Tecendo projetos políticos: a trajetória da Articulação Nacional de Agroecologia

Abstract

Agroecology has emerged in recent decades as a proposal inserted into non-hegemonic developmental alternatives, expressing itself broadly as a social movement, science, practice and a way of life. Several social movement organizations and NGOs of agroecological field congregate in the National Agroecology Articulation (ANA). The research sought to understand the formation and political organization of the ANA, understood as a network with heterogeneous connections and social actors, established in 2002 to promote policy formulation and exchanges between organizations working with agroecology. We followed ANA’s trajectory to understand how the association promoted agroecology as a recognized public problem and represented itself as a social network, both for converging approaches and actions, and to oppose the agribusiness and to dispute public policies. The study begins with the historical reconstruction of the agro-ecological movement, from the initial steps of alternative agriculture to the spreading and defense of agroecology by different actors and sectors. As methodological tools, we conducted semi-structured interviews, participation in events and analysis of various documents. The analytical framework was composed by the notions of social networks and social movements with a relational approach and dense description. The action as a network, even in a horizontal effort, revealed concentrations, controversies and dynamics with different degrees of involvement. We noticed that the relationship with the state guided the action in network: the state is taken as a means of expanding the political proposal, in more or less intense cycles. This relationship also guided the relationship between different social actors for greater dissemination of agroecology. From the reading/analysis of the documents, we detected the struggle for political convergence and consensus on issues and speeches, with the management of historically involved NGOs. On the other hand, heterogeneous views emerged in the interviews, showing tensions among political perspectives and strategies that pervade the political fields, in a crossroads where differences in social positions and power relations meet. The study allowed us to observe the relationships and social processes that led to the formation of the ANA, as well as its form of action as a network and its representation as part of the agroecological movement. ANA boosted the political significance of agroecology as a frame, mobilized the actors to a public problem and to network shares with proposals for a new utopia