AGROECOLOGY - RESPECT
The
word ecology was coined in 1866 by Ernst Haeckel, a German biologist of
Darwinist current. In a book entitled General morphology of organisms, he
defined the term as "the science that studies the interrelationships of
the various living beings among themselves and with the surrounding world, that
is to say, in a broad sense, the science of the conditions of existence ".
So,
the first thing to remember about this definition is that ecology is primarily
a science. More recently, the word has been deviated from its meaning to make
an ideology and a political movement.
The
term has evolved into everything related to the environment, integrating,
unlike what Haeckel thought, an opposition between human activities and Nature,
as if human being doesn't belong to Nature.
The word ecology was diverted from
its meaning for political purposes. But this is another story...
Obviously
agroecology specializes this definition around agricultural activities and
production of food and raw materials of agricultural origin.
Agroecology is not a science but
rather a philosophy, a concept that seeks to make the needs and demands of
agriculture, consistent with the goal of sustainability and respect for the
environment.
But it also seeks to integrate agriculture in the rural civil society in order
to enhance the capacity of sustainable rural development.
Picture: http://crdp.ac-amiens.fr/idp/hirson-environ-02-bocage-idfidp/
Some
have made environmental protection a crusade for which agriculture is a
priority target. Organic farming has become for them the only acceptable path.
Nevertheless it is very far from being as friendly for environment and health as
they are struggling to make us believe.
Wanting to make from a dogma a
production method, are encountered necessarily serious difficulties and even
dead ends.
However, thanks to a very aggressive and dynamic communication, this dogma has
managed to make itself unavoidable, into making believe that offers solutions
to all problems. On one hand, this is not true, and secondly, many of these
solutions are very aggressive to health or the environment (indiscriminate use
of copper, heavy metal harmful to health and soil, neem oil well known as endocrine
disruptor, natural pyrethrum very toxic for aquatic wildlife, among many other
pesticides used in organic agriculture).
It
will be difficult to go back on this falsified perception, because we left the
field open to figures become public, great communicators, populist among the
best, who made from certain vision, questionable to say the least, of agriculture
and environment, their battle cry and above all, their main source of income.
This is the case, for example, of Vani Hari (Food Babe) or Claude Bourguignon,
among many others.
Agroecology
goes far in their direction, it goes even beyond, leaving them as a kind of
rearguard fighters, and it deprives them any reason to exist. It is therefore
likely that, despite all passed and future progress, they will continue to use
the same arguments, denying the real benefits of the positive developments, to
continue to justify their struggle, become obsolete.
The
respect.
I
choose to continue this series with this aspect which does not appear in the
articles or files relating agroecology, but is, in my opinion, absolutely
fundamental.
If
we talk about agroecology and respect, we inevitably think of the welfare of
animals, in respect of plants, preservation of biodiversity and environment,
soil conservation, precautions regarding water pollution risks, water savings,
and so on.
It’s
true that all this must be taken into account, there is no doubt it is even the
basis of the concept.
Yet,
limit the concept to that, with the the idea of making a large project for
the society, as it is the case in France, it's just make an additional tool for
regulation, limitation and control. If this is the case, then it will have to
be imposed by force, on the base of reprimands and penalties, so, basically, it
will be very difficult to be accepted.
However,
if we consider Haeckel's definition of ecology, and if we consider agriculture
as a productive activity for food and raw materials used in most human
activities, then we must see agroecology as a true project for the whole
society.
Agroecology
carries in it an immense consistency, a logic and an efficiency, that even
before appropriate laws were established, well over half of French farmers have
already implemented specific actions.
Picture: http://www.cnrs.fr/cw/dossiers/dosbiodiv/content/medias/images/normal/Alimd1_20.jpg
But
to make of agroecology an authentic project for the society, the concept of
respect must be instilled in all direct or indirect actors, in a modern society
that is sorely lacking of it.
We
all agree that the farmer has to play a leading role, but all actors in society
have a part to play there. I'm referring to the fact that we are speaking of
production and environment, so it is imperative to include gardens, balconies,
recycling, food waste, and so on.
When
the government of a country, as is currently the case in France, puts
agroecology to the rank of national purpose, then this issue becomes a societal
goal. Although the approach, at least currently, is voluntary, agroecology
concerns the whole society.
Each
level of society has rights, but also duties, and among these duties, there is
a duty of respect.
Respect
for plants, animals, people, balances, environment, soil, water, suppliers,
consumers, and not forgetting, respect for producers, artisans, industrialists
and farmers.
When
I speak of respect for consumers, suppliers or farmers, I refer to a lot of
little things, and in particular:
-
The
respect in television programs that too often present farmers as monsters
poisoners and polluters, suppliers as exploiters, and consumers as victims. Freedom of the press and freedom of
expression were transformed into freedom from oppression. Because even the
public channels have launched in this so dangerous and unfair play. Is it
tolerable in one of the founder countries, and rightly proud of it, of modern
democracies? Is this acceptable in a country that proudly displays its motto,
Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, but which only the first one seems to have found
favor, equality and fraternity have been thrown for a long time into the
political oblivion?
-
The
respect in pricing policies. How do you want that everyone is involved in a
social project if each one of its active members feels victim of the system?
Consumers are largely operated by aberrant pricing policy and a carefully
organized disinformation, producers are underpaid by a system that values more
the administration and intermediates, that producers who realize the hardest
working and take most risks.
These
are certainly the most serious points, which give as result that 14% of French
farmers are willing to leave their activity within one year (http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-eco/2016/04/20/97002-20160420FILWWW00193-france-14-des-agriculteurs-prets-a-abandonner-dans-l-annee.php), and that farmers are
among the populations the most affected by suicide (http://www.bfmtv.com/societe/le-tabou-du-suicide-des-agriculteurs-954464.html).
Financial
difficulties, loneliness, fatigue, feeling of being bad considered, are daily
realities for many farmers, and come primarily from a social system that no
longer recognizes the value of production.
Laborer,
artisan, farmer, became jobs to avoid, to the benefit of the communication,
computing, health, control, selling and others, all lucrative, none productive.
But
who makes all products to be sold?
Who
manufactures?
Who
grows?
Who
builds?
Such
a project of society has no chance of success if it is not accompanied by a
policy of training / information targeted on a rehabilitation of local jobs and
on a clear and transparent information of the reality of things, without
ideology or dogmatism.
Ideology
and dogmatism, often block the most respectful solutions to each problem. This
is especially true in agriculture.
Somehow,
we must seek a return to the philosophy of the hunter-gatherer, but in a
modern, productive and respectful way of use of nature.
Try
to understand. It does not mean to go hunting for food, it was fine when the
Earth was inhabited by 500,000 people, all living in the countryside ...
The
situation has changed a little bit. We are barely 15,000 times more numerous,
and the greater part of the population does not know what countryside is, or is
afraid, or even feels disgust.
Yet
the philosophy of the hunter-gatherer is good, and at least some aspects are
transferable. Especially the respect. Again. The hunter-gatherer collected only
what he immediately needed, to preserve the resource and to be able to use it
longer.
Picture: http://static.skynetblogs.be/media/132777/busmen.jpg
This
way of life still exists, especially among some African or South American people,
in remote areas, with very low population density.
Our
modern economical system produces a large amount of food or raw materials that
are destroyed as non-compliant. This is a total lack of respect for nature and
for those who produce them.
It is imperative to protect crops
against bioaggressors (pests and diseases). It is also a question of
sustainability. The more we will be able to produce on each hectare of
cultivated land, the less hectares will be needed to feed the population. It's
a question of balance, and also an environmental issue.
Associate
environmental protection with the fight against agricultural productivity, is a
big mistake and a populism effect of very low level. This is quite the
opposite, actually. Protecting the environment and biodiversity can only come through
a maximum limitation of land devoted to agriculture, so a maximum limitation of
its negative impact.
Or
we must admit that the world population is too large and must kill many people.
¿Are
there any volunteers?
All
this does not mean that we must produce no matter how. Agriculture must learn to produce much, by making the most of available
resources, without depleting them. This is the big bet of agroecology.
It
is a thousand times better to use a synthetic respectful product, than an
aggressive natural product. If one is able to accept that principle, which
prefers qualities instead of origin, then we approach the philosophy of
agroecology.
Someone
someday will have to understand that agriculture is only a link in the food and
economic chain.
But
if the link breaks, the whole chain is dislocated.
Farmers,
artisans and local industrials must be able to live with dignity from their
work. It is a matter of long-term vision.
If
they don't succeed, they will stop their activity, or they will delocalize, as
we can see every day in the rich countries.
Yet
the same consumer goods will continue to be available, but from third
countries, where environmental, social, health or political policies don't
necessarily reach the same level.
Is
this acceptable?
The
ostrich policy has never led to anything good. Those who currently look the
other way, not to see this reality, are the major responsible for the economic,
social, health and environmental catastrophes to come.
But
agroecology should also cover the distribution. Currently it is the central
link, which directs and determines the present and the future of the production
and consumption of goods.
But
the distribution companies are exclusively focused on the release of comfortable
financial results to satisfy their shareholders. The desires and needs of the
two extremes, the producer and the consumer, are analyzed as to derive maximum
benefit.
This
absolute lack of respect must be targeted as a priority by the authorities responsible
for the implementation of agroecology.
An
evidence of this lack of respect for distribution? Carrefour, in France,
already communicates on agroecology, but by voluntarily introducing confusion. http://www.forumphyto.fr/2016/05/24/carrefour-et-ses-fraises-sans-pesticides-mensonge-par-omission-et-faute-morale/?utm_medium=social&utm_source=linkedin Contrary to claims of Carrefour, agroecology
supports the use of synthetic pesticides, but using the methods of Integrated
Pest Management, which I will talk in a future post.
Picture: http://www.ouestlyonnais.fr/photo/art/grande/6668498-10188808.jpg?v=1402493857
Promote a diversified agriculture,
open, not dogmatic or ideological, plural to use a fashionable word, is the
best way to ensure that the entire society accept agroecology. To do this, the whole of
civil society must be informed and aware of the issues, and the positive and
negative aspects of each type of farming.
Nothing
is perfect, all farming methods have advantages and defects. Let's be honest on
this crucial point. Here, one more time, it’s
a question of respect.
The
results of this great movement will be even better.
It is imperative to integrate to
the project of agroecology development, an important part of economic,
political and social operation.
This is the only way to make a real societal project.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire