Suchergebnisse

A century after its inception, agroecology has entered mainstream development debates as a more sustainable alternative to conventional agricultural modernization of relevance not least for improving smallholder agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa. Agroecology is a broad concept considered to have transformative potential, yet as a research field it has often been technology-centred and focused at the local level. Building on the experiences of Ugandan agroecologists working in an array of agricultural professions throughout the country, this paper identifies and discusses major barriers to agroecology in Uganda. Inductive analysis of qualitative data from interviews and focus groups generated four types of interacting barriers; constraints at farmer level, an agricultural knowledge system favouring conventional approaches, adverse and intertwined political and economic interests, and cross-cutting ideological and discursive pressures. These broad challenges become manifest in the accounts presented, making clear that barriers to and therefore also appropriate strategies for advancing agroecology must be treated as contextual even if a 'global movement' is emerging around it. The discussion suggests theoretical lenses for further inquiry into agroecology and its realization in light of these constraints.

Agroecology has come a long way. In the past ten years, it has reappeared in France throughout the agricultural sector and is now included in public and private strategies and in supportive policies, with collateral interest effects. Is a new "agro-revolution" taking place? To address this issue, using a methodology mixing hyperlink mapping and textual corpora analysis, we focus here on the trajectory of agroecology in various worlds: that of academia, social movements, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that promote international solidarity, research and training institutions and public policies. This trajectory intertwines actors and time lines, with periods in which certain actors play a specific role, and others in which interactions between actors are dominant in terms of coalition advocacy. Some actors play a major role in circulating agroecology as they belong to several different social worlds (e.g., academia and NGO), present high occupational mobility (from politician to scientist and vice versa), are charismatic or have an irradiating aura in the media, and can articulate and circulate ideas between different social arenas (including between countries). The stabilization of networks of actors is interpreted as the institutionalization of agroecology, both within social movements as well as because of its integration into a policy aimed at an ecological modernization of agriculture. The international positioning of many actors anchors national and regional initiatives more strongly. It is also a prerequisite for the amplification and development of agroecology.

1 Introduction: Thinking about seeds -- 2 Reclaiming diverse seed commons through food sovereignty, agroecology and economies of care -- 3 Integration of endogenous development theory into the study of seed governance -- 4 Indigenous seed systems, biocultural heritage: the Andean Potato Park's approach to seed governance -- 5 The diversity of seed-saving governance and sharing systems in contemporary Japan -- 6 Seed system dynamics and crop diversity of Chinbaung in Myanmar -- 7 Organizations and functions for seed management in East Asia: Korea, Japan and Taiwan -- 8 Evolutionary populations for sustainable food security and food sovereignty -- 9 Adding value to a Scottish rye landrace: collaborative research into new artisanal products -- 10 Inside the Japanese seed industry: its characteristics and implications for agroecology -- 11 Bhutan's 'middle way': diversification, mainstreaming, commodification and impacts in the context of food security -- 12 The third way of seed governance: the potential of the seed commoning in Japan -- 13 Agroecology, sovereignty and the endogenous development perspective in seed governance and management.

A comparative analysis of agroecology network led to a classification based on their conditions of emergence, their structure and governance mechanisms. The study points the strengths and weaknesses of the existing networks at the different scales. It shows that the different agroecology schools are not necessarily well coordinated at each level (national, regional, global) nor across levels for each agroecology school. The activities of a regional agroecology learning alliance should be grounded in strong national networks and endorsed by global networks.

Resumo Contextualizando historicamente o advento dos problemas ambientais atuais como frutos da apropriação e exploração do ser humano sobre a natureza e sobre o próprio ser humano no modo de produção capitalista, este trabalho apresenta a agroecologia como alternativa sustentável a esse modelo por operar numa lógica externa a do capital. Nesse contexto, objetiva-se verificar de que maneira a essência da forma jurídica opera como entrave à agroecologia. Para tanto, adota-se como método o materialismo histórico-dialético e a seguinte forma de exposição: 1. Apresenta-se a agroecologia como meio de satisfação das necessidades humanas que preserva o equilíbrio da relação metabólica entre seres humanos e natureza, relação esta que foi afetada pelo desenvolvimento do capitalismo, especialmente no que diz respeito à agricultura. 2. Partindo da visão de Marx do direito como forma social que possui uma aparência e uma essência, o segundo capítulo apresenta a forma jurídica aparente da agroecologia no direito positivado em normas brasileiras; e 3. Aborda-se a essência da forma jurídica e de que maneira esta atua como entrave à agroecologia. Concluiu-se que antes de qualquer outro empecilho para implementação da agroecologia em larga escala, deve-se ter em mente que não será a mera criação legislativa a solucionar a crise ecológica hoje, pois as leis ambientais existentes são mera aparência do direito cuja essência busca a manutenção do sistema capitalista insustentável.

Purpose: The study provides a socio-ecological counter account of the role that agroecology plays in supporting the sustainable livelihoods of a co-operative of smallholder coffee farmers, where very little value is created at their end of the coffee commodity chain. Agroecology may be defined as the science that provides the ecological principles and concepts for the design and management of productive agricultural ecosystems that conserve natural resources. Design/methodology/approach: This study uses a case study design of a coffee producing co-operative in India using data collected from participant observation, focus groups and unstructured interviews with indigenous smallholder farmers. It combines the science of agroecology with the labour theory of value as a theoretical framework. Findings: An agroecological approach supports agricultural biodiversity, while promoting sustainable livelihoods since members of the co-operative are able to reduce their use of external inputs. However, an agroecological transformation is curtailed by the continued dependence on corporate value chains. A framework using the labour theory of value is used to explain the extraction of surplus value from the labour of both the smallholder farmers as well as nature. This study provides evidence of the role of government policy and practice in perpetuating the status quo by not promoting either research on agroecology or direct consumer to producer value chains while providing subsidies for the inputs of industrial agriculture. Originality/value: There have been very few studies that have provided an account of smallholder farmers of the limited value generated in agricultural commodity chains due to the need to purchase the inputs of industrial agriculture supported by government subsidies. This study extends the field of accounting for biodiversity into agriculture using the science of agroecology to explain the role played by biodiversity in increasing the amount of value generated by smallholder farmers. By utilizing the labour theory of value, we have introduced the notion of the labour power of nature as represented by the environmental services that nature provides.

International audience ; In Europe, agroecology has become the center of many debates that animate political and professional arenas, particularly regarding the definition and scope of the concept itself. This paper attempts to understand the ways that the term agroecology is conceptualized by different actors and how these concepts circulate so to explore the interests at stake in the institutionalization of agroecology within the research and education institutions of Europe. We address the core research question of: what dynamics emerge in the networks of European stakeholders of agroecology? By combining different approaches of institutionalization based on network and discourse analyses, we study the dynamics of research, education and training organizations. We identify 10 different concepts of agroecology, distributed among 103 organizations. The significant difference that has been observed between the agroecological concepts in research and those in education/training emphasizes the gap between these two worlds. The latter support a more political, transdisciplinary and holistic view of agroecology when compared to the former. Moreover, collaboration among European agroecology stakeholders is limited in both research and education/training. We also found that in most cases, collaboration between scholars does not guarantee a shared notion of agroecology, and conversely, sharing the same notion of agroecology does not assure collaboration. This led us to question the feasibility of institutionalizing agroecology and the missing link between a shared vision and the collective mobilization of stakeholders around a strong agroecology programme

International audience ; In Europe, agroecology has become the center of many debates that animate political and professional arenas, particularly regarding the definition and scope of the concept itself. This paper attempts to understand the ways that the term agroecology is conceptualized by different actors and how these concepts circulate so to explore the interests at stake in the institutionalization of agroecology within the research and education institutions of Europe. We address the core research question of: what dynamics emerge in the networks of European stakeholders of agroecology? By combining different approaches of institutionalization based on network and discourse analyses, we study the dynamics of research, education and training organizations. We identify 10 different concepts of agroecology, distributed among 103 organizations. The significant difference that has been observed between the agroecological concepts in research and those in education/training emphasizes the gap between these two worlds. The latter support a more political, transdisciplinary and holistic view of agroecology when compared to the former. Moreover, collaboration among European agroecology stakeholders is limited in both research and education/training. We also found that in most cases, collaboration between scholars does not guarantee a shared notion of agroecology, and conversely, sharing the same notion of agroecology does not assure collaboration. This led us to question the feasibility of institutionalizing agroecology and the missing link between a shared vision and the collective mobilization of stakeholders around a strong agroecology programme

publication définitive d'une communication présentée à l'IFSA 2018 ; International audience ; In Europe, agroecology has become the center of many debates that animate political and professional arenas, particularly regarding the definition and scope of the concept itself. This paper attempts to understand the ways that the term agroecology is conceptualized by different participantsparticipants and how these concepts circulate so as to explore the interests at stake in the institutionalization of agroecology within the research and education institutions of Europe. We address the core research question of: what dynamics emerge in the networks of European stakeholders of agroecology? By combining different approaches of institutionalization based on network and discourse analysis, we study the dynamics of research, education and training organizations. We identify 10 different concepts of agroecology, distributed among 103 organizations. The significant difference that has been observed between the agroecological concepts in research and those in education/training emphasizes the gap between these two disciplines. The latter support a more political, transdisciplinary and holistic view of agroecology when compared to the former. Moreover, collaboration among European agroecology stakeholders is limited in both research and education/training. We also found that in most cases, collaboration between scholars does not guarantee a shared notion of agroecology, and conversely, sharing the same notion of agroecology does not assure collaboration. This led us to question the feasibility of institutionalizing agroecology and the missing link between a shared vision and the collective mobilization of stakeholders around a strong agroecology programme.

publication définitive d'une communication présentée à l'IFSA 2018 ; International audience ; In Europe, agroecology has become the center of many debates that animate political and professional arenas, particularly regarding the definition and scope of the concept itself. This paper attempts to understand the ways that the term agroecology is conceptualized by different participantsparticipants and how these concepts circulate so as to explore the interests at stake in the institutionalization of agroecology within the research and education institutions of Europe. We address the core research question of: what dynamics emerge in the networks of European stakeholders of agroecology? By combining different approaches of institutionalization based on network and discourse analysis, we study the dynamics of research, education and training organizations. We identify 10 different concepts of agroecology, distributed among 103 organizations. The significant difference that has been observed between the agroecological concepts in research and those in education/training emphasizes the gap between these two disciplines. The latter support a more political, transdisciplinary and holistic view of agroecology when compared to the former. Moreover, collaboration among European agroecology stakeholders is limited in both research and education/training. We also found that in most cases, collaboration between scholars does not guarantee a shared notion of agroecology, and conversely, sharing the same notion of agroecology does not assure collaboration. This led us to question the feasibility of institutionalizing agroecology and the missing link between a shared vision and the collective mobilization of stakeholders around a strong agroecology programme.