Rather, in the s, their emphasis was on the institutionalization of ethnosciences rather than that of agroecology as a discipline, as indicated by the denomination of their laboratories, journals and courses [ 56 ]. On the side of agronomy, some rare figures converted to ecology while most agronomists remained focused on the maximization of production.
Dumont also prefaced the French edition of a reference book coordinated by M. Dufumier, a vibrant defender of agroecology who succeeded Dumont. Several agronomists who foresaw the bottlenecks in the Green Revolution model in the South also underwent a similar conversion. Some of them used the lexicon of agroecology, especially those who carried out work in West Africa in the Sahel [ 2 , 58 ]. Interestingly, this is reminiscent of similar patterns used by other pioneers in agroecology working in extreme environmental conditions [ 61 , 62 , 63 ], leading researchers to focus on the adaptation of production to their environments rather than transforming the environment in favor of production.
As for CIRAD-SA and other development agencies, this marked a turning point in the forms of cooperation with foreign countries, shifting from commodity or production-oriented to farming systems research [ 68 ]. Some trajectories of individuals can also be mentioned due to their role of intermediary between the north and south and between academia and society, and to their early identification as agroecologists e. To conclude, the archeology of French scientific agroecology is based upon individual researchers with unconventional conceptions of agronomy and agricultural development.
However, these individuals, even those working in collective organizations within research institutions e. Some of these researchers left their institutions e. In the s, most of the investment in agroecology could be attributed to social movements. Both are related to organic agriculture in terms of their purpose or of the history of their leaders.
As in other countries, some individuals strongly embodied their association s , especially P. As Figure 2 and Figure 3 classes 6 and 4 show, his vision has been widely publicized through conferences, ecosites, training, publications, and political engagements, including his bid for the French presidency. Born in Algeria in , P. Rabhi moved to Paris where he became a specialized manual laborer. In , he left the city for the countryside. As an agricultural worker, he realized that the productivist logic of the factory was also applicable to the countryside. The notions of organism and metabolism are central to this economy of nature; humus is considered to be the keystone of our humanity.
The attention to mother earth-nurturer is not a metaphor but an objective reality, a living universal condition of our food and our renewal. These two arguments led Rabhi to use the term agroecology in the late s. In this vision, man and humanistic values come first. Nevertheless, the agricultural dimension is also present, with facilities that preserve the integrity of resources, in small structures oriented towards autonomy, recycling and qualitative and localized production.
The proposed program is based on an ecology of contexts, embodied in various places by prototypes and training actions. It leads to and relies more widely on associative initiatives or foundations in which everyone can contribute to the search for economic, social, and cultural alternatives.
On the other hand, contrary to other trends that place agroecology as an interdisciplinary research program, especially in America, P. Rabhi leaves little space for other scientific knowledge. In the meantime, the international organic movement was still under construction and in search of its identity and hesitant about its own denomination [ 73 ]. On his side, Rabhi identified himself in as an agrobiologist or biodynamist [ 69 ], and later on, at least in , as an agroecologist [ 70 ].
Through his movement, Pierre Rabhi met many people in the s who worked towards the development of agroecology [ 76 ]. In , to perpetuate this role of north-south hub, they created the association CARI [ 80 ], which connected them to the world of international solidarity NGOs.
This created an explicit link with the powerful social movements and scientific approaches of the Ibero-American world [ 86 ]. Conversely, we can observe the absence of P. This conference, bringing together nearly people, was accompanied by public positions.
l'inra un organisme de recherche finalisée pour l'agriculture, l'alimentation et l' demain, l'inra, moteur d'une recherche agronomique internationale pour des innovations quelles questions prioritaires pour l'inra dans les dix prochaines années? améliorer la dynamique partenariale avec le monde socio- économique. Agronome, ancien directeur de recherche à l'INRA, 92 avenue Victor Hugo, C' est pourquoi la direction de la revue Natures Sciences Sociétés a souhaité cet . Michel Sebillotte: Je vais répondre à la question en l'enrichissant d'idées .. Les Mondes de l'agriculture: une recherche pour demain, Paris, INRA Éditions. .
This political ecology journal had already dedicated special series of articles to agroecology [ 89 ] and reported on this successful conference [ 90 ]. To conclude, this period shows the role of contemporary pioneers as well as the interconnections and co-evolution between the organic movement and agroecology. It should also be remembered that at the end of the s, the French agroecological movement was composed of different actors following their own specific agendas but whose global vision generally converged. As we have seen, some individual researchers played a role in the s in the recognition of the need to reconsider a development path that took agroecology into account, beginning in West Africa.
During the s, a change of regime could be seen in the way that agroecology was considered, especially in the case of CIRAD. Michel Griffon was an important contributor, first, to this institutionalization of agroecology within CIRAD, then, to the French academic scene and, recently, to agricultural policy. Sarkozy, in to make some policy recommendations on environmental issues. Griffon [ 92 ], his investment in CIRAD began with his awareness of the importance of environmental issues after the Rio Conference in , which was the international consecration of the Sustainable Development concept.
Another important moment for M. There is no criticism of the Green Revolution in this case but, instead, the desire to extend it, using biotechnologies and ecology: If some textual traces of agroecology in the CIRAD archive exist, particularly concerning missions for cooperation on agroecology [ 95 , 96 ] in the middle of the s.
Indeed, as of the end of the s, these researchers focused on soil conservation techniques, usually under the banner of Conservation Agriculture [ 97 ]. Some other agronomists [ 99 , , ] also question the suitability and appropriateness of this technological package for farmers, small landholders and African technical culture, whereas conservation agriculture is mainly attached to larger farms and to the agricultural supply industry [ 97 ].
The use of the term agroecology can appear to be ambiguous here. The term is also used on their website http: These global plans are based on many successive national or regional projects, e. Many references can be found to agroecology since , but very few to Altieri or other leading authors. The first citation was seen in [ ], citing the agroecology principles in Reijntjes et al. Indeed, the concern for smallholders and farmers and the arguments Altieri promoted seem to be the main reason for the choice of the term.
Another possible reason concerns the establishment of L. Bourguignon since [ 97 ], a soil microbiologist engaged in agroecology who had ties to P. Some researchers developed works considered as agroecology by diversifying the themes beyond soil management, e. Griffon [ 92 ], is composed of two dimensions degree of ecological process mobilization x degree of actors and socio-economic organization mobilization , which defines a range of agricultural systems.
As a scientific director, he played a major role. The evolution toward Ecologically Intensive Agriculture EIA , continuing the lexical conundrum, can be understood as the construction of a discursive strategy [ ] aimed at enlisting actors. This strategy is based upon the creation of a new oxymoron whose explicit function, as linguists also say [ ], is to neutralize conflictualities.
Indeed, in , M. Griffon [ ] explained his political strategy: But Doubly Green Revolution is a term that never convinced people. Kosciusko-Morizet, that the issue of finding a term that could mobilize consciences reemerged. We felt that there was a certain acceptance around this term There is a paradoxical meaning. The paradox is that it seems to marry two very different things: To announce that paradoxes can become realities is to force oneself to think.
This may therefore appear as a misunderstanding. But it is a misunderstanding that is extremely useful, precisely because it gives food for thought This desire to enlist a large set of actors, particularly from the agricultural mainstream and to embrace the diversity of agricultural models was also expressed regarding the partnerships established around the eponym NGO that M.
Griffon created in However, the participation in EIA events over time evolved toward mainstream actors, mainly cooperatives, agribusiness, extension services, some conservation agriculture, and a few environmental NGOs, and the thematic also shifted to technology and market issues. The political agenda-setting, and the compromise it requires, affected the lexicon and the semantics used and created some ambiguities between agroecology and EIA. The established discourses on the notion show that the concepts are sometimes equivalent and commutable, as in the name of the conference cycle organized by CIRAD since , as well as with other notions, e.
These concepts were sometimes subordinated to EIA [ ].
This uncomfortable situation encouraged M. Griffon to clarify the links, by breaking with the visions of other agroecology actors. EIA is based on an ecological reductionism [ ] focused on ecological processes and services, while leaving the other dimensions embedded in a stronger agroecology, i.
In an interview made in , he declared: Many students hear about it as the activity of a man who is Pierre Rabhi, and so it is a philosophical conception of life founded especially on agriculture; it is organic agriculture quite simply … that it is an agriculture finalized on a kind of cultivated and assumed sobriety.
There is a concept of agroecology as the ecology of political ecologists, that is to say, a movement of a somewhat ideological character and based on natural techniques without particular theorization but claimed as a movement, as a social movement. And then the last definition that I personally use is: So there are at least these three ways of seeing things. He reinforces this scientist vision of agroecology when dealing with the difference between agroecology and EIA: EIA uses agroecology as a science, to understand the phenomena.
And intensive ecology is engineering. Even if they focused on smallholders, CIRAD has no agrarian preferences like many American agroecologists or rural sociologists and promotes a wide range of systems big or small, at the farm or industrial level toward ecologically intensified systems. Griffon conceptualizes EIA as a means to reduce conflicts in the world of agriculture: Griffon and CIRAD are also reformists in the sense that they prefer being inside the institutional mainstream, e.
They thus believe in the strategy of compromise-building with strong actors. This concept, supported since by the FAO, emerged in the climate arena, while agriculture was absent from negotiations, from actors of the agricultural sector now coalesced in the Global Alliance on Climate Smart Agriculture GACSA including fertilizer, seed and biotech industries [ ]. In its diplomatic capacity, CIRAD attempts to maintain contacts between two epistemic communities and with the whole range of actors in the agricultural world, from farmers to agribusiness. The period was characterized by the profusion of books and reflections about the past, the present and the future of the discipline and the need to reinject it with a new modernity [ , , , , , , ], where contributions from ecology are a big part of the expected legitimization.
Many individual INRA researchers were involved in the previous movement, but INRA, as an institution, has been moving towards a paradigmatic shift since around , when G. Between and , some INRA units or centers adopted the term agroecology as an identifier. The preparation of the strategic INRA — document [ ] boosted the inclusion of agroecology in the national research agenda.
It included an inventory of possible options and definitions of agroecology. A restrictive definition was then chosen, with broader thematic coverage while operating a boundary work [ ] between science and social movements, and thus with historical academic agroecology connected to social movements. This official position is not unanimously followed inside INRA. During his 5-year mandate, exceptional in duration and in involvement, he proposed a project of agricultural policy reform, based on agro-ecology also with a dash, as for INRA , seen as a way to combine economic and environmental performances.
However, this conversion to agroecology appeared to come late for the Minister of agriculture. Before , the term rarely appeared in the ministerial discourse. While he is specialized in agriculture, in terms of his experience, within his political party and as a member of the agriculture commission in the European Parliament, S. Le Foll, and the think tank the Saint Germain Group that he coordinates did not use the term agroecology before , preferring the terms ecoagriculture [ ] and generally EIA [ , , ] as the basis for the conceptualization of the agriculture reform that they advocate.
Indeed, the choice of using agro-ecology took place inside a window of opportunity. In fact, the MAAF, to legitimize its actions, made extensive use of INRA expertise, which paradoxically contributed to the depoliticization of agroecology while integrating it into agricultural policy. Moreover, the government was in an alliance between the Socialist Party and Green Party.
Thus, even if Le Foll finally chose agro-ecology, his political strategy is rooted in the Griffon vision [ ], while the discourse analysis about EIA also shows this lexical substitution to agroecology since it goes under the conceptual framework of the MAAF [ ]. In their ministerial actor survey, Arrignon and Bosc [ ] show that the MAAF strategy is based upon a pacifying and depoliticizing rhetoric as well as an integrative instrumentation.
The fuzzy and encompassing use of agroecology is seen as a strategic resource to potentially enlist a larger set of actors claiming various agricultural models and practices. A national press article in at the beginning of the policy concluded: It can be seen as a response to the challenge of the ecological modernization of agriculture, i. These systems favor the autonomy of farms and the improvement of their competitiveness by maintaining or increasing economic profitability, by improving the added value of production and by reducing energy consumption, etc. They are based on biological interactions and the use of ecosystem services and the potential offered by natural resources The strong political and discursive work Figure 2 and Figure 3 , class 1 carried out by the Minister himself characterizes this policy established in a difficult structural resistance of mainstream union co-managing agriculture and economic context milk crisis.
Beyond that personal involvement, the policy is quite modest because of the lack of allocated funds, CAP constraints and the limited strength of its instruments. Indeed, the FAP is mainly an umbrella for previous policies. In , three approaches were embedded in the FAP: It concerns four main themes: In addition, outside a regulatory framework, the PAF also promotes development plans for beekeeping, agroforestry, and conservation agriculture, emphasizing the plurality of models and the inclusive strategy of the minister.
By supporting forms of agriculture performing economically and environmentally, bottom-up initiatives and projects were encouraged by the MAAF. They had to include groups of farmers and possibly other actors, with the aim of implementing innovations that can significantly and collectively improve the impacts of farming systems on the environment. Some of them were created in Apart from the organic sector, the proposal was contested by most of the concerned organizations. The minister himself attended and advocated the idea among a group of leading firms from the agro-food sector.
They advocated forms of contractualization with farmers and suggested having HVE as a flagship for agro-ecology [ ]. Another important dimension of French agricultural policy concerns the diplomacy where agroecology also becomes a resource. Le Foll, the former Minister of Agriculture, wanted France to be a world leader in agroecology. He thus encouraged French diplomacy to promote agroecology inside the FAO. The French government has been one of the promoters and financial and manpower contributors, with Brazil, of the FAO Global Dialogue on Agroecology since The group, Friends of Agroecology G2A , was launched early in The G2A organized a first public event, a round-table on agro-ecology, in April , making it possible to approach different perspectives on agroecology through the intervention of five panelists.
However, some actors in the historical agroecology movement also used the institutionalization of agroecology as a resource to legitimize their action. In this window of opportunity, while sometimes being skeptical about governmental positions, many actors used agroecology as an explicit banner.
Consequently, the progressive opening of a legitimacy space, particularly since the political support extended to agroecology, allows the emergence of new actors as well as the structuring of their networks. This is visible on the map of actors on the Web Figure 5. Between the two mapping moments and , agroecology became embedded in a wider range of institutions, e. A kind of thematic dilution inside new and more generalist organizations affected the way we built our map. We thus made the choice to select those macro-actors with a strong influence on agroecology, as displayed in Figure 5 , because they are recognized, and thus hyperlinked, by other agroecology actors or because they contribute to agroecology.
The global topology evolved from a strong bipolarity between actors from social movements and those actors more connected with mainstream institutions, to a multi-clustered morphology with higher connectivity and fuzzier boundaries Figure 5. Thus, the polarization observed in is less present, especially with the reinforcement of a wide number of intermediate stakeholders in green and yellow colors, at the center of Figure 5 in Indeed, there is a core cluster blue cluster in the upper middle area of the map consisting of governmental institutions particularly MAAF, INRA and mainstream professional organizations connected with specific clusters.
Consequently, institutions have gained in centrality, i. Some organizations yellow, and greens clusters on the map previously inside the social movement polarity e. The sub-polarities are also more or less connected to each other. Some clusters of actors were reinforced after For instance, agroforestry actors, strongly connected to those involved in conservation agriculture, are newcomers on the agroecology map, while the French Agroecology Program has developed a specific development plan that makes it possible to develop and structure local actors under two main national associations.
This journey through the past enabled us to shed light on the roots and routes of agroecology in France. However, it took almost three decades to legitimate-and even legalize-agroecology as research and political programs. Our findings confirm that the term agroecology is understood and used differently by different actors in France. With the idea of multiple performance and the systemic vision promoted in the mainstream conception of agro-ecology in established institutions, France can also be characterized by a technological optimism [ , ]. It also tends to minimize the scope of the agroecological proposal by bringing the biological entities to a second level, to the rank of objects and not ecological entities with uncertain behaviors [ ].
The issue is not as such about opposing technology and ecology, as in the organic sector [ ], but of keeping in mind that these evolutions are not neutral in terms of designing agricultural systems. In addition, the food system dimension of an agroecology program is rather weak, except for AMAPs i. France thus departs from other narratives in agroecology that exist both at the international and national level [ 21 , 22 ]. Although numerous discrete or grassroot initiatives were legitimized within the first call from the MAAF, agricultural policy co-management with the dominant sector reappeared as a key instrument for the orientation of agricultural practices.
The departure of S. Le Foll following the recent French elections and the arrival of a new minister raises the question of the continuity of political support for agroecology, which nevertheless remains inscribed in calls for research projects, even if the proposed frameworks have other objects climate change, ecosystem services, etc.
Will these dynamics fit the principles of agroecology, reinforce them in their scientific dimension and open new ways of building and implementing a strong vision of agroecology? Its anchoring in social practices GIEE, etc. In order to improve this situation, it is urgent for member countries to increase their spending on research and for them to do more to develop Europe-wide research programmes by combining their efforts.
The priority given to research in Europe obviously influences the scale of scientific discoveries Europe makes and hence to some extent the EU's opportunities for innovation, says Pierre Papon, but also the image that its own residents and other nations have of the EU. In , the French government decided to stimulate innovation in France by - among other measures - creating special clusters across the country which would promote synergies among firms, education and training, and research.
Just over 60 clusters were chosen from among the applicants, in many diverse fields, ranging from aeronautics to information technologies, via biotechnologies, etc. Several of the clusters were specifically geared to the farming and food industry, such as the Fruit and Vegetables cluster at Avignon. He first looks in detail at the origin of the Food Valley and the way it operates, then turns to the Avignon cluster, before highlighting the key factors behind the success of the Food Valley, which might be helpful in France. Finally, he discusses the limits of this experience, in particular the lack of a shared vision of the long term and the risk of emphasizing access merely to existing knowledge at the expense of investment in research in the long run.
Consequently what is needed is a judicious mix in the "ecosystem" of initial participants ready to share their strong points in order to improve their competitiveness along with the political will to intervene so as to organize and develop the resulting cluster. La poursuite des tendances actuelles laisse penser que non. As is clear from reading most of the articles in this special issue, all the scenarios for stabilizing or reducing emissions of greenhouse gases to "acceptable" limits require a real effort to tackle the growth of energy consumption.
Consequently, after highlighting the crucial importance of dealing with the energy problem, she presents here some possible ways of reducing energy consumption in the industrialized countries: Unfortunately, despite many possibilities that already exist or are in prospect, tackling energy consumption remains a taboo subject, especially because it is too often wrongly understood as holding back economic growth, and it does not attract the amount of effort in terms of technological or socio-organizational research, for example needed to match the stakes involved.
This is one of the major failures of both governments and business, in France, in Europe, and throughout the world. It is obvious that if active measures are not taken soon to improve matters, stabilizing the greenhouse gas emissions and thus limiting global warming will remain merely pious hopes. Futuribles has devoted much space in the last year to the problems of research, and in particular its organization.
We continue the debate on this question with an article describing the Japanese experience of reforming their research system. Above all, he highlights the current major reform of the national universities which affects their method of hiring to research posts; partnerships between universities, industry and government; the creation of centres of excellence, etc.
Key words here are competition, autonomy, releasing creativity and more flexible management. He also describes how this reform, which aims to restore Japan as a leader in research internationally, has been welcomed and implemented by the main players involved. The reform may not yet be completed, but it is well under way; it remains to be seen what its impact will be on Japan's performance in research in the next few years. Following the protests from the French research community in Spring , on several occasions between June and December Futuribles provided coverage of the debate about ways of reforming the French research system.
This article by Catherine Paradeise and Jean-Claude Thoenig continues the debate, this time proposing a pragmatic approach that would make it easier to implement reform. Indeed, quite apart from the many proposals for changing and overhauling the way that public research is organized, the key question is how reforms could actually be put into practice and, in particular, how those working in the public research sector could be persuaded to see the reforms as being in their own interest.
The authors, who are specialists in the sociology of organizations, therefore examine here this aspect of how reforms of the system are implemented and the feasibility of the approaches so far envisaged. Their analysis is based on the conviction that such a fundamental reform cannot occur without the participation of everyone involved and it must come from the bottom up, gradually and in small, unconnected steps, rather than via a global, institutional approach.
The important thing is to "put an end to a majestic, all-encompassing vision of the reform", by increasing the number of intermediate levels likely to trigger organizational changes.