Agroecological transitions and the political ecology of Elinor Ostrom : the role of ontologies and epistemic power in polycentric governance.

Abstract

Agroecological transitions emerged over the last decade as a major issue into the political agenda in several European countries as a response to the loss of biodiversity and as the adoption of more resilient adaptation strategies to climate changes towards more sustainable food systems (Altieri 1995, 2005, Gliessman 2018; FAO ) . Whereas the Green Revolution after WWII was looking mainly in intensifying agricultural production and rising yields of major crops, such as wheat, rice, corn, sugar cane, in order to support food security and respond to quantitative nutritional needs of human populations (Patel, 2013). Retrospectively, this intensification of agricultural activities, through more specialized and monoculture of cropping systems is responsible for the large loss of biodiversity, as well as of many environmental degradations, such water pollution, soil erosion, etc. Concerns emerged about the declining trends and deteriorating ecological elements and their functions in productive agricultural landscapes (Francis et al. 2003). In this context, agroecology emerged as an alternative paradigm to conventional agriculture promoting on more diversified and resilient agri-food systems (Altieri, 1995; Gliessman, Francis et al. 2003; Wezel et al. 2009; Altieri et al 2015; Ollivier et al. 2018). The aim of this communication is to analyse, by proposing an extension of the IAD/SES frameworks (Ostrom (1990, 2009), to the polycentric governance of complex agroecosystems in the context of agroecological transitions. As stressed by Hess and Ostrom 2003 and Denzau and North (1993), It emphasizes the role of shared mental models and rationality involved in system thinking about the dynamics of polycentric governance (McGinnis and Ostrom 2014; Cole et al. 2019). A specific attention will be paid on the role of ontologies in setting the boundary systems and problem setting. To sustain our analysis, several case studies will be explored more precisely in relation to multi risk assesment in the context of climate change adaptation and agroecological transitions. From a classical perspective, farming activities are not considered by themselves as a shared common-pool resources (CPR), in contrast to specific natural resources, such as water, common pasture forestry, etc. that are in fact used and shared by farmers. By broadening her IAD/SES analytical framework, Ostrom (2009) offers new perspectives for the analysis of more complex social-ecological systems (SES), such as human-made agroecosystems and their related social-ecological landscapes. As stressed by Ostrom (2014) “a framework provides a shared orientation for studying, explaining, and understanding phenomena of interest” (Ostrom 2014,269). Our analysis especially emphasizes the role of ideas, artefact and infrastructure in supporting paradigm shift in knowledge regimes and the role of epistemic power in polycentric governance of agroecological transitions. Agroecological transitions are complex and multidimensional processes. Our analysis is sustained by two case studies. One related to the rise of peasant seed networks (Mazé et al. 221 a&b), and the other on recent public policies supporting the integration of sustainability dimensions in geographical indications systems (Mazé 2023).