Tensions internes et ruptures politiques : où en est le processus d’institutionnalisation de l’agroécologie au Brésil ?

Ruptures in the agroecological transitions: institutional change and policy dismantling in Brazil

“…The growing attention to agroecology in the international debate on healthy and sustainable food systems (HLPE 2019;FAO 2018) has also increased interest in the Brazilian policymaking experience to support agroecological transitions (Place 2021;Levidow, Sansolo, and Schiavinatto 2021;Lamine 2020). Several studies have already been conducted on the institutionalization of these policies in Brazil (Borsatto, Souza-Esquerdo, and Duval 2022;Guéneau et al 2020;Sabourin et al 2017;Schmitt et al 2017;Caporal and Petersen 2010). More recently, however, attention has turned to what is referred to in the literature as processes of 'policy dismantling' (Bauer and Becker 2020;Bauer and Knill 2012).…”

“…2. Institutionalization of policies supporting agroecology (2003)(2004)(2005)(2006)(2007)(2008)(2009)(2010)(2011)(2012)(2013)(2014)(2015)(2016) Studies on the impacts of Brazilian policies supporting agroecological transitions highlight, on the food supply side, the importance of programs articulating rural extension, credit, research and knowledge production, the dissemination of social technologies, as well as participatory certification and public procurement (Figure 1) and, on the demand side, employment and salary policies, cash transfer programs (Bolsa Família) and direct food access initiatives (Borsatto, Souza-Esquerdo, and Duval 2022;Guéneau et al 2020;Schmitt et al 2020;Fereira de Moura et al 207). These studies also refer to: (a) convergences between the different actors and public forums that produced many of these policies, with special emphasis on the National Council for Food and Nutrition Security (CONSEA), the National Council for Sustainable Rural Development (CONDRAF), and the National Commission on Agroecology and Organic Production (CNAPO) (Schmitt et al 2017); (b) the construction of agreements between rural and agroecological social movements (Lamine, Niederle, and Ollivier 2019;Picolotto and Brandenburg 2015); and (c) the permeability of the state not only to the demands of these movements, but to the 'institutional transit' of actors who kept one foot in the social struggles and the other in the government bureaucracy or the parliament (Oderich, Grisa, and Barth 2019;Altieri and Toledo 2011).…”