Before it was development, then sustainability or sustainability and sustainable / sustainable development; now many speak of agroecology. But surely not everyone is talking about the same thing.
There are beginning to be "agroecologists" everywhere: in producer organizations, in unions and urban movements, in AACREA, in AAPRESID, among the members of the Argentine Movement for Organic Production-MAPO, in the Min. Of Environment and Sustainable Development, Technology and Productive Innovation and Health; in the Ministry of Agroindustry, in SENASA, in INTA some have been struggling for a long time. Also in some, the Faculties of Agrarian Sciences and the Faculty of Agronomy of the UBA is no exception.
What are we talking about when we talk about "agroecology"? Without beginning to interpret what each one thinks about, it is clear that not all of us talk about the same thing: is the “agroecology” of “La Via Campesina” the same as what some referents of the CREA groups propose? Is the "agroecology" proposed by Minister Lino Barañao the same as the RED CALISAS? Is the “agroecological” flag of Eduardo Sevilla Guzmán and his disciples the same one that all or only some of INTA's referents on the subject propose to us? Is the vision of the Agroecological Movement for Latin America-MAELA similar to the AAPRESID proposal? What approach is proposed by the INTA-UNLaM "Technician in Agroecology"? Which from the Chair of Agroecology of the Fac. De Cs. Agrarian and Forest of the UNLPlata?
Looking at our Faculty of Agronomy, is the “agroecology” that Ing. Jorge S. Molina made us live in General Agriculture for three decades, is it the same as the one advocated by our Cerealiculture professor Emilio Satorre? Is the "agroecology" referred to in some subjects dictated by the Department of Rural Sociology and Extension, is it similar to that of FANA students? How does the Participatory Guarantee System-SPG of FAUBA conceptualize “agroecology”? How does the “Agroecology” Area do it?
We could continue to ask ourselves questions and go deeper and deeper into the debates that are beginning to emerge in our Faculty but, as often happens, it is most likely that we are ignoring all positions and all voices and, therefore, analyzing without thoroughness knowledge. However, it seems clear to us that the "civilizational crisis" that the planet is experiencing has multiple expressions in Argentina as well.
The global economic-financial, energy and climate crises hit hard, even increasing a food problem that historically attacked a third of our population. The hegemonic model of extensive grain production is also under review and decisions are urgently needed. For some, it is only a matter of deepening what we have already been doing in recent decades, without modifying policies or structures; Others, on the other hand, begin to consider alternatives that also require a planned and urgent intervention. The "agroecology" for the former is reduced to good practices - and a little more corporate social responsibility - in technical-productive management. For the others, the social, environmental, cultural and political dimensions of “agroecology” must also be considered and, in this, there is much to do.
Source: CALISA FAUBA