The Generative Potential of Tensions within Belgian Agroecology

22 Pages·2017·0.29 MB·English

sustainability
Article
The Generative Potential of Tensions within
Belgian Agroecology
PierreMarieStassart1,*,MaartenCrivits2,JulieHermesse3,LouisTessier2,JulieVanDamme4
andJoostDessein2,5 ID
1 EnvironmentManagementandSciencesDepartment,UniversitédeLiège,6700Arlon,Belgium
2 ResearchInstituteforAgriculture,FisheriesandFood(ILVO),9820Merelbeke,Belgium;
[email protected](M.C.);[email protected](L.T.);
[email protected](J.D.)
3 InstitutefortheAnalysisofChangeinContemporaryandHistoricalSocieties(IACS),UniversitédeLouvain,
1348Louvain-la-Neuve,Belgium;[email protected]
4 FacultyofBioscienceEngineering,UniversitédeLouvain,1348Louvain-la-Neuve,Belgium;
[email protected]
5 DepartmentofAgriculturalEconomics,GhentUniversity,9000Ghent,Belgium
* Correspondence:[email protected];Tel.:[phone]
(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:3April2018;Accepted:11June2018;Published:20June2018
Abstract: FoodcrisesandecologizationhavegivenrisetoaBelgiandynamicthatdoesnotbehave
accordingtotheconventionaltripodofagroecology: practitioners,socialmovement,andscientists.
InsteadofsimplyrecountingthehistoryofBelgianagroecology,theauthorstracethehistoryand
dynamicsinBelgium),ajourneyalongsixstrandsthatweavethemselvesintoaBelgiantapestry:
Genetically modified crop commandos, a scientific paradigm shift, hybrid expertise opening the
NorthernroutethatintersectswithaSouthernpoliticalroute,anoriginalnon-institutionaldynamic
intheFrench-speakingpartofBelgiumandaninstitutionalinitiativethatledtoariftinFlanders. In
thefollowingsection,weidentify,emergingfromthosesixstrands,fourtensionsthatcreateaspace
ofinnovations,namely,politicallydifferentiateddiscourses,landaccess,fairprice,andepistemic
tensions. Wediscussthenthegenerativepotentialofthe4tensionsanddescribethepotentialof
reconfigurationsgeneratedbyboundariesorganizations, foodjusticeandtransdisciplinarity. We
concludethattheconceptofagroecologycontinuestohavetransformativepotentialinBelgiumtoday.
However,noonecanpredictthecourseofsuchalargelynon-institutionaldynamic.
Keywords: agroecology;transition;transdisciplinary;foodjustice;controversies;peasants
1. Introduction
Isagroecology,astheysayinBelgium,‘oldwineinnewbottles’? IsthecurrentBelgianlandscape
significantlydifferentfromtheonethathasemergedaroundnewalternatives,e.g.,shortsupplychains,
Community Support Agriculture boxes, farmers’ markets, and quality products and labels in the
1980sand1990s?[1]Manyoftheseinitiativesaroseontheregionalscalebytheboerenmarkten(farmers’
markets)inFlandersandtheAgricultureSavoureusefederationinWalloniaatthattime. Thenational
contexthassincebeentransformedbythematterofalternatives[2]andamorerecenttransition. Two
pervasivedynamicslinkingthelocalandtheglobalhavealsohelpedtotransformthisnationalcontext,
namelyfoodhealthcrisesandresistancetotheneo-productionistdiscourse.
The food crises that swept across Europe at the turn of this century hit Belgium particularly
hard. Thesecrisestookplaceinthecontextoffurtherindustrializationandglobalizationofourfood
markets,wherethelinkbetweenconsumptionandproductionwasbeingdissolvedbylengtheningand
Sustainability2018,10,2094;doi:10.3390/su10062094 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability2018,10,2094 2of22
increasingthespecializationofagrifoodvaluechains. Thosecrisesspurredactivitiestoreconstructthe
linkbetweenproductionandconsumption. ThefoodcrisesproliferatedinBelgium,startingfromthe
hormonescandal(1985–1992)tomadcowdisease(1996–1997andthereafter),followedbythedioxin
scandal(1999),whichevenbroughtdownagovernmentandbroughttheGreenstopower,andthenthe
bonemealscandal(2001)andfoot-and-mouthdiseaseepidemic(2002). Fromasociologicalstandpoint,
thesecrisesrevealthelimitsofourfoodsystem,especiallywhenitcomestofoodsafety. Thisisthe
contextinwhichthematterofGMOs(geneticallymodifiedorganisms)cametothefore.
ThehungerriotsthatsweptovermajorcitiesinAfricaandSouthAmericain2008reactivated
theagrifoodissueoffoodsovereigntyhereintheNorth. Indeed,in2007-2008,theshocklinkedto
theskyrocketingpricesofstaplecereals(corn,rice,andwheat)promptedpeopletotaketothestreets
inseveralcountriesoftheSouth. Followingthoseriots,theagri-foodissuereturnedtotheagendas
ofsuchmajorinternationalinstitutionsastheFoodandAgricultureOrganization(FAO)andWorld
Bank. Aneo-productionistdiscoursethenreasserteditselfinthiscontextofpoliticalworry[3]. Itwas
famouslyembodiedbysuchtransnationalplayersasthe“Big6”agrochemicalcompanies. Thistalkof
intensification—“growmore(food)withless(land)”—advocatedanewGreenRevolution. Theemphasis
placedonanincreaseinproductivitybasedonbiotechnologicalinnovationledtoandstimulateda
reactiononthepartofthosewhodefendedtherationaleof“less(productivity)ismorefood”[4]. This
reactionusheredtheagroecologymodelintothepublicdebate,beginningmainlywithinthecontextof
overseasdevelopment.
AsButtel[5]stresses,agroecologyisbothacriticismandaproposalthathasbeenamplifiedonan
unprecedentedscaletodayinthefaceoftheadventoftheneo-productionistregime. However,this
accelerationwhich—likeahybridofscience,civilsociety,andpractices[6]isthefruitofbothsocial
movementsandtheworkofminorityresearchers),cannotbeunderstoodifwereduceittoasimplistic,
dualistictheoryofoppositiontoadominantsystem,asthatignoresitsdiversity.Agroecology(orrather
agroecologicaltransitions)are“aterritoryofdisputebetweeninstitutionalityandsocialmovements”[7].
Wedonotsimplytracethehistoryofthemovement. Instead,weaimtoidentifyandunderstand
how various players take up agroecology and make use of its various strands. Our hypothesis is
thatthe“madeinBelgium”agroecologytapestrywovenfromthesethreadsisanewnarrative[4,8]
thatgeneratesadiversityofinterpretationsofthecontroversiesragingintheforumsinwhichthese
players participate. We have identified six strands developed in Section 3 below: the GMO crisis,
the Belgian National Scientific Research Fund’s Interdisciplinary Research Group on Agroecology
(GIRAF)scientistnetwork,OlivierDeSchutter,overseasdevelopmentorcooperationNGOs,‘peasant’
unions,thesupportnetworkforpeasantinitiatives,newfoodfrontiers,andAgroecologyinAction.
TheseinterwovenstrandsshapethetapestryofBelgianagroecology. Theuniquenessofourapproach
willthenlieinidentifyingfourgenerativetensionsinthisagroecologicaltapestry(Section4). These
tensionsarethekeysthatunlockBelgianagroecology’sdynamism,thatis,thekeysthatbothgenerate
itsvitalityandleaveitopenandunfinished. InSection5(Discussion),wetalkaboutthepotentialof
thosegenerativetensionsandinSection6(Conclusions)wetakeashortprospectivelookattheroutes
andthequestionsthatagroecologyinBelgiummightface.
2. MaterialsandMethods
This article is based on three types of data: participatory observation, secondary data, and
semi-structuredinterviews. Theauthorsparticipatedatvaryinglevelsinformalandinformalgroups
thateitherhadprojectsorwereinvolvedindiscussionsaboutagroecology. Researchersparticipated
intheBelgianNationalScientificResearchFund’sInterdisciplinaryResearchGrouponAgroecology
(GIRAF)(2009–2018),sixBelgiumAgroecologyMeetings(BAM)since2010,creationofvarioustypes
oftraining(AgroecologyandTransitionsCertificate(2013–... ),aMaster’sprograminAgroecology
(2016–... ),andtheInternationalSummerSchoolinAgroEcology(ISSAE),variousGeneralMeetings
ofNGOsandthepeasants’tradeunion,theFlandersResearchInstituteforAgriculture,Fisheriesand
Food(ILVO)’sAgroecologyWorkingGroup,theNewFoodFrontierproject,theCo-Createprogramof
Sustainability2018,10,2094 3of22
theregionalresearchprogramsofInnovirisandtheparticipationintheemergingsocialmovement
“AgroeocologyInAction.”Acertainnumberofthedocumentsmentionedinthebibliography(gray
literature,reports,andscientificarticles)formedanimportantbasisforwritingthisarticle. Finally,
in order to validate the participatory observations and analyses, the authors supplemented their
informationbyconductingeightsemi-structuredinterviewswithsomekeyinformants.
ThecollectiveofauthorscoversthethreeregionsthatcomprisethefederalBelgianState: Brussels-
Capital,Flanders,andWallonia. Theauthors’experienceisrootedinthesocialsciences(sociology,
anthropology,andpoliticalscience),buttheyalsohaveprovenexperienceininterdisciplinarypractice,
especiallywithagriculture. Thefirstandlastauthors—PierreM.StassartandJoostDessein—have
beeninvolvedinalternativeagri-foodnetworkstudiesformorethan15years. Theyhavethushada
primeobservatorypositionandhavesometimesalsoplayedahands-onroleintheinstitutionalization
oforganicagriculture,theGMOcontroversy,andtheemergenceofagroecology. PierreM.Stassartis
memberoftheboardofGIRAF.
3. HistoryandDynamicsofAgroecologyinBelgium
Thissectionpresentsthesixstrandsbehindthedynamicsandcontradictionsofagroecologyin
Belgium. Theyarepresentedaccordingtoachronologythattakesusthroughthecontributionsof
scientists,experts,smallfarmers’movementsandactivistnetworkstoculminateinakeypublicevent,
thatof“AgroecologyinAction”. WesuggestthatthehistoryanddynamicsofagroecologyinBelgium
should be entered through the transnational gate because the development of agroecology in the
countryisrootedinpublicoppositiontoGMOsasthecrystalizationoftheneo-productionistparadigm.
3.1. GenticallyModifiedOrganismsChallengingtheAgriculturalModel
Thedevelopmentofgeneticengineeringtechnologyintheearly1980sdidnotleadtoasmooth
andstraightforwardintroductionofGMOsinagriculturalpracticesintheEU.In1999,thedefacto
moratoriumonnewGeneticallyModified(GM)cropapprovals,basedontheprecautionaryprinciple
withintheEUpoliticalenvironment,demarcatedthedecades-longtroublesomepositionofGM.In
theirpaper,“Whentechnologyismorethaninstrumental: HowethicalconcernsinEUagricultureco-evolve
withthedevelopmentofGMcrops”Inghelbrechtetal.[9]arguethatGMtechnologywasacatalystfor
growingresistanceagainstkeycharacteristicsofthecapitalist,neo-liberalagriculturalsystem. They
holdupexamplessuchastheprivatizationofresearch,concentrationofpowerinfewlargecompanies,
and patenting of genetic material. The alignment of the gradual development of strong anti-GM
frameworksandotherevents(e.g.,madcowdisease,dioxinscandalsandswinefever)questioned
theconventional,industry-likefarmingsystems. Thiscoincidedwithothersocietalevolutionsthat
havebeencharacterizedasanevolutionfromasovereignpositionofsciencetoasciencethatbecame
subjectedtopublicprotestinacontextofreflexivemodernity;fromasupportivePrometheanpolicy
discourse to reference to the precautionary policy; and from government to governance policy
organization[10]. Thisresistanceagainstthedominantagriculturalregime,epitomizedintheprotest
against growing GM crops, created a fertile breeding ground for alternative production systems,
includingagroecology(AE).
Theso-called“potatowar”—thesimultaneousorganizationofprotestsagainstaGMpotatofield
trialandanorganicandagroecologicalfarmingfair—wasacatalystforthefurtherdevelopmentofAE
inBelgium. DeKrometal.[11]describehowthiseventofcivildisobediencein2011wasinstigatedby
thenon-institutionalizednetwork,theFieldLiberationMovement,andsupportedbyanumberofnatural
andsocialscientists,NGOs,politicians,andmembersofcivilsociety. Theantagonisticpositionofthis
constituencyandanequallystrongcounter-movementbyscientistsledtorelevantdevelopmentsthat
significantlystrengthenedthedevelopmentofAE.Leadingscientistsgavecredibilitytotheanti-GMO
andpro-AEmovementbyquestioningthedominantroleandpositionofnaturalscientistsinsocietal
debatesonthefutureofagriculture;thepotatowarexperienceofcivildisobedienceinspiredReSAP
Sustainability2018,10,2094 4of22
(RéseaudeSoutienàl’AgriculturePaysanne),andinspirersoftheanti-GMOconstituencybecameleading
figuresintheAgroecologyinActionmovement(seeSection3.6below).
Ironically,paralleltotheagroecologicalbreakfromtheconventionalparadigm,thesuccessofthis
paradigmshiftledcertainBelgianbiotechnologyexperts[12]andtheyoungerwingoftheFlemish
greenpartyGroen(https://www.mo.be/opinie/hoog-tijd-om-agro-ecologie-n-ggos-ernstig-te-nemen)
tocallfortheinclusionofGMOsinthedevelopmentofagroecology,albeitfordifferentreasons.
3.2. The“LockIn”ConceptasaSourceoftheParadigmShiftinScientificCircles
The GMO debate showed an ontological link between GMOs and technological innovation,
whereasthepublicwasmoreinterestedinthetypeofagriculture[13]. Atthesametime,cognitive
lock-in was identified by other scholars to explain the conventionalization of organic livestock
farming[14]. Theconceptualizationespousedbytheseauthorshadthreecommonalities: (i)They
showedthattheselocked-inpositionsofinstitutions,agriculturalresearchprograms,andthinking
in general were obstacles to the transformation of these systems towards greater sustainability by
excluding agroecological innovations. Faced with these systemic blockages; they (ii) introduced
thenotionsoftransitionsandsociotechnicaltrajectories[15], whichwasadoptedfromthefieldof
actor-networktheoryandsustainabilitytransitionstudies. Finally,(iii)thisconceptualconstruction
wasusedasaspringboardtoshiftissuesonsustainableagricultureandtheneedfortransitionfrom
thepublicandpoliticalspheretotheacademicarena,wheretheyarguedthatanalternativeresearch
agenda(thatofagroecology)hadtobebuilt.
Riding this research front, in 2009, a collective of eight Belgian researchers founded an
interdisciplinaryagroecologynetworkcalledGIRAFwithintheBelgianNationalScientificResearch
Fund(FNRS).Thelock-inconceptasappliedtoagricultureandfoodsystemsfannedoutfromthiscore
groupintotheBelgianscientificcommunity[16–19],internationalscientificcircles[20,21],andcivil
society[18].
Inordertoclarifytheirambitionsandexpandonstrongfoundations,theeightco-foundersof
GIRAFsignedajointpositionpapertitled“L’agroécologie: trajectoireetpotentiel,pourunetransitionvers
dessystèmesalimentairesdurables”[22]. Besidesaconventionalreviewofthebackgroundoftheissue
andAltieri’sprinciples,theauthorstookastandinfavorofamethod(methodologicalprinciples)that
cutacrossdisciplinesandalsolookedatagroecologythroughthelensofsocioeconomicsandpolitics
(socioeconomic&sociopoliticalprinciples). Inconclusion,theyadvocateda“minority”posture;one
thatallowedforthecoexistenceofagroecology,thealternativeschemewiththedominantparadigm,
thankstoanon-disqualifyingsetofarguments. Withinthisframework,GIRAFcontinuestoexpand.
Theoriginalagriculturalsciences–socialsciencesaxiswasbroadenedbytheadditionofecologists,
geographers,andresearcherswhocalledthemselvesin(ter)dependent. Theecologycalledforinthe
paperenteredthegroupviatheconceptofecosystemservices. In2018,GIRAFcomprisesof30senior
andjuniorresearchersfocusingonagroecologyintheNorth.
In its 2012 position paper, GIRAF proposed a set of methodological and socio-economic
principles that endorse a more participatory and interdisciplinary approach to scientific inquiry.
However,nostrongcommitmentwasmadebeyondespousinginterdisciplinarypractices. Since2013,
acountry-wideambitionoftransdisciplinarityhasmovedclosertooperationalization. Thisarosedue
tothedynamicsbetweencivilsocietyandsomegovernmentagenciesandaresultingre-interpretation
ofwhatscienceshoulddo. Forexample,interdisciplinaryconferencesonsustainabledevelopment
(2013and2015)followedthereportonsustainabledevelopmentcommissionedbytheWalloonRegion’s
MinisterforResearch[23]. However,wealsoobservebothpublicandacademicactorsinterestedin
agroecologyactivelylobbyingformoreparticipatoryapproaches,withgovernmentsreactingtothis
byprovidingminorityfundingforsuchendeavors.
ThefalloutoftheNewFoodFrontier(seeSection3.5below)ledscientistsandNGOstoformulate
anewstrategyforattainingasustainabilitytransition. Insteadoflookingtointegrateallpartnersina
trajectoryfullyrepresentativeoftheagro-foodsystem,experimentsweretobesetuptolearnfrom
Sustainability2018,10,2094 5of22
andstrengthennichepractices. Inthisvein,alearningplatform,“LeerplatformAgroecologie”,wasset
upin2014tojoinFlemishresearchers(ILVO,ULB,KUL,BBL,... .) andtheagroecologicalpractice.
Flemish researchers involved in the “Leerplatform Agroecologie” used the GIRAF note as an outline
foragroecologicalresearchrequirements. ThisambitionledtothedraftingofalettertotheFlemish
MinisterofAgriculture(https://www.wervel.be/lists/archive.php?x=200&listID=2&layoutID=11&
pagerows=20&pagenum=1), which insisted on the connectivity of ecological and social-economic
issuesandtheimportanceofparticipatory,transdisciplinaryandsystemicresearchapproaches. While
AEremainedamarginaltopicfortheFlemishGovernment,itdidinfluencetheresearchagenda. At
ILVO (Flanders Research Institute for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food) AE research projects were
funded,andtransdisciplinarityandsystemsthinking(keyprinciplesofagroecologicalresearch)were
installedatthecenterofILVO’sresearchstrategy.
In Flanders, the stakeholders involved within the Leerplatform did not agree on the end goals
of agroecological research. In addition, some researchers felt ill-positioned to participate in these
discussionsduetotheinstitutionalboundariesimposedonthem.Discussionsregardingagenda-setting
werethenseparatedfromactualresearchactivities. TheLeerplatformhasbeencurrentlyinactivefor
morethanayearduetoamismatchbetweenactorsinvolvedregardingexpectations(scientificrigor,
representativity, political impact), and focus (cognitive, technical, political economic). The recent
initiativeatILVOtocreatea“LivingLabforAgroecologyandOrganicFarming”representsanongoing
willingnesstoengagewiththeconceptofAgroecologybytargetingexistingresearchwithinanAE
researchagendaandbyattractingnewresearchopportunitiesthatengagewithkeystakeholdersand
civilsociety.
The emergence of a Brussels-Capital regional policy for agroecological initiatives also led to
increasedparticipation(seeSection3.6). Theyears2015and2016wereturningpointswherevarious
Brusselsofficialentitiesconfirmedtheirinvestmentsintheissueofsustainablefood. Indeed,within
theEmployment-EnvironmentAlliance(2011–2015),theBrusselsgovernmentproposeda“governance
dynamic aimed at mobilizing and coordinating public entities, private players, and associations
aroundconcertedactions”(http://www.environnement.brussels/sites/default/files/user_files/rap_
aee-alim_rapport2014_fr.pdf). “Sustainablefood”wasonesuchlineofaction. Inthewakeofthis
alliance,Innoviris(BrusselsInstituteforResearchandInnovation)launchedacallforparticipatory
research-actionprojects(the“Co-createcall”)with“thedevelopmentofsustainablefoodsystemsinthe
Brussels-CapitalRegion”asthesubjectofthefirstcallin2015. Thiscallwasuniqueinthatitencouraged
cross-disciplinaryprojectsthatcombinedscientificandnon-scientificexpertise. Itofferedabackbone
fortheresearchpartofthe‘GoodFoodStrategy’,apublicpolicylaunchedandchampionedbythe
Brussels-CapitalRegionforafive-yearperiod(2016–2020). Thelatterinturnplacedfoodattheheartof
urbandynamics,tacklingtheissuefromallangles:economic,social,andenvironmental. Thiswasthus
aninstitutionalandpoliticalre-appropriationofthesubjectofsustainablefoodsystemsinBrussels.
Nevertheless,themodestyofBrussels’scurrentpoliciescontrastswiththestrongvisionofagroecology
defendedbyAgroecologyinAction(AIA).Regardless,researchershaveclearlybecomemoreinvolved
with urban farmers, citizens, and other actors, often indirectly through the new options in event
organizationandfacilitation. Thelatterincludethecertificateinagroecologyandtransition,whichis
heldbyanumberofinvolvedactorsinAIA’sactivities;theorganicagriculturesectionoftheHaute
Ecole (University College) of Namur, whose students provided support for collective intelligence
activities;andanevaluationsurveycarriedoutbyULiège-ULB’sMaster’sinAgroecologystudents.
The pioneer works of GIRAF, despite equipping agroecology with the necessary tools to
understand and support it, was not single-handedly responsible for the 2011 breakthrough of
agroecology into the public domain. That breakthrough was the result of two dynamics—the
legitimationoftheconceptanditsnationaldissemination—aspresentedinthenexttwosections.
Sustainability2018,10,2094 6of22
3.3. TheRoleofHybridExpertiseandCatalystsfortheLegitimizationofAgroecology
From2008to2014,theUnitedNationsappointedBelgianprofessorOlivierDeSchutterasSpecial
Rapporteur on the Right to Food (the title of UN Special Rapporteur is given to people working
within the framework of “special procedures”). This former Secretary-General (2004–2008) of the
internationalFederationforHumanRights(FIDH)hasanacademicbackgroundandspecializesin
humanrights. DeSchutter[24]raisedthematterofhavingaccesstofoodtothelevelofahumanright.
Beyondshort-andmedium-termsolutions,hetookuptheforcefulconclusionsoftheInternational
AssessmentofAgriculturalKnowledge,ScienceandTechnologyforDevelopment[25]totargetsmall
farmers,promoteinnovationamongfarmers,reinvestmassivelyinagriculture,andtakegenderissues
intoaccount. DeSchuttertookanotherstepforwardin2009whenherecommendedsupportingthe
righttofoodbymeansofaparadigmshiftthatwouldtakealternativeoptionssuchasconservation
agriculture,agroecology,agroforestry,andthelikeintoaccount. Althoughheinitiallysituatedthe
GreenRevolutionanditsaftershocksdiplomaticallyas“oneofseveralmodels”[26],hesoonclaimed,
whentalkingtotheHumanRightsCouncilinMarch2011thattheagroecologymodelwastheanswer
fortherighttofood[27]. IfitsscientificinspirationwasinitiallyfueledbytheInternationalAssesment
of Agriculture Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development—IAASTD’s work, its head
advisor,oneoftheinitiatorsofGIRAF,hadakeyroleinequippingthe“agroecologymodel”.
Besides his academic credentials as a human rights specialist, his diplomacy combined with
eloquencemadehispositionveryinfluentialinpolitical,legalandregulatory,andscientificforums
(e.g.,theUnitedNationsOrganization,CouncilofHumanRights,ColumbiaUniversity,andSciencePo
Paris). Hiscredibilitywasstrengthenedbyhissimultaneousworkonthegroundtocombatexclusion.
De Schutter was recognized as ‘an expert’ [28] as he helped to instigate and facilitate a paradigm
shift for the entire food system. During and after his UN mandate, De Schutter became a source
ofinspirationforanumberoforganizationsandindividualsthataimedtopromoteagroecologyas
the vector of a societal and political project, taking social justice in both the South and the North
intoaccount.
SixmonthsafterDeSchutter’sspeechattheUN,andalsoreferringtotheGIRAFpositionpaper
“Whatisagroecology”(“Qu’est-cequel’agroécologie”)[29],theBelgiumNGOSOSFAIMwasthefirst
totakeuptheissueofagroecologyinBelgium. Theirpublication(DéfiSud,November2011,n◦103)
answersthequestion,“Isagroecologyasolution?”byexplicitlyreferringtodeSchutterunderthetitle,
“Asolutionforthefoodchallenges”(unesolutionauxdéfisdel’alimentation). Thispublicationignited
a number of other organizations, such as Oxfam, to re-confirm their position that “agroecology is a
priority... [inorder]tofeed9billionhumanbeingsin2050”,andacredibleresponsetoneo-productionist
models. Anincreasingnumberoforganizationsfollowed,bothdevelopmentNGOsworkinginthe
South(EntraideetFraternité2012,Oxfam2014,etc.) andassociationsinvolvedinagricultureandother
fieldsinBelgium(Terre2012,NatureetProgrès2013,etc.) overthenexttwoyears.
ThepositionofOlivierDeSchutterandthedynamicsintheFrench-speakingpartofBelgiumalso
triggeredseveralFlemishNGOsandsocialmovements. OrganizationssuchasGroupforfairand
responsiblefarming(“Wervel”),whichhadalreadybecomeacquaintedwiththeconceptofecological
intensificationthroughtheircontactswiththeFrenchorganizationAFAHC(AssociationFrancaise
des haies et arbres champêtres) in 2009, now placed agroecology in the driver’s seat of systemic
change. Important further drivers for Flemish dissemination of the model were contacts with the
agroecologicalresearchofaDutch-speakingprofessorinaFrench-speakinguniversityinBrussels
(ULB),thetranslatedGIRAFtext“Qu’est-cequel’agroécologie?”,andtheoverallsearchforanew,more
concreteconceptinthetransitiontoamoresustainableagro-foodsystem(seeSection3.2).
TheseFlemishandFrench-speakingdynamicsgainedmomentumandledtotheorganizationofa
seriesofeventsandthere-positioningoftheorganizationsthemselves. Onenotableeventwasthe2012
‘Thepotentialofagroecology: Reclaimingthefoodcrisis’eventorganizedbytheEuropeanGreens
(Greens-EFA)withthesupportofGIRAF.Partlyinreactiontothisevent,thelargeNGOVredeseilanden
Sustainability2018,10,2094 7of22
(VE),nownamedRikolto,hadaninternaldiscussiononthetransformativepotentialofAEwitha
strongemphasisonthenecessitytoremain“realistic”andbewaryofthedangerof
“monopoliz[ing]theconceptofagroecologyfordirectproducer-consumerlinks,economies
based upon small and beautiful, and as such exclud[ing] modern markets, big scale
distributors,retail,processingcompanies[and]economiesofscale”. [30]
InDecember2013,theorganicsectororganizationBioforumorganized“Agroecology: changefrom
below”withinfluentialArgentinianscholarPabloTitonellasaguestspeaker. Thiseventstressedthe
importanceofintegratingagroecologicalprinciplesinresearch,farmingpractices,andpolicy. Here,
internaldiscussionswithinBioforumledtothedecisiontouseagroecologyasanoverarchingprinciple
inwhichorganicagricultureplayedanimportant,yetnotexclusivepart.
WearguethatDeSchutterlegitimizedagroecology, whichwasthenrelayedandactivatedby
a “Northern route”. However, to fully grasp the engaged political coalition that formed around
agroecologyinBelgium,wemustnowdescribeandunderstandthe“Southernroute”.
3.4. TheSouthernRouteofAgroecologyDevelopment
ASouthernrouteintersectedwiththeNorthernroute. ItstartedinLatinAmericawiththeadvent
ofleftistgovernmentsandCuba’sagroecology“successstory”(Rosset,Sosaetal. 2011),whereLaVia
Campesina(LVC)firstopeneduptoagroecology. Thisinternationalfederationofpeasanttradeunions
(formedin1996)tookanofficialpositioninfavorofagroecology. Their“Surin”Declaration,made
oneyearafterDeSchutter’sspeechattheUN,assertsthatagroecology“isthebasisforachievingfood
sovereignty”,forms“anintegralpartoftheglobalresponsetothemainchallengesandcrisesfacinghumankind”
andgivesmeaning“tothestruggleagainstthehegemonicmodel”[31].
InWallonia,thesmall-farmers’actionmovementorMouvementd’ActionsPaysannes(MAP,running
six teaching farms (EPI), offering training courses, and doing some extension work) took up the
debateandpositionofLVC.Mouvementd’ActionsPaysannesactivitiesconsistofjointlyorganizingan
alternativeparallelagriculturalfair;itisamarginalsmall-farmers’movementintermsofmembership
numbers. Nevertheless, thanks to its active core members who participate in LVC’s international
meetings,MAPisaneffective,legitimaterelayfortheactivismofthesestrugglesinthecommunity
ofFrench-speakingassociationsandfarmers. Thisincludesparticipationinthe“peasantstruggleday”
thatweshallcomebacktoinSection3.6. InspiredbytheEuropeanandinternationalLVCmeetings,
MAP’srepresentativesstressedtheindispensablelinksbetweenagroecologicalpracticeandsocial
transformation. Theythusassertedthat“... ifwewanttobuildasustainableagri-foodsystem... that
meanseffectingfar-reachingculturalchangeandthebestwaytotakepartinthissocialchangeistodrawup
andenforcetherulesourselves... ”[32]. ThisvisionandcommitmentmaterializedinthreeSymposia
forSmallFarmers(SPAPsinFrench)thatchallengedthenormativeandbureaucraticapproachofthe
FederalAgencyforFoodChainSecurity(FAVV)intheBelgianhealthcontrolschemeandpromoted
ParticipatoryGuaranteeSystemsthatrejectedcertificationbyathirdindependentpartyinfavorof
farmerandconsumerauto-control.
3.5. SustainableDevelopment,TransitionandtheClashwiththeFlemishAgrifoodSector
Apart from the above described influence by De Schutter and the international movements,
the evolution and adoption of agroecology in Flanders also coincided with the Sustainable
Development(SD)movement.Itledtonewalliancesandbreakingpointswithinthe“institutionalized”
partofcivilsociety. In2010,theFlemishCouncilforSustainableDevelopment(VODO)(foundedin
1993,seeSection3.6),whichhadbroughttogetheraseriesofactorsandNGOsfromverydifferent
backgrounds(laborunions,North-South,environment,women’srights,peacemovement,andfarmers’
movement)underthebannerofSD,ceasedtoexist. AremarkablelastachievementofVODOwas
a jointly communicated vision text on the CAP reform together with the largest Flemish farmers’
organization Boerenbond (BB), which marked a notable breakthrough in a long-standing stalemate
Sustainability2018,10,2094 8of22
betweenthetraditionalfarmers’unionandtheNGOworld(https://www.bondbeterleefmilieu.be/
artikel/samen-voor-een-krachtig-europees-gemeenschappelijk-landbouwbeleid). After VODO, a
groupofNGOactorsinitiatedTransitienetwerkMiddenveld(TNM),aFlemish“transitionnetwork,”with
a“foodandagricultureworkinggroup”,whichbecameacatalystfortheagroecologymovementin
Flanders. IncontrasttoVODO,whichwasstronglyalignedwiththe1992UnitedNationsConference
onEnvironmentandDevelopment(UNCED)ConferenceandAgenda21,wastheimplementation
oftheTransitionGovernanceandTransitionManagementdiscourse,TNMintroducedaparticular
vocabulary and methodology related to ideas such as niche-regime dynamics and the so-called
multi-levelperspective(seeSection3.2).
BasedontheinformallinkswithinTNMandincreasinglyprevalentideason“transition,”alarge
governanceprocesscalledtheNewFoodFrontier(NFF)wassetupbetweenmid-2010andmid-2012.
The main goal of the NFF was to engage a group of relevant stakeholders in the construction of
sustainabilityimagesthatweretobedisseminatedtovariousorganizationsintheagro-foodsystem.
TheyevenaimedtosetupapermanenttransitionnetworkasanewpoliticalspacewithintheFlemish
agriculturalpolicy. ThesteeringgroupoftheNFFbroughttogetheranunusualcoalitionofpolitical
actors related to academia, traditional interest groups (BB, Fevia) as well as NGOs, but failed to
succeedinthepoliticalrepresentationofthedifferentideologicalpositionsonthedesiredfutureof
theagro-foodsystem(foradetailedanalysisseeCrivitsetal.[33]). TheNFFprocesscollapsed,but
thepoliticalspacethatclaimedtorepresentsustainabilitygovernancewasrebuiltviatheso-called
“TransformationProject”. Thatgroupwasledbytraditionalinterestgroupsrelatedtotheeconomicor
“sectoral”classificationoftheagri-foodsystem(agriculture,foodprocessindustry,retailers,supply
inputindustry).
Nevertheless,someoftheNGOs(involvedinTNMandNFF)remainedinthesteeringgroupof
theTransformationProject.Inthebeginningoftheproject,twoNGOmembersclaimedtorepresentthe
wholeNGOfieldonanissue-basedlogic(oneactorrepresenting“environment,”oneactorrepresenting
“socialissues”). Thispositionsoonbecameuntenable;when“actionlabs”(experimentstounderstand
howthesystemcanchange)framedsustainabilitysolutionsaslargelytechnologicalandeconomicin
nature,theNGOactorscollectivelydecidedtowithdrawfromtheprocessandrefusedtoputtheir
nametoanyoftheachievementsofthesustainabilityprojectledbytheeconomicactors. Asoneofthe
interviewedNGOmembersrecalls,“Atacertainmoment,itbecameclearthatthetermAEwasvery
difficulttouseinthatcontext. Theretailrepresentatives,forexample,saidthattheydidnotwanttobe
associatedwiththewordAE.”
In2014,theactorsinvolvedinTNM’s“foodandagriculturegroup”begantoutilizetheconcept
ofagroecologymoreactivelyasaflagshiptermtoorientatetheiractivitiesandmissionstatement.
This resulted in a new institutionalization process and resulted in a new network, Voedsel Anders.
ThissteadilygrowinggroupofNGOactorsaimstomakeagroecologyakeyconceptinattaininga
sustainableagrifoodsystemthatemphasizestheimportanceofafoodsystem“inwhichfarmersand
citizens have more voice” and which guarantees “fair ... prices for farmers in all parts of the world and
healthy food for everybody”’, Voedsel Anders manifesto, 2014 [34]. This group also represents a large
diversityofNGOactors.
3.6. De-InstitutionalizationandNewFormsofEngagementaroundAccesstoLand
In the French-speaking part of Belgium, an informal dynamic arises that contrasts with the
formalinstitutionalizationprocess. In2010,thesmallfarmers’supportnetworkReSAParoseoutside
institutionalwalls. Itstartedfromanopenmailinglistandhadnolegalstatus. ItlinkedNGOand
associations,citizens,andcollectivesthatsupportsmall-scalefarming.The43organizationsthatbelong
toReSAPinclude14historicaloverseasdevelopmentNGOs(SOSfaim,Oxfam-Solidarité,leCentre
National de Coopération au Développement (CNCD), ... ), two minority French speaking small
farmers’tradeunions—MAPandFUGEA(FédérationUnieGroupementsd’éleveursetd’Agriculteurs)—as
well as new, often more urban associations that support small farmers and peasants. Two small
Sustainability2018,10,2094 9of22
Flemishassociations(WervelandAkkelei),alsojoined. Arangeofnewpartnersbroadenedthespectrum
of political demands (such as the war on hunger as a part of human rights) and forms of action
(includingregularactivisttrainingandassociationswithananarchisticbent). Thesemoreflexible
and cross-cutting forms of activism contrasted with the former and well-established institutional
wayofworking. Whatismore,theirsocial,environmental,andfoodjusticeconcernsalsoinfluenced
thenetwork’schoices(seebelow). Indeed,thepoliticalclaim‘accesstoland’graduallyturnedinto
ReSAP’s main mobilizing theme and culminated in the organization of an International “Day for
the Peasant Struggle” on April 17, 2014 (date of commemoration by LVC of the assassination of a
groupoflandlesspeasantsinBrazil,asanemblematicexampleof“peasants’strugglesandresistance
forfoodsovereigntyandagainstthepowerofagribusinessmultinationals”. ReSAPorganizedthesymbolic
occupation of lands that were judged to have been unjustly expropriated for “capitalist interests”.
InspiredbythecivildisobedienceoftheGMpotatowar(seeSection3.1)ReSAPdecidedtooccupy
a meadowed area that was slated to become the building site for a new mega-prison on the edge
ofBrusselsandtheyorganizedafestivepotato-plantingdayonthesite. GiventheBelgianfederal
authorities’explicitrefusaltoallowthepotatoplantinganddespitethestrongreluctanceofsome
oftheirmemberinstitutions,ReSAP’spotatoplanterschosetotaketheroadtoaction. Theplanters
partaking thus did so in their own names, fully aware of the possible consequences. To grasp the
impactofthisdecision,onemustrememberthedeeplypragmaticandconsensualnatureofBelgian
society. Virtuallyallpracticesofcivicactionwithinthefoodsystem,withthenotableexceptionof
theGMPotatowarandtheInternationalDayforthePeasantStruggle,aresteepedinsuchaculture.
The action was a success. The crowd of young activists of various stripes, collaboration of a few
peasantsandmarketgardeners,participationof70organizationsgarneredwidemediacoverage. This
actofpeacefuldisobediencehasthusbeenrepeatedannually. Accesstolandasa“commonresource”
becametheemblematicissueofReSAP.Today,ReSAP’sInternetsiteSAPisindistinguishablefrom
thebilingual(FlemishandFrench)peasantstrugglesite(www.luttepaysanne.be),whichmixesurban
agricultureandpeasantstruggle,theworldofassociations,andcitizens’movements.
Besidesthisfocusonland,ahard-to-pin-downwayofbeinganddoingtookshapeinReSAP.This
consistedoforganic,non-hierarchicalways[35]ofmakingdecisionandactions,wheretheexperience
andenergyofcommitmentcountedasmuchascompetence. Thisagilewayofpracticingcollective
intelligence was in striking contrast to the more hierarchical and institutional forms of overseas
developmentNGOs. Itranthroughanewgenerationofassociations, andamongthemespecially
thoselinkedtothetransitionmovement,butalsoGIRAF’sresearchers. Thisjudiciouscombinationof
commitment,competence,andconfidenceoutsideinstitutionsbecamethefuelthatpoweredAIA.
ThefirstAIAeventonDecember9and10,2016wasthefruitoftheknow-howofacertainnumber
ofassociationsandNGOsaswellastheindividualcommitmentsofsomeofGIRAF’sscientists(for
adetailedanalysisseeHermesseetal.[36]). Thefirstcharacteristicisthefactthatitwasan“event”
with a “before” and an “after” [37]. The activities that took place marked the participants in three
ways: bytheirmagnitude(800participants)anddiverseaudiences;bytheirfederating,enthusiastic,
organicorganization(withlittlehierarchization);andbytheconnectionsthatwereestablishedbetween
differentmovements(agroecologyandfoodsolidarity).
Theaimofcreatinganalliancebetweenamovementtocombatpovertyandvulnerabilityand
amovementtorecognizeagroecologicalpracticeswasoneofthestrongpointsoftheevent. Itwas
incarnatedbythepresenceofnotonlythespokesmanoftheWalloonAnti-povertyNetwork(Christine
Mahy)andOlivierdeSchutteronitspanelofexperts,butalsorepresentativesofBelgium’stwomajor
health insurance funds. Through these people and institutions, the tension revolving around the
matteroffairpricesforqualityfoodor“foodjustice”wastheexplicitsubjectofdebate. Ontheone
hand,itwasargued,foodwas“toocheap”toenablesmallfarmers—especiallymarketgardeners—to
earndecentlivingsfromworkingtheland,butontheotherhand,therighttoqualityfood,i.e.,food
thatwashealthy, fresh, andinseason, requiredaffordablepricesforeveryone. Howcoulddecent
incomesforfarmersbereconciledwithaffordablegood-qualityfoodforconsumers?
Sustainability2018,10,2094 10of22
Theframingoftheeventledtothepredominantpresenceofurbanandperi-urbanagricultural
projects. Theformatoftheeventfavoredanactivist,alternative,urbanaudience. Consequently,AIA
gaveprioritytoradicalagriculturalinitiatives(urbanagriculture,“peasanttastes”,etc.),ratherthanto
thoseintransitionwithintheregime(conservationagriculture,feedautonomy,organicconversion,
etc.). Challengedaboutitsabilitytoanchoritsmovementinruralareasandtheexpertiseofthefamily
farmerswhoputagroecologicalprinciplesintopracticewithoutboastingaboutit, AIAdrewupa
programfor2018ofdecentralizedparticipationineventsthatlinkedmoretoagriculturalprofessions
intheFrench-speakingpartofBelgium. Wehypothesizeasignificantimpactofthesedevelopments.
Theyears2015and2016wereindeedturningpointsduringwhichvariousBrusselsofficialentities
confirmedtheirinvestmentsintheissueofsustainablefood. WithintheEmployment-Environment
Alliance(2011to2015)theBrusselsgovernmentproposeda“governancedynamicaimedatmobilizingand
coordinatingpublicentities,privateplayers,andassociationsaroundconcertedactions.”“Sustainablefood”
wasonesuchlineofaction.
In conclusion, AIA did not only generate movement and enthusiasm, but also confirmed a
non-institutionalwayofoperating,putwordstotheunspokenissueofsocialjustice,andrevealedthe
emergenceofaBrusselsRegionterritorialdynamicaroundasubjectthatiscompatiblewithabroad
versionofagroecology,i.e.,encompassingsustainablefoodproductionandconsumption.
4. TheCross-PollinationofAgroecologicalTensions
WechosesixstrandstofollowthedynamicsofagroecologyinBelgiumbecausethefabricthat
theyweavelead,accordingtoouranalysis,toaseriesofmajortensions. Ofthese,wehavesingled
outfourmajoraxesoftensionordisagreement. Thesefourtensionsexertapulloncertainpointsof
interlacingoftheeightstrands,suchasbetweenAIAandtheFlemishscientificcommunity. Dipping
intothesociologyofcontroversy[38],wehavechosentheterm“tension”becausewehypothesizethat
thesedisagreementsareproductive. Whiletheymaycreatetearsinthefabric,theycanalsoopenup
spacesforreconfigurationandbroadercoalitions.
4.1. ThePoliticalPositioningofAgroecology
Astheconceptofagroecologygainedground,theinitiatorsofagroecologyinBelgiumsawtheir
initialintuitionbecomeadisputed,butproductiveterritory. Analysesofthevariouspoliticalstances
taken around agroecology and the tensions that they have generated in Brazil [39] and France [8],
for example, have also shown their productive potential. We hypothesize that three stances can
beseeninBelgium: thoseofRadical(Agro)Ecology,StrongEcologicalModernization,andNarrow
EcologicalModernization.
AfirstpositionisrelatedtoadiscourseofRadical(Agro)Ecology(RE)-takingaclearoppositional
positionbetweenanuntenableneo-liberalsystemofeconomicgrowth,whichcanonlyberesolved
throughpoliticalactionandstructuralsocialchange,towardsasocialandecologicalsystembased
onanalternativepoliticalmodelbasedinturnoncollectivistcitizenshipandsocialtransformation.
Thisdiscourse,espousedbysomeofthescientistswithinGIRAF,tiesinwiththedominantdiscourse
of AIA. It is associated with a politics of defiance towards regime actors, political disobedience,
andgrassrootsactivism. Itisacriticaldiscoursethatdisqualifies“theotherformsofagroecology”,which
“perpetuatesomeoftheprinciplesthatpeasantagroecologycontests: theongoingconcentrationofland... seed
patentingortechnoscience-basedandtop-downsolutions... ”. REhasalsotakenacriticalpositiontowards
contemporaryagriculturalsciences,whichareseenasunwittinglyreproducingthesystem,andthus
alsocomplicitinthecontemporaryenvironmentalandsocialdevastation. Itthereforelooksfavorably
towardsless“extractivist”[40]andmoreengagedresearcherandadvisorpracticestowardsfarmers.
Itsactivism,however,isatloggerheadswiththestandardsofscientificrigorthatarelaidoutincalls
forresearchprojectcallsfromnationalfundingagenciesorinthemainlymono-disciplinaryacademic
arenas. RadicalagroecologyinBelgiumisalivelyplace,hometoawildvarietyofmovements,groups
andthinkersandnotwithoutinnerdisputesitself. YetwithinRE,civilsocietyactorsdrawntothe