Institutionalizing Agroecology in France: Social Circulation Changes the Meaning of an Idea-2pt

30 Pages·2017·2.54 MB·English

sustainability
Communication
Institutionalizing Agroecology in France: Social
Circulation Changes the Meaning of an Idea
StéphaneBellon*andGuillaumeOllivier ID
Ecodéveloppement,Inra,Avignon84914,France;[email protected]
* Correspondence:[email protected]
(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:1)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:1)
(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)
Received:14March2018;Accepted:25April2018;Published:30April2018
Abstract: 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?
Toaddressthisissue,usingamethodologymixinghyperlinkmappingandtextualcorporaanalysis,
wefocushereonthetrajectoryofagroecologyinvariousworlds: thatofacademia,socialmovements,
non-governmentalorganizations(NGOs)thatpromoteinternationalsolidarity,researchandtraining
institutionsandpublicpolicies. Thistrajectoryintertwinesactorsandtimelines,withperiodsin
whichcertainactorsplayaspecificrole,andothersinwhichinteractionsbetweenactorsaredominant
intermsofcoalitionadvocacy.Someactorsplayamajorroleincirculatingagroecologyastheybelong
to several different social worlds (e.g., academia and NGO), present high occupational mobility
(frompoliticiantoscientistandviceversa),arecharismaticorhaveanirradiatingaurainthemedia,
andcanarticulateandcirculateideasbetweendifferentsocialarenas(includingbetweencountries).
Thestabilizationofnetworksofactorsisinterpretedastheinstitutionalizationofagroecology,both
withinsocialmovementsaswellasbecauseofitsintegrationintoapolicyaimedatanecological
modernizationofagriculture. Theinternationalpositioningofmanyactorsanchorsnationaland
regionalinitiativesmorestrongly. Itisalsoaprerequisitefortheamplificationanddevelopment
ofagroecology.
Keywords: agroecology;France;genealogy;institutionalization;socialmovement;science;policy
1. Introduction
France plays a special role in the dynamic landscape of agroecology in Europe. In spite of
pioneerworksthatexplicitlyusedthetermagroecologyinFrenchliteratureinthepast[1,2],more
than25yearselapsedbeforethetermsignificantlyappearedinavarietyofarenas: socialmovements,
NGOspromotinginternationalsolidarity,publicpolicies,researchinstitutions,agriculturalschools,
theprivatesector,etc. Indeed,differencesareevidentamongtheseactorsintheirdynamicsofuse
andunderstandingofwhatagroecologyisaboutandwhatitspurposeis. Basedonaninternational
comparison,Wezeletal.[3]alreadysuggestedconsideringagroecologyastheinteractionbetween
“sciences,practicesandmovements”. Conversely,thepolicydimensionofagroecologywasrelatively
absentinthepast,exceptinthecaseofBrazil[4],whereasitonlyappearedinFrancein2012withthe
arrivalofStéphaneLeFollintheFrenchgovernment.
Inthispaper,wefocusontheFrenchsituationandupdateourpreviouswork[5],withtheintent
ofaddressinghowtheinstitutionalizationofagroecologycanenableatransitioninagriculturaland
food systems. Our previous analysis of the institutionalization of the concept of agroecology [5]
showed that before agroecology appeared on the French policy agenda, the French Web space
of actors referring to agroecology was structurally and semantically polarized. A first polarity
consistedofhigh-levelorganizations,whethertheybeinternational(e.g.,theFoodandAgriculture
Organization[FAO])ornationalwithaninternationalmandate(e.g.,theFrenchDevelopmentAgency
Sustainability2018,10,1380;doi:10.3390/su10051380 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability2018,10,1380 2of30
[AFD], the French Agricultural Research and International Cooperation Organization [CIRAD] or
theInternationalAssociationforEcologicallyIntensiveAgriculture[EIA]).Theoppositepolaritywas
primarilyrepresentedbyNGOs,namelythosethatdevelopedcriticismsabouttheindustrializationof
agricultureandpromotedhumanisticororganicvisions(e.g.,thosethatrevolvedaroundP.Rabhiand
theassociation“NatureetProgrès”,createdin1964).
In this paper, we analyze how the agroecology idea circulates through different social arenas
(scientific,educational,policy,civicandeconomic)andthewaythatthiscirculationaffectsthemeanings
ofthisideaand,consequently,itsinstitutionalizationinFrance.Thecirculationofideasandknowledge
is conceptualized in many social science traditions, such as social study of science [6], history of
knowledge[7]orhistoryofpoliticalthought[8];itisalsoanalternativetothemodelofanunidirectional
diffusion of immutable and hegemonic knowledge [9,10]. Indeed, circulation is at the same time
(i)arevealingmethodologicalgaze,takingseriouslyspatial,temporal,andsocialanchoragesofideas
as well as material and interactional incarnation of ideas and knowledge, and (ii) a social process
affectingtheshapingofsignificationsofideasorknowledgeaswellastheevolutionofassociated
advocatingepistemiccommunities.
According to various social science theories such as the structuration theory [11], discursive
neo-institutionalism [12,13] or the actor-network theory [14], we consider institutionalization as
agradualprocessofcreatingandstabilizingrelationshipsbetweenactors,aswellassharingcommon
ideasandnormsthatmakecollectiveactionpossible. Ourgradualapproachdiffersfrommorebinary
onesconsideringinstitutionalizationasbeing(i)limitedtoformalandpowerfulorganizationsand
(ii) detrimental to a genuine transformative program in agroecology. The first argument assumes
a strong dichotomy between institutions and social movements; this is especially advocated by
criticismsoriginatinginCentralandSouthAmerica[15]. However,wearguethatasocialmovement
isnotsodistinctfromaninstitution. Literaturedefinesasocialmovementas“collectiveenterprises
seeking to establish a new order of life” [16], attempting to promote a specific framework on a social
problemtobeincorporatedintothemainstreaminstitution[17]. Asstatedinthestagemodelofsocial
movements[18],asocialmovementoftenprogressivelyacquiresinstitutionalproperties: coalescence
and stabilization of relations between actors sharing close ideas, forms of bureaucracy needed to
organizecollectiveactionandeventuallycreationofformalorganizationswithprofessionalemployees
andworkingrulesandconventions. Moreover,asocialmovementisalwaysconnectedtomainstream
institutions,asanopponent,asaninterlocutororevenasaresourceprovider. Regardingthesecond
argumentaboutthetransformativepotentialofagroecology,someauthorsshoweddivergingtrendsin
theagroecologypoliticaltrajectoryattheEuropeanlevel: onethatwasincorporatedintothedominant
agro-foodregime,andtheotherthataimedtocontestit[19]. Thisappropriationofagroecology(also
knownas“co-optation”[15,20])alsoleadstoresignifications[21,22]suchas“peasantagroecology”[15],
“politicalagroecology”[23]or“deepagroecology”[24].
Based on these premises, we show that: (i) updating the image drawn in 2011 (opposing
mainstreamandsocialmovementorganizations)showsthatnewactorsplayaroleinthenational
agroecology scene whose institutionalization also concerns social movements; (ii) promoting
an inclusive vision of agroecology on a political agenda enables both the interest or enlistment
of a wider range of actors (including the private sector and advisory councils, beyond the
“science/practice/movement”triad[3])andthedemarcationofothergroupswillingtoshiftfromthe
continuousproductivity/competitivenessframework/paradigm;and(iii)focusingonFranceconfirms
theinternationalizationofagroecology,withnetworksandassociationsacrossthesocial,south-north
anddisciplinaryboundaries.
Inthispaper,wefocusontheFrenchactorstoanalyzethedynamicsofinstitutionalizationof
agroecologythroughtheemergenceofinterlinkingorganizations. Thefirstsectionpresentsthedata
collectionandanalysismethodsused,whereasthesecondsectionpresentstheresults: first,describing
howthetermagroecologyspreadinFrance-especiallyduringthepastdecade—withageneralmapping;
second, throughthefocusonresearchprogramsinagroecology, withspecificorganizationallinks
Sustainability2018,10,1380 3of30
in collaboration networks; and third, with a cross-cutting analysis of public policies that promote
agroecology. We conclude by reflecting upon what these institutional dynamics can tell us about
thechangesofmeaningviathecirculationofideasfromsocialmovementstoacademiaandpolicy,
andaboutthefuturedevelopmentofagroecologyinEurope.
2. MaterialandMethods
Tostudytheemergingsemanticsaroundagroecology,weconsideredtheinvestmentofdifferent
actorsintheconstructionandtheexistenceofsuchaformula,asconceptualizedbyKrieg-Planque[25],
eventhoughotherformspre-existed(alternative,organic,sustainable,etc.)[26]. Agroecologyisalso
anoxymoron,i.e.,theassociationofapparentlycontradictorywords,agronomy,andecology,which
inducespolysemy. Thispolysemyalsocomesfromtheworkofdemarcation-orconvergence—that
itsdifferentusersapply. Agroecologyisnotagivenbutamultipleconstruction. Hence,wedonot
makenormativejudgmentshereaboutwhatitshouldorshouldnotbe. Wedescribetheuseofthis
termasaformula[25],or“flagshipwords”andotherslogans,whichfunctionasasocialreference.
This reference can become an issue of controversy between actors with diverging socio-political
visions,professionalidentities,oracademicdomains. Wethusfocusedonthewayinwhichtheterm
agroecology is mobilized by different actors in social movements, in the professional agricultural
environmentandinresearchbodies(programingandprojects).
At the methodological level, focusing on recognized, established material or digital traces,
we tracked down the different modes of existence and social construction of the formula and its
variations(nouns,withorwithoutahyphenandadjectives),intheFrenchsocialspacebymobilizing
severalresources.
First, tomaptheonlinepublicsphereinvolvedinagroecology, weusedwebcrawlers[27,28].
Crawlersaresoftwarethatallowtheautomaticextractionofhyperlinksbetweenwebsites. Weselected
iteratively the relevant websites to be crawled to their use of the terms related with agroecology.
Thedatacollectedcanthenbeanalyzedusingsocialnetworkanalysismethods. Indeed,empirical
studiesoftheWebshowedacorrelationbetweenthestructuralpositioninthenetworkofhyperlinked
websites and positions with respect to the issue they treat [29,30]. Moreover, many webometric
studiesshowedthatcreationofhyperlinksisastrategicchoiceofactorsmanagingwebsiteswhichhas
sociologicalsignificance(indicatorofauthority,ideologicalaffiliation,institutionalrecognitionofallied
actors,politicalhomophily,communityandidentitybuilding)explainingtheuseofsuchhyperlink
mapping in the analysis of social movements or political agenda-setting analysis [31]. Hyperlink
mapping makes it possible to detect the most influential agroecology actors, the main cluster of
actors(usingBlondelcommunitydetectionalgorithm[32])andfinallytocomparetheevolutionof
theoverallsocialmorphologyoftheactornetworkinterestedinagroecologybetweenour2011and
2018mappings.
Second,togiveageneraloverviewoftheagroecologydynamicsinmanyarenasinquantitative
terms,andonthebasisofthehyperlinkmapping,webuilt(i)corporafromacademicsources(INRA,
CIRAD,IRDopenarchivesaswellasFrencharticlesindexedbyWebofScience)and(ii)acorpusof
FrenchnationalandregionalmassmediaextractedfromFactivaandEuropressdatabases(n=10,694
newspaper articles). Texts in both corpora contain words derived from agroecology. Through
asimplecountingofdocumentsovertime,computedwithourownRscript,weshowedtheevolving
importanceofdiscourseaboutagroecologyinbothcorpora(Figures1and2A).Figure2Bdisplaysthe
numberofoccurrencesofimportantactorsofagricultureoragroecologyintheFrenchmassmedia
corpus. Toanalyzethecontentofthiscorpus,weusedthelexicometrysoftwareIramuteq[33]which
providesthemainlexicalclustersandthustheframingofagroecologyinmassmedia.
Ininteractionwithresultsfromthehyperlinkmappingandthepreviousquantitativeoverview,
we finally built a textual corpus requesting search engines on main actors’ websites to identify
relevant publications about their investment on agroecology (e.g., biographies, annual reports,
programmaticdocuments...). ThankstoourinstitutionalpositioninsideINRA,i.e.,thefirstnational
Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 29
(academic publication, newspaper articles, webpages and internal documentation and observations)
were closely and qualitatively read, and when relevant are directly cited in the following sections.
This methodology makes it possible to highlight the relationships between the actors, at least as
they appear through hypertext links, and the discursive content they develop around the term of
agroecology. Thus, the meaning of the term stems from both its discursive content and its social
Sustainability2018,10,1380 4of30
embedding.
publicagriculturalresearchinstituteandinvestedinagroecology,wehavealsoconductedparticipant
3. Results: How the Term Agroecology Circulated in France
observationsandthusaccessedtointernaldocumentationcompletingthepreviouscorpora. Fromthe
perspectiveofaqualitativesocio-historicalanalysis,documentsofthosecorpora(academicpublication,
3.1. An Overview of Agroecology Discourse
newspaper articles, webpages and internal documentation and observations) were closely and
Thqeu adlityantiavmelyicrse aodf, aangdrowehceonloreglyev aunstea riend tihrercetley sciitgendiifnictahnetf oallgorwicinugltsuercatilo nFsr.ench research institutes
Thismethodologymakesitpossibletohighlighttherelationshipsbetweentheactors,atleast
(CIRAD, IRD in Southern countries and INRA in France) and in French academic articles indexed in
as they appear through hypertext links, and the discursive content they develop around the term
Web of Science is presented in Figure 1. All sub-figures show a small number of publications
of agroecology. Thus, the meaning of the term stems from both its discursive content and its
containing the word, followed by an increasing use pattern since around 2005 but with some
socialembedding.
temporal and volumetric differentiations between institutions. Indeed, agroecology is first found in
the IRD3. (Rperseuvltiso:uHsolyw OthReSTTeOrmMA)g arrocehcoivloeg yinC 1ir9c5u7la wteidthininF rtahnec etitle of a report [34] of Robert Dufournet,
an agronomist based in Madagascar. This first attested use of agroecology, mainly as synonyms of
3.1. AnOverviewofAgroecologyDiscourse
“pedo-climatic”, is followed by sporadic mentions. After 1985, about 10 publications per year contain
The dynamics of agroecology use in three significant agricultural French research institutes
the word agroecology, except in 2015 with several chapters from a collective book on soil productivity
(CIRAD,IRDinSoutherncountriesandINRAinFrance)andinFrenchacademicarticlesindexed
restoration [35]. Indeed, CIRAD is the institution with the most significant and early investment in
in Web of Science is presented in Figure 1. All sub-figures show a small number of publications
agroecology with an exponential number of publications since 1995, after some sporadic mentions
containingtheword,followedbyanincreasingusepatternsincearound2005butwithsometemporal
followianngd av orelupmorett rfircodmif fRereennéti aBtiiollnasz binet w19e8e1n, ionnst irteusteioanrsc.h Ifnodr etehde, daegvroeelcooplomgeynits ofifr rsturfoaul nadreians t[h3e6].
ThIReD fir(pstr emvioenustliyonO oRfS TaOgrMo)ecaorclhoigvye iinn 1I9N5R7Aw ipthuinbltihceattiiotlneso fisa artetpeostretd[3 4in] oaf cRoombemrtuDnuicfoautironnet ,[37] of
Jacqueas nBaagurdonryo,m oinsteb oafs ethdei nfiMrsat deacgoaloscgairs.tTs haits IfiNrsRtAat,t edsuterdinugs ethoef 1ag9r8o6e cINoloTgEyC,mOaLin Clyoansgsryensos n(iynm Ssyorfacuse),
“pedo-climatic”,isfollowedbysporadicmentions. After1985,about10publicationsperyearcontain
where the INTECOL president, Frank Golley, asked Stephen Gliessman to organize a symposium on
thewordagroecology,exceptin2015withseveralchaptersfromacollectivebookonsoilproductivity
agroecology inside this international association [38]. After a long period of sporadic use, the number
restoration[35]. Indeed,CIRADistheinstitutionwiththemostsignificantandearlyinvestmentin
of INRA publications containing agroecology increased strongly since 2011, after a slight growth
agroecologywithanexponentialnumberofpublicationssince1995,aftersomesporadicmentions
since 2005. The volume of INRA publications is around ten times greater than the CIRAD one.
followingareportfromRenéBillazin1981,onresearchforthedevelopmentofruralareas[36].

FigureF 1ig.u Drey1n.aDmynicasm oifc sForfeFnrcehn cahcaacdaedmemici cpprroodduuccttiioonn oonna aggroreoceocloogloygfyro mfroinmst iitnusttioitnuatlioopneanl oarpcehniv aesrchives
andWebofScience(author:G.Ollivier).
and Web of Science (author: G. Ollivier).
Sustainability2018,10,1380 5of30
ThefirstmentionofagroecologyinINRApublicationsisattestedinacommunication[37]of
JacquesBaudry,oneofthefirstecologistsatINRA,duringthe1986INTECOLCongress(inSyracuse),
wheretheINTECOLpresident,FrankGolley,askedStephenGliessmantoorganizeasymposiumon
agroecologyinsidethisinternationalassociation[38]. Afteralongperiodofsporadicuse,thenumber
ofINRApublicationscontainingagroecologyincreasedstronglysince2011,afteraslightgrowthsince
2005. ThevolumeofINRApublicationsisaroundtentimesgreaterthantheCIRADone.
ThecorpusofFrenchnationalandregionalmassmediaispresentedinFigure2. Figure2Ashows
the increasing presence of agroecology since 2002 and especially a few months after the arrival of
S.LeFollasMinisterofAgriculture, whoradicallychangedtheamountofdiscourseproducedin
massmedia. Thefigurealsoshowsthatagroecologywasused,albeitataverylowlevel,since1976in
anewspaperarticlementioningaFAOworkonworldagroecologicalmapping. Figure2Bshowsthe
continuousandsubstantialinfluenceofPierreRabhiinthemassmediasince1995. Otherskeyactors
remainsrelativelylessmentioned. CIRADandthenINRAappearedassociatedtoagroecologyin2000.
NicolasHulot,aspresidentofhiseponymfoundation,appearedin2005atthetimeofthepublication
ofbookco-authoredbyPierreRabhi[39]. Theirrelationshipwasfrequentlymentionedinnewspapers
whileN.HulotasnewMinisterofEcologicalTransitionsince2017stillpromotesagroecology. Finally,
mainfarmers’unions(FNSEA,thedominantone,andConfédérationPaysanne,theleft-wingminority
one)arenotrelativelyprominentinthedebates. TheConfédérationPaysanneisassociatedearlier
withagroecologyinthemassmedia,in2001,andwithahighersharethanFNSEA,whoonlyappeared
in2009andthenmostlyduringthelegislativedebateontheS.LeFoll’spolicy. Inthenewspapers,
S.LeFollisassociatedwithagroecologyonlyafewmonthsafteritsentryinMinistryofAgriculture.
Figure3representscomprehensivelythecontentofthemassmediacorpus. Ithighlightssome
mainactorsandtherespectiveframings,institutionalenvironments,andtypesofactiontheyconvey
through they presence in newspaper articles. Thus, on the one hand Pierre Rabhi, as peasant
agroecologistandphilosopher,appearstobeassociatedtoastrongcommunicativeactivity,through
book or films, and to its movement “Terre et Humanisme” (cluster 6). Cluster 4 represents the
importance of his field work thanks to a multitude of events all around France (often mentioned
inRegionalnewspapers). StillclosetotheRabhi’suniverse, onecanalsonotethatagroecologyis,
inthepressmedia,stronglyassociatedtopermacultureandgardeningsocialactivities. Ontheother
hand, anothersetoflexicalclusters(1, 5and2)areassociatedtoverydifferentactorsandthemes.
Cluster1showsthatmanynewspaperarticlesarededicatedtotheMinisterLeFollandagricultural
policyissues(particularlyenvironmentandcompetitiveness)withastrongfocusonthelegislative
issue about the law called “Loi d’Avenir pour l’Agriculture” (LAAF, 2013) which recognizes and
definesanagroecologicalapproach. Interestingly,themainopposedfarmer’sunions(FNSEAand
ConfédérationPaysanne),aswellastheCAP(CommonAgriculturalPolicy),appearinthiscontextof
representationandnegotiations. Inanotherinstitutionalregister,clusters5and2revealtwodifferent
framing close to governmental agroecology. Cluster 5 is dedicated to global issues in agriculture
(climatechange, food, andpoverty)andisassociatedwithFAOdynamics. Cluster2concernsthe
localobjectsandscalesofagroecologyimplementation,fromplottofarmgoingthroughChamberof
agricultureandfarmers.
Thesegeneraldata,dynamics,andmilestonesgiveapictureoftheFrenchuniverseofagroecology
andthediversityofhisactors,whereasthenextsectiongoesdeeperinthesocio-historicalanalysisof
agroecologyinFrance.
Sustainability2018,10,1380 6of30
Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 29

Figure 2. Dynamics of public attention to agroecology in the French mass media corpus: (A) Evolution
Figure2.DynamicsofpublicattentiontoagroecologyintheFrenchmassmediacorpus:(A)Evolution
of the number of newspaper articles mentioning agroecology with a projection of some meaningful
ofthenumberofnewspaperarticlesmentioningagroecologywithaprojectionofsomemeaningful
events and (B) Evolution of the annual share of newspaper articles mentioning key actors (author: G.
events and (B) Evolution of the annual share of newspaper articles mentioning key actors
Ollivier).
(author:G.Ollivier).
Sustainability2018,10,1380 7of30
Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 29

Figure 3. Main lexical clusters in the French agroecology mass media corpus analyzed using Iramuteq
Figure3.MainlexicalclustersintheFrenchagroecologymassmediacorpusanalyzedusingIramuteq
Software (author: G Ollivier).
Software(author:GOllivier).
3.2. An Archaeology of French Scientific Agroecology: Pioneers Preaching in the Desert
3.2. AnArchaeologyofFrenchScientificAgroecology: PioneersPreachingintheDesert
3.23.1.2 S.1o.mSoem IseoIlsaoteladt eAdcAadcaedmeimc iPciPoinoeneeresr sCCononnnecetcetedd wwitithh DDeevveellooppiinngg CCoouunnttrriieess
In Itnheth peapsta sctecnetnutruyr,y a,gargoroeceocolologgicicaal lrroooottss ccaann bbee ffoouunndd iinn aaggrraarriiaanne eccoolologgy,ye, sepsepceicailalyllyb ebtweteweenen
thet htwetow WooWroldr lWdWarasr. sT.hTihsi strtardaditiitoinon wwaas smmoorree pprreevvaalleenntt iinn IIttaallyy ((GG.. AAzzzzii)) oorr GGeerrmmaannyy( W(W.T. iTsicshclhelre),r),
whwerheearse aasgraognroonmoym pyrepvreavilaeidle idn iFnraFnracen.c Ae.ltAholtuhgohu gthhet hleeadleiandgi nagutahuotrhso wrserwee nreotn ForteFnrcehn, csho,msoe mofe tohfeir
pubthlieciartpiounbsl icwateioren strwaenrselattreadn sloart edreoferrrreefde rrteod itno iFnraFnrcaen ce[4[04–04–24]2. ].HHoowwevevere,r ,iinn 11996677,, ththeeF rFernecnhch
agraognroonmoimsti sSt. SH.éHnéinni ndedfeinfiended agagroronnoommyy aass bbeeiinngg ““aann aapppplliieedd eeccoollooggyy ttoo ppllaannttp prorodduuctcitoinona nadnda gargicruiclutultrualral
lanlda nmdamnaangaegmeemnetn”t ”[4[34]3.] .HHee aallssoo pprreeffaacceedd aas seerrieiesso fobf obookoskbsy bJy.D J.u Dthuilthenilt ietlnetdit“leEdle m“EenletmsoefnAtsg roofn Aomgryoannodmy
Ecology”[44]orientedtowardsmorein-depthknowledgeorproblem-solvinginagriculture. InFrance,
and Ecology” [44] oriented towards more in-depth knowledge or problem-solving in agriculture. In
theseparatedevelopmentpatternofagronomyandecology,ontheotherhand,isperhapsindicative
France, the separate development pattern of agronomy and ecology, on the other hand, is perhaps
ofthenotionofagroecologyasascientificfield[45,46]. However,otherroutescanalsobefoundin
indicative of the notion of agroecology as a scientific field [45,46]. However, other routes can also be
tropicalagriculture.
found in tropical agriculture.
The stream of colonial agronomy appeared at the MNHN (National Museum of Natural
The stream of colonial agronomy appeared at the MNHN (National Museum of Natural History)
History)andprogressivelyevolvedtowardstropicalagronomy(1958)andtheFrenchethnosciences
and progressively evolved towards tropical agronomy (1958) and the French ethnosciences (1963),
(1963), with the impetus of people such as A. Chevalier, R. Portères and A-G. Haudricourt [47].
with the impetus of people such as A. Chevalier, R. Portères and A-G. Haudricourt [47]. These
Theseagronomistswereconsideredtobeunorthodox,partlybecausetheyworkedattheMNHN[48]
agronomists were considered to be unorthodox, partly because they worked at the MNHN [48] and
andmostlybecausetheywereinterestedinbothagronomicpracticesandculturalpractices,andthe
mostly because they were interested in both agronomic practices and cultural practices, and the
human-nature relation. They were influenced by botany, linguistics, genetics, and ethnology.
human-nature relation. They were influenced by botany, linguistics, genetics, and ethnology.
Throughout its history, this stream periodically refers to agroecology, as shown in the archives of
Throughout its history, this stream periodically refers to agroecology, as shown in the archives of
successivejournalssincethe1930s[49–51]wheretheyrepeatedlyrefertotheseminalworkofBensin
successive journals since the 1930s [49–51] where they repeatedly refer to the seminal work of Bensin
on the agroecology of corn. In 1947, R. Portères published a “tropical agro-ecology course” [52].
on Hthaeu dargicroouecrotlinotgryo doufc ceodrinn.t oInF r1a9n4c7e,, tRh.e Pidoeratèsroefs tpheubfalimshoeuds Na i“cotrloaipVicaavli laogvr,oth-eecSoolovgieyt acgoruornsoem” i[s5t2,].
Haudricourt introduced into France, the ideas of the famous Nicolai Vavilov, the Soviet agronomist,
botanist and geneticist who explored worldwide the origins of domesticated plants. For instance,
Haudricourt reviewed his posthumous publication whose French translation is entitled “Essai d’une
revue agro-écologique des principales plantes cultivées” [53]. Along these lines, some of the authors
themselves used the term ‘agroecology’ (e.g., [54,55]). Yet, their emerging disciplinary identity is not
Sustainability2018,10,1380 8of30
botanist and geneticist who explored worldwide the origins of domesticated plants. For instance,
HaudricourtreviewedhisposthumouspublicationwhoseFrenchtranslationisentitled“Essaid’une
revue agro-écologique des principales plantes cultivées” [53]. Along these lines, some of the authors
themselvesusedtheterm‘agroecology’(e.g.,[54,55]). Yet,theiremergingdisciplinaryidentityisnot
baseduponthewordagroecology. Rather,inthe1960s,theiremphasiswasontheinstitutionalization
ofethnosciencesratherthanthatofagroecologyasadiscipline,asindicatedbythedenominationof
theirlaboratories,journalsandcourses[56].
On the side of agronomy, some rare figures converted to ecology while most agronomists
remainedfocusedonthemaximizationofproduction. Duringthe1970s,RenéDumont,aproductivist
agronomist who had converted to ecology, became the first ecologist candidate for the French
presidential elections of 1974 [57]. Dumont also prefaced the French edition of a reference book
coordinatedbyM.Altieri[1]inwhichheacknowledgedourignoranceoffarmers’knowledgeand
underlinedalackofsocialandeconomicdimensionsinthisbook.HeheadedtheChairofComparative
AgricultureandAgriculturalDevelopmentatINA-PG(NationalAgronomicInstitute),animportant
institutionfortrainingagronomists,includingM.Dufumier,avibrantdefenderofagroecologywho
succeededDumont.
SeveralagronomistswhoforesawthebottlenecksintheGreenRevolutionmodelintheSouth
alsounderwentasimilarconversion. Someofthemusedthelexiconofagroecology,especiallythose
who carried out work in West Africa in the Sahel [2,58]. In his memoir [59], René Billaz, the first
scientificdirectorofCIRAD,reportedthatinBurkinaFaso,theseresearchersconvertedtoagroecology
byobservingthatthemajordroughtsofthe1970srevealedthelimitsoftheGreenRevolutionand
by acknowledging the resistance of farmers and their creativity in adopting alternative practices.
Thisareawasthesubjectofan“AgroecologyProject”supportedbyaGermanNGO,theDeutsche
Welthungerhilfe[60]. Interestingly,thisisreminiscentofsimilarpatternsusedbyotherpioneersin
agroecologyworkinginextremeenvironmentalconditions[61–63],leadingresearcherstofocusonthe
adaptationofproductiontotheirenvironmentsratherthantransformingtheenvironmentinfavor
ofproduction.
In addition, in the 1980s the new divisions INRA-SAD and CIRAD-SA of national research
institutions developed the agrarian system approach [64]. Both advocated a systemic approach,
interdisciplinarity and action-oriented research, especially in areas where the “modernization” of
agriculture was not implemented or successful. As for INRA-SAD, this also contributed to being
part of the wider movement of “Farming Systems Research” [65], as well as being identified with
thebroadersceneofagroecology[66,67]butnotidentifiedwiththenascentAmericanagroecology
movement. AsforCIRAD-SAandotherdevelopmentagencies,thismarkedaturningpointinthe
forms of cooperation with foreign countries, shifting from commodity or production-oriented to
farmingsystemsresearch[68]. Sometrajectoriesofindividualscanalsobementionedduetotheirrole
ofintermediarybetweenthenorthandsouthandbetweenacademiaandsociety,andtotheirearly
identificationasagroecologists(e.g.,R.Billaz,F.deRavignan,S.Pérez-Vitoria).
To conclude, the archeology of French scientific agroecology is based upon individual
researcherswithunconventionalconceptionsofagronomyandagriculturaldevelopment. However,
these individuals, even those working in collective organizations within research institutions
(e.g., INRA-SAD) remained on the margins of these institutions. Some of these researchers left
theirinstitutions(e.g.,G.ToutainandC.Bourguignon),whereasothersleda“doublelife”insideand
outsideoftheirprofessionalinstitutionsthroughtheirinvolvementinassociations. Infact,several
CIRAD and INRA researchers were also active in solidarity NGOs that were very involved in the
agroecologysocialmovement(e.g.,LaLigned’Horizon,Geyser,theGRETandAVSF).
Sustainability2018,10,1380 9of30
3.2.2. AgroecologyasaFlagshipforSocialMovementsInvolvedinSouth-NorthExchangesand
CriticizingModernization
In the 1980s, most of the investment in agroecology could be attributed to social movements.
Among them, the NGO “Nature & Progrès” and the NGOs created by Pierre Rabhi played a key
role. Botharerelatedtoorganicagricultureintermsoftheirpurposeorofthehistoryoftheirleaders.
Asinothercountries,someindividualsstronglyembodiedtheirassociation(s),especiallyP.Rabhi
(foramorecompleteanalysisofthetrajectoryofthis“peasant-philosopher”,see[5]). Hehelpedto
openanewpath, positioningagroecologyasan“ethicsoflife”. AsFigures2and3(classes6and
4)show,hisvisionhasbeenwidelypublicizedthroughconferences,ecosites,training,publications,
andpoliticalengagements,includinghisbidforthe2002Frenchpresidency. Bothhispresenceinthe
publicarenaandthemanyorganizationshecreated(Terre&Humanisme,Colibris,Mouvementdes
OasisenTousLieux, MouvementAppelpouruneInsurrectiondesConsciences, FondationPierre
Rabhi,Kaizenmagazine,etc.) aremarkersofhisinstitutionalactivism,allowinghimtoenlistmany
influential people from the world of show business (singers, comedians) and politics, particularly
NicolasHulot,thecurrentFrenchMinisterofEcology[39].
BorninAlgeriain1938,P.RabhimovedtoPariswherehebecameaspecializedmanuallaborer.
In1960,heleftthecityforthecountryside. Asanagriculturalworker,herealizedthattheproductivist
logicofthefactorywasalsoapplicabletothecountryside. HesettledintheCévennesregionin1962
wherehediscoveredbiodynamicsthroughthebook,“Laféconditédelaterre”byE.Pfeiffer. Thissource
of inspiration can be found in Rabhi’s proposals [69]. The notions of organism and metabolism
are central to this economy of nature; humus is considered to be the keystone of our humanity.
Theattentiontomotherearth-nurturerisnotametaphorbutanobjectivereality,alivinguniversal
condition of our food and our renewal. He then distanced himself from organic agriculture (also
called“agrobiology”atthattime),arguingthatitsfocuswasonsoilfertility(attheexpenseofawider
vision of our environment) and on the creation of a market for OECD countries (overlooking the
South). ThesetwoargumentsledRabhitousethetermagroecologyinthelate1980s. “Agroecology
ismuchmorethanasimpleagronomicalternative,itislinkedtoaprofounddimensionofrespectforlifeand
places the human being in his responsibility towards the living” [70] (authors’ own translation). In this
vision,manandhumanisticvaluescomefirst. Nevertheless,theagriculturaldimensionisalsopresent,
withfacilitiesthatpreservetheintegrityofresources,insmallstructuresorientedtowardsautonomy,
recyclingandqualitativeandlocalizedproduction. Theproposedprogramisbasedonanecologyof
contexts,embodiedinvariousplacesbyprototypesandtrainingactions. Itleadstoandreliesmore
widelyonassociativeinitiativesorfoundationsinwhicheveryonecancontributetothesearchfor
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
spaceforotherscientificknowledge. Infact,heaskedtheagronomistDumonttoevaluatehispractical
experience,butbothmendisagreedaboutthetypeofrationalitygiventocompost,seenbyDumont
asthe“propagationoftheantiscientificthesisofSteiner”[57]. Thisdisagreementbetweentwopioneers
in agroecology is an archetype of the kind of epistemic friction that can be met behind the slogan
“agroecologyasascience,practiceandmovement”.
InthejournalNature&Progrès[71]andintwosubsequentbooks[69,70],Rahbidepictedhis
investment since 1978 in agrobiological and then agroecological education. He contributed to the
creation of training and demonstration centers in Gorom-Gorom (Burkina Faso) in 1984 and later
on(1989)inViols-le-Fort(CIEPAD)inthesouthofFrance,aftertheassassinationoftheBurkinabe
PresidentSankarawhowasastaunchsupporter[72].
Referring to this international dimension, Rabhi [70] states that “The Gorom-Gorom experiment
hasbroughtaboutanimportantdynamic. TheIFOAMscientificconferencethatwasheldinBurkinaFasoin
1989hasendorsedthevalueofagro-ecologyattheinternationallevelasabasisforsustainabledevelopment”.
Inthemeantime,theinternationalorganicmovementwasstillunderconstructionandinsearchofits
identityandhesitantaboutitsowndenomination[73]. Onhisside,Rabhiidentifiedhimselfin1983as
Sustainability2018,10,1380 10of30
anagrobiologistorbiodynamist[69],andlateron,atleastin1989,asanagroecologist[70]. Indeed,
aswiththepreviousIFOAMconferencesintheUSA(Bostonin1982andSantaCruzin1986),which
usedthetermagroecologyintheirtitles,theIFOAMconferenceinBurkinaFasoissaidtohavebeen
amomentforthestructuringofinternationalagroecology[74,75].
Throughhismovement,PierreRabhimetmanypeopleinthe1980swhoworkedtowardsthe
developmentofagroecology[76]. Withthesupportoflocalpoliticians,RabhicreatedtheCIEPADin
1989withPatriceBurger,ex-directorofGorom-Gorom,Jean-LucMesse,formerpresidentofNature
&Progrès,FrançoisdeRavignan[77]andRobertMorez[78],tropicalagronomistandauthorsince
1992ofthejournal“Cahiersdel’Agroécologie”,synthesizingreferencesfromAltieri,pioneersinorganic
farming,ClaudeBourguignonandCIRAD[79]. In1998,toperpetuatethisroleofnorth-southhub,
theycreatedtheassociationCARI[80],whichconnectedthemtotheworldofinternationalsolidarity
NGOs. InadditiontotechnicalsupportforlocaldevelopmentprojectsintheSahel,theywereinvolved
asexpertsintheworkaroundtheUNDesertificationConvention(UNCCD)withintheNGOcoalition
calledthe“GroupedeTravailsurlaDésertification”(GTD,alsobasedinViols-le-Fort),consistingofAVSF,
AgrisudInternational,theGRETandTerreetHumanisme[76].
Nature&Progrès,themostradicalNGOintheFrenchorganicmovement[81],usedtheterm
“agroecology”asofthemid1980swhenreferringtoP.Rabhi’sactivitiesinitseponymjournal[82].
In2010,Nature&Progrèssubstituted“agrobiology”with“agroecology”initstitle. Itsjournalalso
contained the translation [83] of an Altieri and Nicholls’ article published earlier in the IFOAM
journal in which agroecology was seen as the way to rescue organic agriculture from industrial
agriculture[84]. Nature&Progrèswasalsoinstrumentalinthewiderappropriationofagroecologyby
socialmovements,especiallyduringaninternationalconferenceonagroecology,“Food,Autonomyand
Farming”organizedin2008inAlbi(France),togetherwithotherpartners(inparticular,Friendsofthe
Earth,theConféderationPaysanneandtheInstitutodeSociologíayEstudiosCampesinos(ISEC)[85].
ISEC marked its contribution by soliciting leading scientific figures from its Hispanic network
(E. Sevilla-Guzman, M. Altieri and S. Gliessman). This created an explicit link with the powerful
socialmovementsandscientificapproachesoftheIbero-Americanworld[86]. Conversely,wecan
observetheabsenceofP.Rabhi’smovementassuch. OnlyahandfulofFrenchresearchersparticipated
in this conference, and three of them were attached to the INRA-SAD division. This conference,
bringingtogethernearly300people,wasaccompaniedbypublicpositions. Thejournal“Nature&
Progrès”publishedaspecialissueentitled“Agroecology,asocialmovement?”[85]. Likewise,Silvia
Pérez-Vitoria, a socio-economist from the eco-anthropology department of MNHN, and Eduardo
Sevilla-Guzman,aSpanishagroecologistandruralsociologist,co-authoreda“SmallHandbookof
Agroecology”undertheauspicesofLaLigned’Horizon[87]. Thisbookispartlybasedonanearlier
issueoftheFrencheditionof“TheEcologist”[88]. Thispoliticalecologyjournalhadalreadydedicated
specialseriesofarticlestoagroecology[89]andreportedonthissuccessfulconference[90].
Toconclude,thisperiodshowstheroleofcontemporarypioneersaswellastheinterconnections
and co-evolution between the organic movement and agroecology. It should also be remembered
thatattheendofthe2000s,theFrenchagroecologicalmovementwascomposedofdifferentactors
followingtheirownspecificagendasbutwhoseglobalvisiongenerallyconverged.
3.3. AgroecologyinAcademicInstitutions: AScientificPurification
3.3.1. CIRAD:ATrajectorybetweenAgroecologyandEcologicalIntensification
As we have seen, some individual researchers played a role in the 1980s in the recognition
of the need to reconsider a development path that took agroecology into account, beginning in
WestAfrica. Duringthe1990s, achangeofregimecouldbeseeninthewaythatagroecologywas
considered,especiallyinthecaseofCIRAD.MichelGriffonwasanimportantcontributor,first,tothis
institutionalizationofagroecologywithinCIRAD,then,totheFrenchacademicsceneand,recently,
toagriculturalpolicy. Indeed,M.Griffon,afteracareerasanagronomistandeconomist,directorof