Over the course of time other methodological precepts have been grafted onto it, such as the fact of having to favour management over the long term and not only over the short term, or the wish to consider diversity as an advantage rather than a disadvantage that has to be ironed out at all cost. And without forgetting certain socioeconomic principles, added by the GIRAF group: involving researchers, producers, consumers and the public authorities, favouring the possibililty of autonomy in relation to global markets and finally favouring the diversity of knowledge, both local and traditional.

‘The land belongs to those who cultivate it’ 

Via Campesina (the ‘peasant’s way’ in Spanish), which was one of the first international movements to draw on the agroecological vein, illustrates this concept very well. It put down its roots in the 1980s, but was officially established in 1993 at a conference in…Mons (Belgium), which brought together 46 representatives of peasant organisations, agricultural workers, small producers, indigenous peoples, etc. These organisations, from South Anerica, North America, Europe, etc., came together around the idea that, despite appearances, the North and the South in the end shared a series of common interests which they had to defend together. Via Campesina today calls for respect for small and medium scale peasant producers and has set itself eight work axes: sustainable peasant farming, agrarian reform and access to water, food sovereignty, biodiversity, the protection of young peasants, women, migrant workers and human rights. The movement regularly organises conferences, awareness raising activities, support campaigns etc. in many places over the world. Its slogan is: ‘Stop the monopolisation of the lands: the land belongs to those who cultivate it.’

But the future of agroecology will also be shaped by a whole series of initiatives which are currently in the stage of ‘being developed.’ Such as agroforestry, a mode of exploiting agricultural land in combining the planting of trees amongst crops and pasture land. A practice which allows food production, energy issues and biodiversity to be linked up. There is another type of so-called ‘mixed’ system: multiple cropping-livestock breeding (in other words the opposite of a monoculture), which aims to combine crops and livestock breeding in order to draw out the advantages of their complemetarity. The question of seeds also features in the debate. Today the development, the production and distribution of seeds are in the hands of private companies. Farmers no long have the right to select and distribute their own seeds. Everything now is filtered through the seed industry, which imposes its standards of homogenity and standardisation. This approach has sparked the disappearance of a great many varieties. The idea is thus to return to a mode of production more adapted to the new challenges in terms of resilience (climate change), biodiversity (taste, etc.) and local autonomy. Finally one could mention participatory certification, this attempt to reintegrate consumers and producers in the process of the certification of organic food from which they have been excluded up until now.

‘The future will also be shaped by education,’ concludes Pierre Stassart. ‘It can be noted that there exists a strong demand amongst students, a desire to invest in a model capable of renewing agroeconomy in responding to the social issues and the planetary challenges: energy, biodiversity and climate change, notably. It will also be necessary to take part in developing the ideas in the international arenas and ask ourselves this central question: in the face of the current impasse of non-sustainable systems, how can we organise the transition so that another model such as agroecology can become implemented? Change often involves learning how to learn differently, which can involve abandoning, whilst transforming it, the way of learning which has led us to the current impasse.’