It is against this biotechnological model that agroecology positions itself, in other words against this paradigm which aims at absorbing the food question exlusively through an intensification of production thanks to technology in such a way as to respond to the growing demand of the global markets.
‘The basic principle of the agroecological model is the reorganisation of work both at the level of employment and distribution whilst transforming the modes of consumption,’ explains the researcher, ‘in particular by trying to resolve the problems of waste by reducing the consumption of meat in the food system. In Europe for example, 65% of crop production is geared towards livestock production. In our opinion the productionist hypothesis will not be sufficient to resolve the problems of hunger in the world. Other pathways have to be explored. But mind what I am saying: we are not ruling this model out. Several different ones can cohabit.’
A Tom Thumb
Up against the the biotechnological trend, widely prevalent today, agroecology still has the appearance of a Tom Thumb. But an event has recently accelerated the questioning of the productivist model. In 2007-2008 several regions around the world were affected by a strong climb in the price of basic foodstuffs. The prices of wheat, rice and soya reached unprecedented peaks. At the root of the problem: classical factors such as poor harvests in certain production areas and the growing urbanisation of poor populations but also for the first time the growing place taken by biofuels and speculating on foodstuffs. Developed countries are turning massively towards biofuels to counter the increase in petroleum products, thus reducing the availability of certain foodstuffs. If to that is added a touch of financial crisis, cleverly mixed together with a whole series of other factors, we arrive at a series of famine based riots in several developing countries: Haitit, Cameroon, Egypt, Indonesia, Senegal, the Ivory Coast, Mauritania, Mozambique, Morocco, Burkina Faso, the Philippines, Thailand, Bangladesh, etc.
In the face of these events the question of another agricultural model – which would integrate not only food issues but also energy, environmental and climate factors – burst to the front of the political and media stages. Little by little agroecology is coming to be considered as a viable alternative. ‘Whilst still in a minority, this movement is finding more and more echoes from the international arenas, notably from the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food.’
Agroecology is a unifying concept which proclaims its polysemic character. It is impossible to summarise it in a single sentence, which to some extent makes understanding it more arduous. In its article the GIRAF group clarifies its arguments through the historical evolution of the definition of agroecology. Three definitions are thus offered, one taking into account the sustainable nature of agriculture, another focusing more widely on agrofood systems, with the third stressing the fact that this concept does not stem exclusively from either scientific research or from practice, and nor does is stem from social movements, but indeed results from the interaction between these three areas.
Agroecology moreover responds to five historical principles:
1. Enabling the recycling of the biomass.
2. Guaranteeing favourable conditions for plant growth, in limiting to a maximum the use of fertilisers, petrol and pesticides.
3. Ensuring a microclimate based managememt, in other words in relation to the climate of a given region.
4. Favouring genetic and species diversity.
5. Allowing biological synergies between the component parts of the ecosystem.
