64 research outputs found
Agriculteurs et chercheurs dans la gestion à la ferme des ressources génétiques : dynamiques d'apprentissage autour de la biodiversité
Dans la litteÌrature en sociologie des sciences, la notion d'objet frontieÌre s'est reÌveÌleÌe utile aÌ la compreÌhension du fonctionnement de projets scientifiques impliquant conjointement scientifiques et amateurs. AppliqueÌe aÌ des projets mobilisant aÌ la fois chercheurs et agriculteurs, elle nous paraiÌt particulieÌrement adapteÌe pour reÌpondre aÌ l'une des questions poseÌes par le texte de cadrage de ce colloque : « comment les cateÌgories penseÌes par les sciences du vivant peÌneÌtrent le monde rural et participent aÌ sa reconfiguration ? ». Dans cette contribution, nous nous penchons sur une collaboration entre geÌneÌticiens et agriculteurs collectionneurs de bleÌs de pays, autour de l'eÌtude des compleÌmentariteÌs entre mode de conservation de la biodiversiteÌ cultiveÌe aÌ la ferme et en collection de ressources geÌneÌtiques. Nous examinons l'objet biodiversiteÌ aÌ travers le cadre theÌorique de l'objet frontieÌre, afin de mieux comprendre l'interpreÌtation de cette cateÌgorie scientifique par le groupe d'agriculteurs et son usage dans le monde social. ApreÌs avoir examineÌ les divergences de lecture de cet objet, qui malgreÌ tout n'empeÌchent pas l'accord des acteurs autour de l'objectif de sa conservation, nous abordons la dimension dynamique de l'interaction entre agriculteurs et chercheurs, et notamment les apprentissages. Nos reÌsultats nous invitent aÌ consideÌrer le collectif hybride de recherche, non comme le lieu d'une confrontation de deux formes de savoirs â savoirs scientifiques et savoirs paysans â mais comme une communauteÌ de pratiques ouÌ des savoirs se creÌent et se transforment en meÌme temps qu'ils circulent. Cette eÌtude, qui s'inscrit dans un contexte geÌneÌral de reÌhabilitation de la « science de plein air » et d'extension aÌ la science de la theÌmatique de la participation, plaide, si l'on veut comprendre les mutations du monde rural contemporain, pour un rapprochement des eÌtudes rurales (ethnologie, ethnoscience, sociologie rurale) et des science studies
Book review: Watson E. E., 2009, "Living Terraces in Ethiopia - Konso Landscape, Culture & Development", Woodbridge, James Currey
International audienceBook review: Watson E. E., 2009, "Living Terraces in Ethiopia - Konso Landscape, Culture & Development", Woodbridge, James Curre
Des Semences en partage
Cet article se penche sur une dynamique portĂ©e par des producteurs en France, qui cherchent Ă rĂ©habiliter la sĂ©lection Ă la ferme Ă partir de variĂ©tĂ©s anciennes. Notre travail vise Ă analyser les Ă©lĂ©ments qui soudent la communautĂ© de pratiques constituĂ©e autour des dĂ©nommĂ©es « semences paysannes ». Dans un premier temps, nous rendons compte des ressorts matĂ©riels et idĂ©els qui poussent des producteurs de blĂ© Ă se lancer dans la recherche de variĂ©tĂ©s anciennes et dans le rĂ©apprentissage de techniques de sĂ©lection. Pour ces agriculteurs alternatifs cultivant le plus souvent sous le label Agriculture Biologique, les variĂ©tĂ©s anciennes offrent dâabord des possibilitĂ©s techniques (une meilleure adaptation Ă leurs conditions de production). Elles reprĂ©sentent aussi un levier politique (reconquĂ©rir une autonomie par rapport Ă lâindustrie semenciĂšre) et un positionnement ontologique (construire une relation de compagnonnage avec les plantes). Ă partir de la crĂ©ation du RĂ©seau Semences Paysannes en 2003, qui met en relation ces personnes jusquâalors isolĂ©es, les semences deviennent aussi les vecteurs dâun rĂ©seau de sociabilitĂ©s privilĂ©giĂ©es. De lâĂ©tude du rĂ©seau de circulation des semences ressort un fort rejet de la centralisation de lâactivitĂ© de sĂ©lection : « la semence, ça regarde tout le monde ». Dans le mĂȘme temps, lâĂ©conomie morale des Ă©changes de semences rĂ©vĂšle que tout le monde ne peut pas rentrer dans ce collectif : les nouveaux entrants sont sĂ©lectionnĂ©s sur leur capacitĂ© Ă se mettre Ă lâĂ©coute de ces variĂ©tĂ©s, dans un renversement des Ă©preuves oĂč lâhumain est testĂ© par la plante, et non pas lâinverse. En tant quâobjet qui circule et Ă©volue de ferme en ferme, les semences constituent un objet intermĂ©diaire, qui Ă la fois coordonne lâaction collective et incarne les rĂ©sultats de cette action. Parce quâelles portent lâempreinte de ceux qui les ont travaillĂ©es, ces semences contribuent Ă resserrer le rĂ©seau, en lâinscrivant dans un tissu sans couture mĂȘlant intimement les histoires des hommes et des blĂ©s. La pratique commune de la sĂ©lection Ă la ferme, matĂ©rialisĂ©e par la circulation physique des semences paysannes, constitue un acte performatif par lequel ces producteurs Ă©prouvent le sentiment dâappartenir Ă un monde « paysan » construit en rupture avec la figure moderne de lâexploitant agricole.This article focuses on a network of farmers in France, who aim to re-establish on-farm seed production and plant breeding from heirloom vareties. Our study aims to analyse the elements which concretely bind the community of practice formed around what they literally call âpeasant seedsâ (semences paysannes). The following points are addressed in turn: individual motives (technical, political, ethical or spiritual) which push farmers into rejecting the purchase at the cooperative of certified modern variety seeds; the characteristics of the seed exchange network; and finally, the forms of sociability that emerge from seed sharing within this network. The sharing of breeding practices as well as the exchange of âpeasant seedsâ forms an operative act, through which producers share the sentiment of belonging to a âpeasantâ community (communautĂ© paysanne), built by breaking with modern industrial farming
Du singulier au collectif. Agriculteurs et objets de la nature dans les réseaux d'agricultures " alternatives "
International audiencePREMIERES LIGNES... La derniĂšre dĂ©cennie a vu Ă©merger diffĂ©rents courants ou mouvements agricoles se revendiquant dâune alternative Ă ce qui est couramment dĂ©crit comme un modĂšle industriel, productiviste et intensif. Ces « alternatifs » sâancrent dans une critique dâun modĂšle de dĂ©veloppement hĂ©ritĂ© des modernisations et rĂ©volutions vertes, fondĂ© notamment sur le dĂ©veloppement des sciences et des techniques (Busch et Lacy, 1983). Ces mouvements et les agriculteurs qui leur donnent corps mettent en avant un moindre recours aux techniques modernes et, en corollaire, un retour de la nature au cĆur des systĂšmes productifs (Goulet, 2010). Cette derniĂšre, avec sa complexitĂ© et sa diversitĂ©, est vue comme une richesse pour lâagriculture, plutĂŽt que comme une contrainte quâil sâagirait de discipliner. Les mĂ©canismes naturels sont ainsi envisagĂ©s par les promoteurs de ces agricultures comme des sources de progrĂšs ; les techniques ne sont valorisĂ©es quâen ce quâelles permettent lâexpression, lâaccomplissement de la nature (Heidegger, 1958). Des mouvements comme lâagriculture biologique, lâagriculture intĂ©grĂ©e et raisonnĂ©e, ou encore lâagriculture de conservation, mĂȘme sâils recouvrent des rĂ©alitĂ©s techniques et politiques souvent contrastĂ©es, sont au cĆur de ces dynamiques. Ces mouvements et les pratiques sur lesquelles ils sâappuient soulĂšvent des questions importantes pour les chercheurs en sciences sociales qui sâintĂ©ressent Ă la production des connaissances et des innovations en agriculture
Ătude des complĂ©mentaritĂ©s entre gestion dynamique Ă la ferme et gestion statique en collection: Cas de la variĂ©tĂ© de blĂ© Rouge de Bordeaux
National audienceWhile on-farm conservation was considered minor in the development of the National Charter on Genetic Resources in 1998, there is increasing recognition of its important role in the conservation of genetic diversity. In addition to amateur gardening associations that save and exchange seeds, farmers in France have formed networks around systems of shared seed conservation and exchanges, with the goal of protecting the diversity of cultivated species. Parallel to this, the contribution of farmers to the dynamic management of agricultural biodiversity has been recognized by many scientific studies and in international treaties. These developments led us to examine the complementary nature of on-farm and gene-bank conservation efforts in terms of the management of genetic resources. This study, which combines ethnobotanical and genetic approaches, was conducted on bread wheat, for which France has a national collection of 10 000 accessions. There is also an active network of farmers who cultivate historic varieties and landraces, including the Rouge de Bordeaux, which was chosen for a detailed study. By conducting individual interviews with farmers, we were able to understand better their management practices, seed exchanges with other farmers and with the national collection, and strategies for maintaining and selecting this variety on their own farms. We characterized the genetic diversity conserved by several farmers and in the samples preserved in the national collection for Rouge de Bordeaux by using a comparative genetic analysis of samples obtained from farmers and from the collection, in light of the management practices and exchange networks that exist among farmers and between farmers and the national collection. Our results demonstrate that the diversity of these populations is far from being redundant. While certain samples are quite homogeneous and similar to samples from the national collection, others are highly heterogeneous. There is also a high degree of genetic differentiation among populations, with clear groupings of populations identified. The structure of the diversity may be explained by the structure of exchanges and the development of local adaptation within the populations to environmental conditions and management practices, and by differing strategies of selection and conservation. Further analysis will help us understand more precisely what defines a variety and what type of genetic diversity or phenotypic traits are conserved with different management strategies. Our results also support a greater degree of seed circulation between farmers' fields and the national collection, to conserve the adaptive potential and a broader range of genetic diversity for each variety.ConsidĂ©rĂ©e comme mineure lors de la rĂ©daction de la Charte nationale des ressources gĂ©nĂ©tiques en 1998, la gestion Ă la ferme a depuis gagnĂ© en importance et en reconnaissance. En effet, aprĂšs les associations de jardiniers amateurs, des rĂ©seaux d'agriculteurs se sont fĂ©dĂ©rĂ©s en France autour de systĂšmes mutualistes de sĂ©lection/conservation de la diversitĂ© cultivĂ©e. ParallĂšlement, la contribution des paysans Ă la gestion dynamique de l'agrobiodiversitĂ© a Ă©tĂ© scientifiquement et institutionnellement reconnue. Ces Ă©lĂ©ments nous ont conduit Ă examiner les complĂ©mentaritĂ©s dans la gestion des ressources gĂ©nĂ©tiques Ă la ferme et en collection. Cette Ă©tude, qui croise des approches ethnobotanique et gĂ©nĂ©tique, a Ă©tĂ© menĂ©e sur le blĂ© tendre pour lequel il existe en France une collection nationale de 10 000 accessions et un rĂ©seau actif d'agriculteurs-collectionneurs de variĂ©tĂ©s. Pour la variĂ©tĂ© Rouge de Bordeaux, nous avons tentĂ© de caractĂ©riser la diversitĂ© dans les champs et en collection, en procĂ©dant Ă une analyse gĂ©nĂ©tique d'Ă©chantillons obtenus auprĂšs d'agriculteurs et auprĂšs de la collection. Nos rĂ©sultats montrent que les ressources gĂ©nĂ©tiques conservĂ©es dans les deux compartiments sont loin d'ĂȘtre redondantes. La structuration de la diversitĂ© s'explique par les rĂ©seaux d'Ă©changes de semences (entre paysans, et entre les paysans et la collection), par l'adaptation locale des populations aux conditions du milieu et aux pratiques de culture, et par les pratiques de sĂ©lection/conservation. Ces rĂ©sultats appellent des analyses complĂ©mentaires pour comprendre prĂ©cisĂ©ment ce qui est conservĂ©/cultivĂ© sous un nom variĂ©tal donnĂ©, et plaident en faveur d'une circulation accrue des semences entre champs et collection
Farmer seed networks make a limited contribution to agriculture? Four common misconceptions
The importance of seed provisioning in food security and nutrition, agricultural development and rural livelihoods, and agrobiodiversity and germplasm conservation is well accepted by policy makers, practitioners and researchers. The role of farmer seed networks is less well understood and yet is central to debates on current issues ranging from seed sovereignty and rights for farmers to GMOs and the conservation of crop germplasm. In this paper we identify four common misconceptions regarding the nature and importance of farmer seed networks today. (1) Farmer seed networks are inefficient for seed dissemination. (2) Farmer seed networks are closed, conservative systems. (3) Farmer seed networks provide ready, egalitarian access to seed. (4) Farmer seed networks are destined to weaken and disappear. We challenge these misconceptions by drawing upon recent research findings and the authorsâ collective field experience in studying farmer seed systems in Africa, Europe, Latin America and Oceania. Priorities for future research are suggested that would advance our understanding of seed networks and better inform agricultural and food policy
Farmer seed networks make a limited contribution to agriculture? Four common misconceptions
a b s t r a c t The importance of seed provisioning in food security and nutrition, agricultural development and rural livelihoods, and agrobiodiversity and germplasm conservation is well accepted by policy makers, practitioners and researchers. The role of farmer seed networks is less well understood and yet is central to debates on current issues ranging from seed sovereignty and rights for farmers to GMOs and the conservation of crop germplasm. In this paper we identify four common misconceptions regarding the nature and importance of farmer seed networks today. (1) Farmer seed networks are inefficient for seed dissemination. (2) Farmer seed networks are closed, conservative systems. (3) Farmer seed networks provide ready, egalitarian access to seed. (4) Farmer seed networks are destined to weaken and disappear. We challenge these misconceptions by drawing upon recent research findings and the authors' collective field experience in studying farmer seed systems in Africa, Europe, Latin America and Oceania. Priorities for future research are suggested that would advance our understanding of seed networks and better inform agricultural and food policy
âFree our seeds !â Strategies of farmersâ movements to reappropriate seeds
International audienceSeed movements around the world share a common enemy: global seed corporations, which are seen as organizing an unfair monopoly over seed markets, using technical devices, industrial property rights, and economic concentration, at the expenses of farmersâ livelihoods. Yet these movements differ in their aims and strategies. Some defend a principle of the free circulation of seeds, rejecting any public regulation of the seed trade. They argue that seeds embody a vital principle that, by its essence, cannot be constrained, either by regulation or intellectual property rights (IPRs). Some others want to counter-balance asymmetries of power between corporations and farmers, arguing that for centuries farmers have collectively managed and enriched crop genetic resources and have now earned rights in return. This chapter focuses on an organisation belonging to the second group â the French RĂ©seau Semences Paysannes. From the beginning, it has clearly placed emphasis on farmers, framed as commoners who replenish a common pool resource, genetic resources, which is essential to plant breedersâ activity. Yet the positioning of the movement towards the banner of âthe commonsâ is internally debated: presenting oneself as stewards of agrobiodiversity is certainly productive but appears to some members as reductive of their experience. Farmersâ seed âreappropriationsâ do not necessarily translate into property claims, but rather into the defense of farmersâ collective rights on seeds
âFree our seeds !â Strategies of farmersâ movements to reappropriate seeds
International audienceSeed movements around the world share a common enemy: global seed corporations, which are seen as organizing an unfair monopoly over seed markets, using technical devices, industrial property rights, and economic concentration, at the expenses of farmersâ livelihoods. Yet these movements differ in their aims and strategies. Some defend a principle of the free circulation of seeds, rejecting any public regulation of the seed trade. They argue that seeds embody a vital principle that, by its essence, cannot be constrained, either by regulation or intellectual property rights (IPRs). Some others want to counter-balance asymmetries of power between corporations and farmers, arguing that for centuries farmers have collectively managed and enriched crop genetic resources and have now earned rights in return. This chapter focuses on an organisation belonging to the second group â the French RĂ©seau Semences Paysannes. From the beginning, it has clearly placed emphasis on farmers, framed as commoners who replenish a common pool resource, genetic resources, which is essential to plant breedersâ activity. Yet the positioning of the movement towards the banner of âthe commonsâ is internally debated: presenting oneself as stewards of agrobiodiversity is certainly productive but appears to some members as reductive of their experience. Farmersâ seed âreappropriationsâ do not necessarily translate into property claims, but rather into the defense of farmersâ collective rights on seeds
Les semences entre critique et expĂ©rience: les ressorts pratiques dâune contestation paysanne
In the wake of the anti-GMO struggles of the nineties and the toughening of seed laws, the 2000s saw the emergence of a farmersâ movement dedicated to the reappropriation of seeds. Spanning over a 10 year period, the paper looks at the movementâs drivers and its transformations. The reappropriation by a group of farmers of seeds takes root in a critical discourse towards agricultural modernity, which translates into 3 dimensions â the rejection of modern plant breeding techniques, opposition to the subaltern position of farmers, denunciation of the instrumental relationship between industrial farming and nature. Yet the movement has also enriched itself and been fashioned by a direct engagement with plants. This case study contributes to a better understanding of the ongoing ecologisation of agriculture. Moreover it provides a comprehensive illustration of a protest movement that is altered by the very object that it contributes to shape
- âŠ