalitions was to address food However, the efforts of coalitions to change public policies insecurity, the convergence among such diversity of social hardly obtained results, and point to the need for critical organizations, economic actors and individuals allowed for reflections on the role of state institutions in the scaling of an encounter among social movements and struggles. The agroecology (González de Molina et al. 2019; Giraldo and concerns for the sustainability of food systems raised by Rosset 2017; Levidow et al. 2014). agroecological activists and farmers not only met the need Advanced forms of intersectional solidarity— to feed food insecure people and ensure food justice, but ‘transformative praxis’ (Ciccia and Roggeband 2021)— also the struggle for dignified housing, sex workers’ rights, entail that organizations involved in coalitions adopt alter- the fight against violence on women and the recognition of native ‘politics of accountability’, i.e., critical scrutiny of migrated and racialized people’s rights. Considering Motta’s organizational practices and the use of inclusive forms (2021) typology of food movements, the studied coalitions of deliberation to counter the (re)production of inequali- bridge across alternative food movements, food justice ties both within and between collaborating organizations movements and feminist food movements, but also include (Townsend-Bell 2011). In our case studies, mutual aid movements that mobilize other grievances, such as women, groups and steering group members did not consider the workers, housing and migrants’ rights. This political strategy differences in the forms of participation problematic. On of convergence in such new alliances resonates with similar the contrary, interviewees highlighted how distinct levels trends among social movements at the transnational level— of engagement enable different profiles of people to par- e.g. radical agrarian and environmental movements—based ticipate in the AFRCs. Diversity in the contribution to the F. Facchini et al. cause—from practical work to decision-making—seems preferences. The significance of cultural diversity in pro- to correspond to greater inclusivity. However, the fact that moting sustainability and social justice within food systems white, Spanish origin and lower-middle to middle-class makes this aspect particularly intriguing (Williams-Forson activists mainly act as steering group members and coordi- 2014). The engagement of a wide range of social organiza- nators while racialized, migrated and lower-class members tions and individuals in the coalitions, extending beyond participate or receive help in the mutual aid groups could those focused solely on agroecology, undoubtedly played a point to a reproduction of intersecting inequalities in the significant role in prioritizing other criteria besides sustain- organizational practices and deliberation processes within ability. However, the difficulty of scaling out access to food the coalitions (Einwohner et al. 2021). produced under agroecological principles to marginalized Along this, the reproduction of welfarist practices social groups poses a remarkable challenge for developing was not framed by the activists as necessarily leading to the equity dimension of agroecology. The fact that public unequal relations, but rather the result of how privileged funding is the main factor enabling the supply of sustainable or disadvantaged positions influence the positionality and food in Alterbanc and the continuation of the coalition in capacity to act of the coalition members. In the case of the future points again to the debate on the role of the state RAMUCA, wealthier people from the city center were the in scaling agroecology. Depending on the state in order to main donors of the initiative while marginalized collectives overcome the economic access issues associated with the in the periphery received most food packages. In intersec- higher prices of sustainable food may represent an essen- tional alliances, activists from different backgrounds and tial problem, given the importance of autonomy for peasant movements strategically use power from across their com- agroecology (Van der Ploeg 2008) and the well-documented munities to provide support and to organize with multiple risks of conventionalization and co-option associated with goals in mind, while still centering the most vulnerable in the institutionalization of agroecology (Giraldo and McCune the community (Markowitz 2020). Indeed, steering group 2019; Ajates Gonzalez et al. 2018; Levidow et al. 2014). members can be identified as ‘bridge actors’ (Roth 2004), Relying on state support to facilitate a transition towards whose role within the AFRCs is key to unfolding decolonial more sustainable practices in food aid interventions may also approaches to weave intersectional coalitions, thus putting pose challenges given that neoliberalization processes have their privileges to serve common aims and needs. Never- entrenched a corporate-driven model for food aid, aligning theless, the improvement of mutual aid relations towards it closely with agro-industry interests (Riches 2018; Fisher horizontal forms of social organization should continue to 2017; Poppendieck 1998). be considered a priority if we want to radically change the The predominance of women in food distribution and way social services are delivered—including food aid (Bell preparation activities in the studied coalitions reflects—and 2021; Izlar 2019). Participatory action research and bottom- potentially reproduces—an unequal distribution of care-ori- up governance methodologies developed by agroecology- ented food work, along with what has been called a ‘reac- oriented research and practice can definitely play a key role tionary ethics of care’ (Pérez-Orozco 2014). The unequal in assembling the coalitions, constructing collective agency, distribution of care-oriented food work has been identified and managing power relations within AFRCs (López-García as one of the main challenges of sustainable food systems et al. 2021; Marsden et al. 2018; Méndez et al. 2017). transitions (Federici 2012; Carney 2011), especially from Activists in the studied coalitions identified the tension agroecological perspectives (Anderson et al. 2021; Bezner- between higher food prices and the need to reach as many Kerr et al. 2019). As in AFRCs, activist contexts are often food-insecure people as possible as a key barrier to turning characterized by a disproportion in women’s engagement sustainable produce into the predominant source of provi- in uncompensated caring and emotional labor (e.g. Lloro sion. This tension stimulated debates in the coalitions and 2021; Craddock 2019; Kennelly 2014). However, food redis- points to the socioeconomic and cultural biases of alterna- tribution practices and the social relations characterizing the tive and sustainable food initiatives (Goodman et al. 2012; studied coalitions also collectivize food-related care work, Guthman 2011). The acknowledgment of such biases and the as well as politicize care and social reproduction. Collectiv- intersectional nature of the coalitions as described above can izing and de-privatizing food-related care work are consid- be considered important steps to avoid the reproduction of ered essential steps towards building co-responsibility and exclusionary practices in alternative food initiatives based transforming gender relations in food systems (Di Masso on class and race divides (Zitcer 2015; Goodman et al. 2012; et al. 2022). Mutual aid groups collectivize at least three Slocum 2007). In order to tackle this tension, coalitions dimensions of food-related care work: food procurement adopt forms of hybrid food networks (Bloom and Hinrichs and distribution inasmuch as the food is obtained through 2011; Whatmore and Thorne 1997) that are not limited to collective action; food preparation in community kitchens; sustainable produce, they rely on local shops, and they intro- and food-related knowledge through the exchange of reci- duce other criteria based on cultural and religion-based food pes. This collective, community-based approach to care is Intersectional coalitions towards a just agroecology: weaving mutual aid and agroecology… an instance of those “vital but underappreciated strategies Conclusion for enduring precarious worlds” (Hobart and Kneese 2020, p. 2) that transcend conventional contexts of care—e.g. the Throughout this article we took some first steps towards nuclear family in cis-heteropatriarchy and the individual in understanding intersectional coalitions as intriguing exam- neoliberal self-care ideology—and point to radical care prac- ples of those plural subjects and multi-actor processes that tices and infrastructures (Dowling 2021; The Care Collective are deemed essential for the scaling of a (more) just agro- 2020; Hobart and Kneese 2020). Through these practices, ecology (Anderson et al. 2021; López-García and González communities self-organize for the reproduction of material de Molina 2021). We found that diverse social struggles con- life and try to trigger social change from there, thus adopting verge in the considered coalitions and center their focus on what have been defined as ‘políticas en femenino’10 (Gutier- intersectionally marginalized groups, but members’ varying rez 2017) as ways to improve local food systems’ ecological participation forms based on socioeconomic profiles may sustainability and social equity. perpetuate inequalities in organizational practices. Balanc- While gender, class and race are the most common cat- ing healthy, sustainable food access with affordability leads egories addressed by intersectional studies, the cases consid- to hybrid networks incorporating conventionally produced ered in this article point to territory and space as other axes food. While women’s overrepresentation reflects unequal of oppression to be tackled. AFRCs address territorial and food-related care work, collectivization through AFRCs spatial differences by creating territorial networks between points to gender relations transformation. Territorialized urban and rural contexts and between center and periphery alliances connect urban and rural, and urban center and within urban settings. This resonates with other analyses periphery, yet we observed limited involvement of agroe- of food movements and how they address food inequali- cology-oriented initiatives and direct consumer-producer ties (Motta 2021; Bloom and Hinrichs 2011). It also relates encounters. to geography debates on the role of place and space in the Overall, in this work we aimed to initiate a dialogue configuration of intersectional relations (Valentine 2007). In between agroecology and intersectionality debates by draw- Europe, the farming sector has been characterized as mar- ing on concepts (e.g. intersectional consciousness, intersec- ginalized (López-García 2020), and rurality and belong- tional solidarity, intersectional activism, bridge actors, etc.) ing to the rural space could be considered as conditions of that were originally elaborated based on the analysis of inter- subalternity (Bielewicz 2020; Franquesa 2019). To date, sectional coalitions that are not focusing on food—but rather social and human geography have embraced intersectional on feminist movements. Simultaneously, as we engaged in approaches to investigate the interplay between socio-eco- this dialogue, the article began to outline several valuable nomic categories, power dynamics, and spatial dimensions, lessons and critiques that are unique to food-related move- providing a more contextualized and dynamic perspec- ments but hold relevance for intersectional coalitions in a tive on intersectional relationships (e.g. Hopkins 2019; broader context. These include the pivotal roles of women Mollett and Faria 2018; Rodó-de-Zárate and Baylina 2018; in the collectivization of care work, the significance of ter- Anthias 2013; Valentine 2007). While primarily explora- ritorial and spatial differences, the potential of (agroecology) tory in nature regarding this topic, this study suggests that participatory bottom-up governance processes in rebalanc- employing the perspective of political intersectionality to ing power dynamics, and the ambivalent role of state support explore how intersectional coalitions address spatial differ- for coalitions, among others. ences may also prove beneficial in broadening and enhanc- Territory emerges in our analysis as a novel category ing these discussions. The territorial networks weaved by regarding equity in food systems. However, other categories AFRCs bridge marginalized groups of both the urban and and axes of oppression—e.g. sexuality, age, religion, etc.— the rural context—in an effort to defy their subalternity— were not explored in-depth and would require further atten- but show remarkable limits in the capacity to reach the lat- tion. Moreover, despite the results of this study show that the ter. The development of a more advanced political culture considered coalitions reflect a remarkable degree of politi- of grassroots participation, the economic consolidation of cal intersectionality—both in the objectives and the ways in the initiatives, the conciliation of work and family life and which activists mobilize, acknowledge their positionalities an increase in the number of encounters between rural and and tackle intersecting axes of oppression—further research urban actors emerge from our analysis as potential key fac- and evidence would be needed to demonstrate the extent tors in the improvement of such territorialized coalitions. to which AFRCs can constitute a transformative praxis. In fact, this more advanced form of intersectional solidarity requires a sustained commitment to eliminating oppres- sive relations beyond the specific issues at hand—in this case, the enhanced levels of food insecurity in the pandemic 10 Feminine politics. F. Facchini et al. context—and demands actions aimed at eradicating all were made. The images or other third party material in this article are forms of power asymmetries within a coalition (Ciccia and included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in Roggeband 2021; Townsend-Bell 2009). Such a praxis may the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not overcome some of the economic and social biases of alterna- permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will tive food initiatives associated with agroecology, and tran- need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a scend their potential reproduction as identified throughout copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. this study. The dependence on public funding to tackle the price barriers of sustainable food for food-insecure people would also need further scrutiny. Future analysis might focus on the relations between the considered coalitions and gov- References ernmental institutions, to reflect on the role of the state in Acciari, L. 2021. Practicing intersectionality: Brazilian domestic scaling agroecology beyond class, gender, race, sexuality, workers’ strategies of building alliances and mobilizing iden- age, territory and other biases. More generally, we call for tity. Latin American Research Review 56 (1): 67–81. https://​ an encounter between the fields of political intersectionality doi.​org/​10.​25222/​larr.​594. Adam, E. M., (2017). Intersectional coalitions: The paradoxes of and political agroecology, and emphasize the need to both rights-based movement building in LGBTQ and immigrant explore empirically and practically develop intersectionality communities. Law & Society Review, 51(1), 132–167. http://​ in agroecological transitions in order to pursue just—and not www.​jstor.​org/​stable/​45093​979 only sustainable—food systems. Agyeman, J., and B. Evans. 2004. “Just Sustainability”: The emerg- ing discourse of environmental justice in Britain? Geographi- Acknowledgements We are extremely grateful to all the research par- cal Journal 170 (2): 155–164. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/j.​0016-​ ticipants for their availability and contribution to this work. Concerning 7398.​2004.​00117.x. funding, we acknowledge that this work contributes to ICTA-UAB “María Ajates Gonzalez, R., J. Thomas, and M. Chang. 2018. Translating de Maeztu” Programme for Units of Excellence of the Spanish Ministry agroecology into policy: The case of France and the United of Science and Innovation (CEX2019-000940-M). FF also acknowledges Kingdom. Sustainability (switzerland) 10 (8): 1–19. https://​ the financial support provided by the ‘Plan Estatal de I + D + I’ of the doi.​org/​10.​3390/​su100​82930. Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (PRE2019-087557). SVT Alberich, T. 2016. Desde las asociaciones de vecinos al 15M y acknowledges the support of the Ramon y Cajal Fellowship of the Spanish las mareas ciudadanas: Breve historia de los movimientos Ministry of Science and Innovation (RyC-2017–22782). DLG acknowl- sociales. Madrid: Editorial Dykinson. edges the financial support provided by MCIN/AEI/https://​doi.​org/​10.​ Alkon, A.H., and J. Agyeman. 2011. Cultivating food justice: Race, 13039/​50110​00110​33 and by the European Union “NextGenerationEU”/ class, and sustainability. Cambridge: MIT Press. PRTR funds, along the project TED2021-129660A-I00. Altieri, M.A. 2018. Agroecology: The science of sustainable agri- culture. Boca Raton: CRC Press. Author contributions All authors contributed to the study conception Altieri, M.A., and C.I. Nicholls. 2020. Agroecology and the and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were emergence of a post COVID-19 agriculture. Agriculture performed by the first author. The first draft of the manuscript was and Human Values 37: 525–526. https://​d oi.​o rg/​1 0.​1 007/​ written by the first author and all authors commented and contributed to s10460-​020-​10043-7. subsequent versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved Alver, J. 2021. The negotiation of a feminist sisterhood in the pacific – the final manuscript. two recent cases of intersectional alliance building. Global Policy 12 (2): 229–238. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​1758-​5899.​12962. Funding Open Access Funding provided by Universitat Autonoma de Anderson, C.R., J. Bruil, M.J. Chappell, C. Kiss, and M. Pimbert. 2021. Barcelona. Agroecology Now! Transformations towards more just and sus- tainable food systems. London: Palgrave MacMillan. https://​doi.​ org/​10.​1007/​978-3-​030-​61315-0. Declarations Anthias, F. 2013. Intersectional What? Social divisions, intersectional- ity and levels of analysis. Ethnicities 13 (1): 3–1. https://​doi.​org/​ Competing interests The authors have no competing interests to 10.​1177/​14687​96812​463547. declare that are relevant to the content of this article. Beckwith, K. 2000. Beyond compare? Women’s movements in com- parative perspective. European Journal of Political Research 37 Ethical approval Ethical approval for the broader research project in (4): 431–468. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​1475-​6765.​00521. which this work has been realized was granted by the Comisión de Bell, F.M. 2021. Amplified injustices and mutual aid in the COVID-19 Ética en la Experimentación Animal y Humana (CEEAH) of the Uni- pandemic. Qualitative Social Work 20 (1–2): 410–415. https://​ versitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB). doi.​org/​10.​1177/​14733​25020​973326. Bell, F.M., M.K. Dennis, and A. Krings. 2019. Collective survival Informed consent Verbal informed consent was obtained prior to the strategies and anti-colonial practice in ecosocial work. Journal interviews and participant observations, and participants have been of Community Practice 27 (3–4): 279–295. https://​doi.​org/​10.​ anonymized in the article. 1080/​10705​422.​2019.​16529​47. Bezner, Kerr R., C. Hickey, E. Lupafya, and L. Dakishoni. 2019. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attri- Repairing rifts or reproducing inequalities? Agroecology, Food bution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adapta- Sovereignty, and Gender Justice in Malawi, the Journal of Peas- tion, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long ant Studies 46 (7): 1499–1518. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​03066​ as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, 150.​2018.​15478​97. provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes Intersectional coalitions towards a just agroecology: weaving mutual aid and agroecology… Bilewicz, A.M. 2020. Beyond the modernisation paradigm: Elements Davis, A. 1983. Women, race and class. New York: Vintage. of a food sovereignty discourse in farmer protest movements and Di Masso, M., D. López-García, J. Clemente-Longás, and V. García- alternative food networks in Poland. Sociologia Ruralis 60 (4): García. 2022. Taking food out the private sphere? Addressing 754–772. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​soru.​12295. gender relations in Urban food policy. Agroecology and Sus- Bloom, J., and C. Hinrichs. 2011. Moving local food through conven- tainable Food Systems 46 (1): 108–132. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​ tional food system infrastructure: Value chain framework com- 21683​565.​2021.​19367​42. parisons and insights. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems Doetsch-Kidder, S. 2012. Social change and intersectional activism: 26 (1): 13–23. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1017/​S1742​17051​00003​84. The spirit of social movement. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Borras, S., T. Moreda, A. Alonso-Fradejas, and Z. Brent. 2018. Con- Dowler, E. 2003. Food and poverty in Britain: Rights and responsibilities. verging social justice issues and movements: Implications for In The welfare of food: Rights and responsibilities in a changing political actions and research. Third World Quarterly 39 (7): world, ed. E. Dowler and C.J. Finer. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. 1227–1246. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​01436​597.​2018.​14913​01. Dowling, E. 2021. Caring in times of a global pandemic: Introduc- Brent, Z., C. Schiavoni, and A. Alonso-Fradejas. 2015. Contextualising tion. Historical Social Research 46 (4): 7–30. https://​doi.​org/​ food sovereignty: The politics of convergence among movements 10.​12759/​hsr.​46.​2021.4.​7-​30. in the USA. Third World Quarterly 36 (3): 618–635. https://​doi.​ Dumont, A., G. Pierre, M. Stassart, and P. Baret. 2016. Clarifying the org/​10.​1080/​01436​597.​2015.​10235​70. socioeconomic dimensions of agroecology: Between principles Busconi, A. (2017). Agroecología y soberanía alimentaria: hacia el and practices. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems. 40 empoderamiento del trabajo de las mujeres en América Latina. (1): 24–47. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​21683​565.​2015.​10899​67. Anuario en Relaciones Internacionales. https://​www.​iri.​edu.​ar/​ Einwohner, R.L., K. Kelly-Thompson, V. Sinclair-Chapman, F. wp-​ conte​nt/​uploa​ds/​2017/​09/​A2017​medam​bArtB​usconi.​pdf. Tormos-Aponte, S.L. Weldon, J.M. Wright, and C. Wu. 2019. Accessed 26 April 2023. Active solidarity: Intersectional solidarity in action. Social Cabot, H. 2016. ‘Contagious’ solidarity: Reconfiguring care and Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society. citizenship in Greece’s social clinics. Social Anthropology 24: https://​doi.​org/​10.​1093/​sp/​jpxz0​52. 152–166. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​1469-​8676.​12297. FAO. 2021. The state of food security and nutrition in the world. Carney, M. 2021. Island of hope: Migration and solidarity in the Medi- Rome: FAO. terranean. Oakland: University of California Press. Federici, S. 2012. Revolution at Point Zero. Housework, Reproduc- Carney, M. 2011. Compounding crises of economic recession and food tion and Feminist Struggle. New York: PM Press-Common insecurity: A comparative study of three low-income communi- Notions. ties in Santa Barbara County. Agriculture and Human Values 29 Feenstra, G.W. 1997. Local food systems and sustainable communities. (2): 185–201. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10460-​011-​9333-y. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 12 (1): 28. https://​ Ciccia, R., and C. Roggeband. 2021. Unpacking intersectional soli- doi.​org/​10.​1017/​S0889​18930​00071​65. darity: Dimensions of power in coalitions. European Journal Fernández de Casadevante, J. L., Fernández R., J., & Ramírez, N. of Politics and Gender 4 (2): 181–198. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1332/​ (2022). Solidaridades de Proximidad. Ayuda mutua y cuidados 25151​0821X​16145​40237​7609. ante la Covid19. Grupo Cooperativo Tangente. https://​t ange​ Clapp, J., and W.G. Moseley. 2020. This food crisis is different: nte.​coop/​wp-​conte​nt/​uploa​ds/​2022/​03/​Solid​arida​des-​de-​Proxi​ COVID-19 and the fragility of the neoliberal food security order. midad_​Tange​nte.​pdf. Accessed 26 April 2023. Journal of Peasant Studies 47 (7): 1393–1417. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.​ Ferree, M.M. 2009. Inequality, intersectionality and the politics of dis- 1080/​03066​150.​2020.​18238​38. course. Framing feminist alliances. In The discursive politics of Collins, P. 2015. Intersectionality’s definitional dilemmas. Annual gender equality: Stretching, bending, and policy-making, ed. E. Review of Sociology 41 (1): 1–20. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1146/​annur​ Lombardo, P. Meier, and V. Verloo, 84–111. London: Routledge. ev-​soc-​073014-​112142. Fisher, A. 2017. Big hunger: The unholy alliance between corporate Collins, P.H., and V. Chepp. 2013. Intersectionality. In Oxford hand- America and anti-hunger groups. Cambridge: Massachusetts book of gender and politics, ed. Georgina Waylen, Karen Celis, Institute of Technology Press. Johanna Kantola, and S. Laurel. Weldon, 57–87. New York: Franquesa, J. 2019. The vanishing exception: Republican and reaction- Oxford University Press. ary specters of populism in rural Spain. The Journal of Peasant Combahee River Collective. 1977. A black feminist statement. In Studies 46 (3): 537–560. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 080/0​ 30661​ 50.2​ 019.​ Words of fire: An anthology of African American feminist 15787​51. thought, ed. B. Guy-Sheftall, 232–240. New York: New Press. FSIN and Global Network Against Food Crises. (2023). GRFC 2023. Connelly, S., S. Markey, and M. Roseland. 2011. Bridging sustainabil- Rome. https://​www.​fsinp​latfo​rm.​org/​global-​report-​food-​crises-​ ity and the social economy: Achieving community transforma- 2023. Accessed 26 April 2023. tion through local food initiatives. Critical Social Policy 31 (2): Galt, R.E. 2013. The moral economy is a double-edged sword: Explain- 308–324. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​02610​18310​396040. ing farmers’ earnings and self-exploitation in community- Corradi, L. (2021). Intersectional alliances to overcome gender subor- supported agriculture. Economic Geography 89 (4): 341–365. dination: The case of Roma-Gypsy traveller women. Journal of https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​ecge.​12015. International Women’s Studies, 22(4), 152–166. https://​vc.​bridg​ Gliessman, S. 2007. Agroecology: The ecology of Sustainable Food ew.​edu/​jiws/​vol22/​iss4/​11. Accessed 26 April 2023. System. Boca Ratón: CRC Press. Craddock, E. 2019. Doing ‘enough’ of the ‘right’ thing: The gendered Giraldo, O.F., and N. McCune. 2019. Can the state take agroecology dimension of the ‘ideal activist’ identity and negative emotional to scale? Public policy experiences in agroecological territoriali- consequences. Social Movement Studies 18 (2): 137–153. https://​ zation from Latin America. Agroecology and Sustainable Food doi.​org/​10.​1080/​14742​837.​2018.​15554​57. Systems 43 (7–8): 785–809. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​21683​565.​ Crenshaw, K. 1991. Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity 2019.​15854​02. politics and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Giraldo, O.F., and P.M. Rosset. 2017. Agroecology as a territory in Review 43 (6): 1241–1299. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2307/​12290​39. dispute: Between institutionality and social movements. The Dale, B. 2019. Alliances for agroecology: From climate change to food Journal of Peasant Studies 45 (3): 545–564. https://​doi.​org/​10.​ system change. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 44 1080/​03066​150.​2017.​13534​96. (5): 629–652. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​21683​565.​2019.​16977​87. F. Facchini et al. Gómez, L., L. Ríos-Osorio, and M. Eschenhagen. 2012. Agroecol- Khadse, A. (2017). Women, agroecology and gender equality. New ogy publications and coloniality of knowledge. Agronomy for Delhi: Focus on the Global South. https://f​ ocusw ​ eb.o​ rg/w ​ p-c​ onte​ Sustainable Development 33: 355–362. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​ nt/​uploa​ds/​2017/​09/​women_​agroe​cology_​gender_​equal​ity.​pdf. s13593-​012-​0109-6. Accessed 26 April 2023. González de Molina, M., P.F. Petersen, F.G. Peña, and F.R. Capor. Khorsandi, P. (2020). WFP Chief Warns of ‘Hunger Pandemic’ as 2019. Political agroecology: Advancing the transition to sustain- Global Food Crises Report Launched. World Food Programme able food systems. Boca Raton: CRC Press. Insight. https://​insig​ht.​wfp.​org/​wfp-​chief-​warns-​of-​hunger-​ Goodman, D., E.M. DuPuis, and M.K. Goodman. 2012. Alternative pande​mic-​as-​global-​food-​crises-​report-​launc​hed-​3ee3e​db38e​ food networks: Knowledge, place and politics. Oxon, New York: 47. Accessed 26 April 2023. Routledge. Lakner, C., Yonzan, N., Gerszon Mahler, D., Castaneda Aguilar, R.A. Greenwood, R.M. 2008. Intersectional political consciousness: Appre- & Wu, H. (2021). Updated estimates of the impact of COVID- ciation for intragroup differences and solidarity in diverse groups. 19 on global poverty: looking back at 2020 and the outlook for Psychology of Women Quarterly 32 (1): 36–47. https://​doi.​org/​ 2021. World Bank Blogs. https://​blogs.​world​bank.​org/​opend​ 10.​1111/j.​1471-​6402.​2007.​00405.x. ata/​updat​ed-​estim​ates-​impact-​covid-​19-​global-​pover ​ty-​looki​ Guthman, J. 2011. Weighing In: Obesity, food justice, and the limits of ng-​back-​2020-​and-​outlo​ok-​2021. Accessed 26 April 2023. capitalism. Berkeley: University of California Press. Lépinard, É. 2014. Doing intersectionality: Repertoires of feminist Gutierrez, A.R. 2017. Horizontes comunitarios-populares: Producción practices in France and Canada. Gender & Society 28 (6): 877– de lo común más allá de las políticas estado-céntricas. Madrid: 903. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​08912​43214​542430. Traficantes de Sueños. Lloro, T.K. 2021. An intersectional feminist food studies praxis: Activ- Hancock, A.M. 2016. Intersectionality: An intellectual history. New ism and care in the COVID-19 context. The Journal of Envi- York: Oxford University Press. ronmental Education 52 (5): 303–313. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​ Haraway, D. 1988. Situated knowledges: The science question in femi- 00958​964.​2021.​19812​09. nism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies 14 Lofton, S., M. Kersten, S.D. Simonovich, and A. Martin. 2022. Mutual (3): 575–599. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2307/​31780​66. aid organizations and their role in reducing food insecurity in Harvey, D. 2007. Neoliberalism and the city. Studies in Social Justice Chicago’s urban communities during COVID-19. Public Health 1 (1): 2–13. https://​doi.​org/​10.​26522/​ssj.​v1i1.​977. Nutrition 25 (1): 119–122. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1017/​S1368​98002​ HLPE (High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition) 10037​36. (2019). Agroecological and other innovative approaches for sus- Loker, A., and C. Francis. 2020. Urban food sovereignty: Urgent need tainable agriculture and food systems that enhance food security for agroecology and systems thinking in a post-COVID-19 and nutrition. Report #14. High Level Panel of Experts (HLPE), future. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 44 (9): 1–6. Committee on World Food Security. https://w ​ ww.f​ ao.o​ rg/3/c​ a560​ https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​21683​565.​2020.​17757​52. 2en/​ca560​2en.​pdf. Accessed 26 April 2023. Levidow, L., M. Pimbert, and G. Vanloqueren. 2014. Agroecological HLPE (High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition) research: Conforming—or transforming the dominant agro-food (2020). Food Security and Nutrition: Building A Global Nar- regime? Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 38 (10): rative Towards 2030. Report #15. High Level Panel of Experts 1127–1155. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​21683​565.​2014.​951459. (HLPE), Committee on World Food Security. http://​www.​fao.​ López-García, D. 2020. Who is the subject of agroecological transi- org/3/​ca973​1en/​ca973​1en.​pdf. Accessed 26 April 2023. tions? Local agroecological dynamization and the plural subject Holt-Gimenez, E., & Harper, B. (2016). Food—Systems—Racism: of food systems transitions. Landbauforschung-Journal of Sus- From Mistreatment to Transformation. Food First 1. https://​ tainable and Organic Agricultural Systems 70 (2): 36–42. https://​ archi​ve.​foodf​i rst.​org/​wp-​conte​nt/​uploa​ds/​2016/​03/​DR1Fi​nal.​ doi.​org/​10.​3220/​LBF16​06213​05000. pdf. Accessed 26 April 2023. López-García, D., M. Cuéllar-Padilla, A. de Azevedo Olival, N.P. hooks, b. 1986. Sisterhood: Political solidarity between women. Femi- Laranjeira, V.E. Méndez, S. Peredo y Parada, C.A. Barbosa, nist Review 23 (1): 125–138. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1057/​fr.​1986.​25. C. Barrera Salas, M. Caswell, R. Cohen, et al. 2021. Building Hopkins, P. 2019. Social geography I: Intersectionality. Progress in agroecology with people. Challenges of participatory methods Human Geography 43 (5): 937–947. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​ to deepen on the agroecological transition in different contexts. 03091​32517​743677. Journal of Rural Studied 83: 257–267. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ Irvine, J., Lang, S., and Montoya, C., (Eds.) (2019). Gendered mobi- jrurs​tud.​2021.​02.​003. lizations and intersectional challenges. In Contemporary social López-García, D., and M. González de Molina. 2021. An operational movements in Europe and North America. Lanham: Rowman approach to agroecology-based local agri-food systems. Sustain- & Littlefield. ability 13: 8443. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​su131​58443. Izlar, J. 2019. Radical social welfare and anti-authoritarian mutual aid. Maisano, T. (2019). Without feminism there is no agroecology. Towards Critical and Radical Social Work 7 (3): 349–366. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/​ healthy, sustainable and just food systems. Rome: Civil Society 10.​1332/​20498​6019X​15687​13117​9624. and Indigenous Peoples’ Mechanism for relations with the UN IPES-Food. (2020). COVID-19 and the crisis in food systems: Symp- committee on World Food Security. http://​www.​csm4c​fs.​org/​ toms, causes, and potential solutions. http://​www.​ipes-​food.​org/​ wp-​conte​nt/​uploa​ds/​2019/​10/​CSM-​Agroe​cology-​and-​Femin​ pages/​covid​19. Accessed 26 April 2023. ism-​Septe​mber-​2019_​compr​essed.​pdf. Accessed 5 May 2023. Kelly S. (2010). Qualitative interviewing techniques and styles. In: Markowitz, A. (2020). Building intersectional resistance alliances dur- Bourgeault I, Dingwall R, de Vries R. (Eds.) The Sage Handbook ing COVID-19. Resistance Studies. https://​wagin​gnonv​iolen​ce.​ of Qualitative Methods in Health Research, Thousand Oaks: org/​rs/​2020/​05/​build​ing-​inter​secti​onal-​resis​tance-​allia​nces-​dur- Sage Publications. ing-​covid-​19/. Accessed 05 May 2023. Kennelly, J. 2014. ‘It’s this pain in my heart that won’t let me stop’; Marsden, T., P. Hebinck, and E. Mathijs. 2018. Re-building food sys- Gendered affect, webs of relations, and young women’s activism. tems: Embedding assemblages, infrastructures and reflexive gov- Feminist Theory 15 (3): 241–260. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​14647​ ernance for food systems transformations in Europe. Food Secu- 00114​544611. rity 10: 1301–1309. https://d​ oi.​org/1​ 0.​1007/s​ 12571-​018-​0870-8. Intersectional coalitions towards a just agroecology: weaving mutual aid and agroecology… Mason, R.E., A. White, G. Bucini, J. Anderzén, V.E. Méndez, and Pimbert, M. P., & Lemke, S. (2018). Food Environments: Using Agro- S.C. Merrill. 2021. The evolving landscape of agroecological ecology to Enhance Dietary Diversity. UNSCN News, 43, 33–42. research. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 45 (4): https://w​ ww.u​ nscn.o​ rg/u​ pload​ s/w ​ eb/n​ ews/U ​ NSCN-N ​ ews43.p​ df. 551–591. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​21683​565.​2020.​18452​75. Accessed 5 May 2023. May, V.M. 2020. What Is Intersectionality? Matrix Thinking in a Sin- Poppendieck, J. 2014. Food assistance, hunger and the end of welfare gle-Axis World. In Pursuing intersectionality, unsettling domi- in the USA. In First world hunger revisited: food charity or the nant imaginaries. London: Routledge. https://​doi.​org/​10.​4324/​ right to food?, ed. G. Riches and T. Silvasti, 176–190. Hamp- 97802​03141​991-7. shire: Pal- grave Macmillan. McCall, L. 2005. The complexity of intersectionality. Signs: Journal Poppendieck, J. 1998. Sweet charity. New York: Viking. of Women in Culture and Society 30 (3): 1771–1880. https://​doi.​ Ragin, C. 2000. Fuzzy set social science. Chicago: University of Chi- org/​10.​1086/​426800. cago Press. McMichael, P. 2009. A food regime genealogy. Journal of Peasant Rakopoulos, T. 2016. Solidarity: The egalitarian tensions of a bridge- Studies 36 (1): 139–169. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​03066​15090​ concept. Social Anthropology 24: 142–151. https://​doi.​org/​10.​ 28203​54. 1111/​1469-​8676.​12298. Méndez, V.E., M. Caswell, S. Gliessman, and R. Cohen. 2017. Inte- Rakopoulos, T. 2015. Tensions that matter: Informality and sociality in grating agroecology and participatory action research (PAR): the Greek crisis’ solidarity economy. Social Analysis 59: 85–104. Lessons from Central America. Sustainability. 9: 705. https://​ https://​doi.​org/​10.​3167/​sa.​2015.​590305. doi.​org/​10.​3390/​su905​0705. RAMUCA (2020). 3er informe de actividad de RAMUCA. https://1​ libr​ Mollett, S., and C. Faria. 2018. The spatialities of intersectional ary.​co/​docum​ent/​q298x​xpz-​er-​infor​me-​de-​activ​idad-​de-​ramuca.​ thinking: fashioning feminist geographic futures. Gender, html. Accessed 5 June 2023. Place and Culture. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​09663​69X.​2018.​ Riches, G. 2018. Food Bank Nations: Poverty, Corporate Charity and 14544​04. the Right to Food, 1st ed. London: Routledge. https://​doi.​org/​10.​ Montenegro de Wit, M. 2021. What grows from a pandemic? Toward 4324/​97813​15184​012. an Abolitionist Agroecology, the Journal of Peasant Studies 48 Riches, G., and T. Silvasti, eds. 2014. First world hunger revis- (1): 99–136. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​03066​150.​2020.​18547​41. ited: Food charity or the right to food? Hampshire: Palgrave Moragues-Faus, A., and C.R. Magaña-González. 2022. Alimentando Macmillan. un futuro sostenible: Estudio sobre la inseguridad alimentaria Rivera-Ferre, M.G. 2018. The resignification process of agroecol- en hogares españoles antes y durante la COVID-19. Informe ogy: Competing narratives from governments, civil society and del proyecto “Alimentando un futuro sostenible.” Barcelona: intergovernmental organizations. Agroecology and Sustainable Universidad de Barcelona, financiado por la Fundación Daniel Food Systems 42 (6): 666–685. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​21683​ y Nina Carasso. 565.​2018.​14374​98. Morales, H., Zuluanga-Sánchez, G. P., González Santiago, M. V., Rivera-Ferre, M.G., F. López-i-Gelats, F. Ravera, E. Oteros-Rozas, Per- fecto, I., and Papuccio de Vidal, S (2018) Alianza de M. di Masso, R. Binimelis, and H. El Bilali. 2021. The two-way Mujeres en Agroecología (AMA-AWA): fortaleciendo víncu- relationship between food systems and the COVID19 pandemic: los entre académicas para el escalamiento de la agroecología. causes and consequences. Agricultural Systems. https://​doi.​org/​ In: Sán- chez, G. P. Z., Catacora-Vargas, G., and Siliprandi, E., 10.​1016/j.​agsy.​2021.​103134. (Eds.), Agroecología en femenino. Reflexiones a partir de nues- Rodó-de-Zárate, M., and M. Baylina. 2018. Intersectionality in feminist tras experiencias (pp. 15–33). Sociedad Científica Latinoamer- geographies. Gender, Place & Culture 25 (4): 547–553. https://​ icana de Agroecología (SOCLA), Conselho Latinoamericano doi.​org/​10.​1080/​09663​69X.​2018.​14534​89. de Ciencias Sociales (CLASCO). http://​bibli​oteca​sibe.​ecosur.​ Rosset, P.M., and M.A. Altieri. 2017. Agroecology: Science and poli- mx/​sibe/​book/​00003​4053 tics. Black Point: Fernwood Publishing. Motta, R. 2021. Social movements as agents of change: Fighting Roth, S. 2021. Intersectionality and coalitions in social movement intersectional food inequalities, building food as webs of life. research—A survey and outlook. Sociology Compass 15: e12885. The Sociological Review 69 (3): 603–625. https://​doi.​org/​10.​ https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​soc4.​12885. 1177/​00380​26121​10090​61. Roth, B. 2017. Intersectionality: Origins, travels, questions, and contri- Nel lo, O., and J. Checa. 2022. El binomio imprescindible: Políti- butions. In The Oxford handbook of U.S. women’s social move- cas públicas e iniciativas solidarias en España en la pandemia ment activism, ed. H.J. McCammon, V. Taylor, J. Reger, and R. Covid-19. In El apoyo mutuo en tiempos de crisis La solidari- Einwohner, 129–149. Oxford: Oxford University Press. dad ciudadana durante la pandemia Covid-19, ed. O. Nel lo, I. Roth, B. 2004. Separate roads to feminism: Black, Chicana, and white Blanco, and R. Gomà. Buenos Aires: Consejo Latinoamericano feminist movements in America’s second wave. Cambridge: Cam- de Ciencias Sociales (CLACSO). bridge University Press. Pérez N. D., & Soler M. M. (2013). Agroecología y ecofeminismo Sachs, C., and A. Patel-Campillo. 2014. Feminist food justice: Crafting para descolonizar y despatriarcalizar la alimentación glo- a new vision. Feminist Studies 40 (2): 396–410. https://​doi.​org/​ balizada. Revista Internacional de Pensamiento Político, 8, 10.​1353/​fem.​2014.​0008. 95–113. https://​i dus.​u s.​e s/​b itst​r eam/​h andle/​1 1441/​8 3729/​ Sevilla Guzmán, E. 2006. Perspectivas agroecológicas desde el pen- Art% ​ c 3% ​ a dculo-​ A groe ​ c olog% ​ c 3% ​ a da% ​ 2 0y% ​ 2 0eco ​ femin​ samiento social agrario. Córdoba: Instituto de sociología y Estu- ismo%​2 0para%​2 0des​c olon​i zar%​2 0y%​2 0des​p atri​a rcal​i zar%​ dios Campesinos/Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad 20la%​20ali​menta​ci%​c3%​b3n%​20glo​baliz​ada.​pdf?​seque​nce=​ de Córdoba. 1&​isAll​owed=y Sevilla Guzmán, E., and Woodgate, G., (2013). Agroecología: Fun- Pérez de Armiño, K. 2014. Erosion of rights, uncritical solidarity and damentos del pensamiento social agrario y teoría sociológica. food Banks in Spain. In First world hunger re- visited: Food Agroecología, 8(2), 27–34. https://​revis​tas.​um.​es/​agroe​colog​ia/​ charity or the right to food?, ed. G. Riches and T. Silvasti, 131– artic​le/​view/​212161 145. Hampshire: Palgrave MacMillan. Shepard, B. 2015. Community projects as social activism. London: Pérez Orozco, A. 2014. Subversión feminista de la economía. In Sage. Aportes para un debate sobre el conflicto capital-vida. Madrid: Siliprandi, E. (2015). Mulheres e agroecologia: transformando o Traficantes de Sueños. campo, as florestas e as pessoas [Women and agroecology: F. Facchini et al. transforming the countryside, forests and people]. Universidade of Women in Culture and Society 38 (4): 893–915. https://​doi.​org/​ Federal do Rio de Janeiro. http://​www.​mda.​gov.​br/​sitem​da/​sites/​ 10.​1086/​669572. sitem​da/​files/​ceazi​nepdf/​MULHE​RES_E_​AGROE​COLOG​IA_​ Viladrich, A., M.A. Carbonero, and M. Gómez Garrido. 2018. “No one TRANS​FORMA​NDO_O_​CAMPO_​AS_​FLORE​STAS_E_​AS_​ should go hungry”: The challenges of hunger relief efforts in con- PESSO​AS_0.​pdf temporary Spain. European Journal of Humanities & Social Sci- Simon-Rojo, M. 2019. Agroecology to fight food poverty in Madrid’s ences. 2 (1): 27–46. https://​doi.​org/​10.​32777/r.​2018.1.​2.9. deprived neighbourhoods. Urban Design International 24: Villamayor-Tomas, S., and G.A. García-López. 2021. Commons Move- 94–107. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1057/​s41289-​019-​00088-4. ments: Old and New Trends in Rural and Urban Contexts. Annual Slocum, R. 2007. Whiteness, space and alternative food practice. Geo- Review of Environment and Resources 2021 46 (1): 511–543. forum 38 (3): 520–533. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 016/j.g​ eofor​ um.2​ 006.​ https://​doi.​org/​10.​1146/​annur​ev-​envir​on-​012220-​102307. 10.​006. von Wahl, A. 2021. Lessons on opportunity hoarding and gender bina- Smith, B.J. 2019. Food justice, intersectional agriculture, and the triple rism: Building an alliance of women’s, trans and intersex move- food movement. Agriculture and Human Values 36: 825–835. ments. European Journal of Politics and Gender 4 (2): 255–271. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10460-​019-​09945-y. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1332/​25151​0821X​16128​07086​8431. Snipstal, B. 2017. Free the land and us too: Agroecology and popular Wezel, A., S. Bellon, T. Doré, C. Francis, D. Vallod, and C. David. 2009. struggle, building an agrarian intersectional movement. WhyHun- Agroecology as a science, a movement and a practice. A Review. ger. https://​whyhu​nger.​org/​free-​the-​land-​and-​us-​too-​agroe​cology-​ Agronomy for Sustainable Development. 29: 503–515. https://​doi.​ and-​popul​ar-​strug​gle-​build​ing-​an-​agrar​ian-​inter​secti​onal-​movem​ org/​10.​1051/​agro/​20090​04. ent/​blog/. Accessed 26 April 2023. Whatmore, S., and L. Thorne. 1997. Nourishing networks: Alternative Strolovitch, D.Z. 2007. Affirmative advocacy. Race, place, and gender geographies of food. In Globalising food: Agrarian questions and in interest group politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. global restructuring, ed. D. Goodman and M. Watts, 287–304. Terriquez, V., T. Brenes, and A. Lopez. 2018. Intersectionality as a mul- London: Routledge. tipurpose collective action frame: The case of the undocumented Williams-Forson, P. 2014. “I haven’t eaten If I don’t have my soup and youth movement. Ethnicities 18 (2): 260–276. https://​doi.​org/​10.​ Fufu”: Cultural preservation through food and foodways among 1177/​14687​96817​752558. Ghanaian migrants in the United States. Africa Today. 61 (1): The Care Collective. 2020. The care manifesto, the politics of interde- 68–87. pendence. London: Verso. Zaremba, H., M. Elias, A. Rietveld, and N. Bergamini. 2021. Toward a Tilzey, M. 2018. Political ecology, food regimes, and food sovereignty: feminist agroecology. Sustainability 13: 11244. https://​doi.​org/​10.​ Crisis, resistance, and resilience. Palgrave Macmillan. https://​doi.​ 3390/​su132​011244. org/​10.​1007/​978-3-​319-​64556-8. Zitcer, A. 2015. Food co-ops and the paradox of exclusivity. Antipode 47 Tormos, F. 2017. Intersectional solidarity. Politics, Groups, and Identities (3): 812–828. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​anti.​12129. 5 (4): 707–720. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​21565​503.​2017.​13854​94. Zuluaga Sánchez, G.P., Catacora-Vargas, G., and Siliprandi, E., (Coords.). Tornaghi, C., and M. Dehaene. 2020. The prefigurative power of urban (2018). Agroecología en femenino. Reflexiones a partir de nuestras political agroecology: Rethinking the urbanisms of agroecologi- experiencias. SOCLA: La Paz, Bolivia cal transitions for food system transformation. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 44 (5): 594–610. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​ Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to 21683​565.​2019.​16805​93. jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Townsend-Bell, E. 2021. Breaking hegemony: Coalition as decolonial- intersectional praxis. European Journal of Politics and Gender 4 (2): 235–253. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1332/​25151​0821X​16145​40217​ 7115. Townsend-Bell, E. 2011. What is relevance? Defining intersectional Francesco Facchini holds a MSc in Agricultural Development and praxis in uruguay. Political Research Quarterly 64 (1): 187–199. a Degree in International Studies. He is now working at his PhD in https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​10659​12910​382301. Environmental Science and Technology at the Institut de Ciència i Tec- Townsend-Bell, E. (2009). Intersectional praxis, paper presented at the nologia Ambientals (ICTA), Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. The American Political Science Association Annual Meeting, Toronto, PhD is inspired by Political Agroecology perspectives and based on the Ontario. https://​ssrn.​com/​abstr​act=​14510​49. Accessed 05 May two cases of alliances between mutual-aid groups and agroecological 2023. initiatives in Barcelona and Seville. His previous research interests Tramel, S. 2018. Convergence as political strategy: Social justice move- encompassed social movements theory, agency-oriented approaches ments, natural resources and climate change. Third World Quar- to development, rural vulnerability and agroecology. terly 39 (7): 1290–1307. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​01436​597.​2018.​ 14601​96. Daniel López‑García holds a PhD in Agroecology and Rural Sociol- Valentine, G. 2007. Theorising and researching intersectionality: A chal- ogy, Degree in Biology. Daniel is tenured researcher at the Institute lenge for feminist geography. The Professional Geographer 59 (1): of Economics, Geography and Demography at the Spanish National 10–21. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/j.​1467-​9272.​2007.​00587.x. Research Council. Working mainly through Participatory Action- Van der Ploeg, J.D. 2020. From biomedical to politico-economic crisis: Research, his research is focused in Local Agroecological Dynami- The food system in times of Covid-19. Journal of Peasant Studies zation, Agroecological Transitions, Sustainable Food Systems, Local 47 (5): 944–972. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​03066​150.​2020.​17948​43. Food Policies and Alternative Food Networks. Van der Ploeg, J.D. (2008). The New Peasantries. Struggles for autonomy and sustainability in an era of Empire and globalisation. Earthscan, Sergio Villamayor‑Tomas holds A PhD in Public Policy and Analysis London. and is a Ramon y Cajal researcher at the Institut de Ciència i Tecno- Van Dyke, N., and H.J. McCammon, eds. 2010. Strategic alliances: Coa- logia Ambientals (ICTA), Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. His lition building and social movements. Minneapolis: University of research mainly focuses on natural resource management, climate Minnesota Press. change adaptation and the role of social movements in these processes Verloo, M. 2013. Intersectional and cross-movement politics and poli- adopting institutional economics approaches, among others. cies: Reflections on current practices and debates. Signs: Journal Intersectional coalitions towards a just agroecology: weaving mutual aid and agroecology… Esteve Corbera holds a PhD in Development Studies and is ICREA environmental change on the governance of natural resources. He draws Research Professor at the Institut de Ciència i Tecnologia Ambientals on data from multi-actor views gathered ethnographically to secondary (ICTA), Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. His research focuses information collected for quantitative assessments. on human-nature relationships and the impact of social, policy and