Fontes comprometidas: ambiguidades e impasses pedológicos em Moçambique - HAL-SHS - Sciences de l'Homme et de la Société Accéder directement au contenu
Article Dans Une Revue Sources. Material & Fieldwork in African Studies Année : 2022

Fontes comprometidas: ambiguidades e impasses pedológicos em Moçambique

Résumé

How do you frame your research when land is simultaneously a field of knowledge and a battlefield? What tools, methods, and sources are together acceptable (to the inhabitants), productive (capable of generating new knowledge), and just (capable of reducing social inequalities)? This article addresses these issues with a reflexive analysis of an investigation into the sources and methods of soil science (pedology) in Mozambique, in a context of agricultural investment and land dispossession in rural communities. By focusing on the infrastructure of knowledge production, past uses of science, and the inhabitants’ viewpoints, pedological expertise was captured here both in long-term relationships and in contextual micro-constraints. Due to a combination of factors that disrupted the scientific project and prevented the collection of data, this expertise produced no results and no publications. Documenting a case that was weakened by negotiated compromises, and as a consequence, failed to achieve its objectives, adds further perspective to a sociology of science that analyses published results and the networks that succeed in producing this knowledge. This analysis makes it possible to address the reasons for the failure to produce “knowledge” and for the reluctance of the inhabitants to co-operate with some projects of data production. This article reflects on a soil sample collection project designed and piloted in 2014 by the Agroforestry Centre at the Faculty of Agriculture of the Catholic University of Mozambique (UCM), located in the province of Niassa, 1,900 km from the capital, Maputo. The project design was a compromise aimed at documenting the current land occupation (and therefore defending its community land status if necessary) while using procedures recognized by the dominant actors (administrations, ministries, development agencies, and investors). In parallel, documenting the practice and perception of pedology in situ was made possible by the observation of a pedological campaign carried out by a cotton company that was granted a land title in 2014, and the analysis of the inhabitants’ reactions to land interventions conducted between 2014 and 2017 in the provinces of Niassa and Nampula. Analysis of the UCM sample shows that the colonial and post-colonial economy, oriented towards agricultural and mining development, has shaped knowledge and knowledge regimes that are unfavourable to the design of in situ research projects. Historically, the study of “tropical soils” peaked during the colonial period and contributed to an extractive economy. Notably, pedologists recruited by the Centro de Investigação Algodoeira de Moçambique (CICA) carried out agro-pedological mapping to optimize the compulsory cotton cultivation. But decolonization did not lead to the anchoring of pedology in African laboratories or rural areas. The globalization of databases has made the best of colonial knowledge and patchy databases. More recently, the positioning of Mozambican universities as providers of degrees and consultants for investment and development projects, was done at the expense of their research capability. This resulted in limited means of sampling and analysis: lack of chemical reagents, partly obsolete equipment, and protocols that fail to meet recognized standards. Trained staff can be recruited into external networks, but cannot initiate their own investigation into African soils. Beyond the capability issue, analysis of a private company pedological campaign showed that the coring method is also jeopardized by the ambiguity of this practice in a context of land grabbing controversy. The way a pedologist samples soil for a company is similar to that of an agroforestry project team, and his or her reassuring responses unwittingly legitimize a transfer of land use rights that is unfavourable to the inhabitants. The inhabitants’ reluctance reveals that pedology is simultaneously recognized and feared, and that the compromise is double-edged. The credibility of the discipline with the authorities is built at the expense of the villagers’ confidence. They worry about the interest shown in their land, whatever the justification. Past dispossessions (colonial private farms, state farms and cooperatives in the post-independence period, private reinvestment from the 1990s), and numerous trainings for protection of land rights, both with limited benefits for the inhabitants, meant that soil and land are not boundary objects favourable to the development of trustful relationships. The constraints of an isolated and underfunded university campus, the simultaneous use of augers by prospectors, the inhabitants’ distrust of approaches which harmed them in the past, were all obstacles to pedological expertise. These pitfalls invite the question of how the approach used by the agroforestry project was developed, and prompt new practical questions about the implementation of methodologies that aim to be decolonial. The design of a remote project, alienated from its supposed beneficiaries—in this case, a patronising soil analysis campaign that ignored the attitudes of rural communities towards their land—proved problematic. It seems to be essential that compromises are made directly with those who ought to benefit from them, and that the feasibility, acceptability, and merit of each method is tested in context and as it progresses. These transformations are not intrinsically beneficial to Mozambican academic institutions, whose position, interests, and constraints also need to be clarified. At the same time, analysing failure supplements the sociology of science that focuses on networks that succeed in producing results (published articles, new partnerships, patents filed, additional funding). This article documents mechanisms that can lead to the absence of publication and to loss of access to sites and populations. The knowledge “voids” can then be reconceived not as “boundaries” that have not yet been explored, but as places of refusal and constraints actively maintained.
Comment positionner ses recherches quand le foncier est simultanément champ de connaissance et champ de bataille ? Quels outils, méthodes, et sources, sont à la fois acceptables (pour les habitants), productifs (capables de générer de nouveaux savoirs), et justes (à même de réduire des inégalités sociales) ? Cet article propose une incursion dans les sciences du sol (pédologie) au Mozambique. En 2014, une collecte d’échantillons de sols est pilotée par le centre agroforestier de la faculté d’agriculture de l’Université catholique du Mozambique (UCM) dans un contexte d’investissement agricole controversé et de dépossession foncière des communautés rurales. Cette approche est conçue comme un compromis qui permettra de documenter l’occupation actuelle des terres (et donc d’en défendre le statut foncier communautaire si besoin) tout en mobilisant des procédures reconnues par les acteurs dominants (administrations, ministères, agences de développement et investisseurs). En parallèle, l’observation d’une campagne pédologique réalisée par une entreprise cotonnière ayant obtenu un titre foncier en 2014, et l’analyse des réactions des habitants vis-à-vis des interventions foncières menées entre 2014 et 2017 permettent de documenter la pratique et la réception de la pédologie in situ. Il apparaît que les méthodes d’analyse et l’ambiguïté de la collecte de carottes de sols compromettent cette source. Les obstacles sont nombreux avant de pouvoir prétendre détourner le fondement éminemment utilitariste et finalement colonial de la pédologie : campus universitaire isolé et sous-financé, méfiance des habitants vis-à-vis d’approches qui leur ont porté tort par le passé, usage des tarières par les investisseurs en même temps que par les scientifiques et, d’une manière plus générale situation de colonialité du savoir et du pouvoir qui place la recherche académique en position subalterne. L’étude de cet échec permet d’aborder les marges de manœuvre et les contraintes de l’expertise en action, et de discuter des limites d’un modèle de science centré sur les publications et les réseaux qui réussissent à produire des résultats. En analysant empiriquement les compromis et la compromission d’une source, cet article aborde les raisons d’une absence et les réticences face à certains projets de connaissance. Ceci permet de questionner les « vides » de données, et de réinterroger la manière de produire des sources.
Como posicionar uma pesquisa quando o fundiário é simultaneamente campo de conhecimento e campo de batalha? Que instrumentos, métodos e fontes, são ao mesmo tempo aceitáveis (para os habitantes), produtivos (capazes de gerar novos saberes), e justos (em condições de reduzir as desigualdades sociais)? Este artigo propõe uma incursão nas ciências do solo (pedologia) em Moçambique. Em 2014, uma recolha de amostras de solo foi conduzida pelo Centro agroflorestal da Faculdade de Agricultura da Universidade Católica de Moçambique (UCM) num contexto de investimento agrícola controverso e de expropriação de terras das comunidades rurais. Esta abordagem é concebida como um compromisso que permitirá documentar a ocupação actual das terras (e, por conseguinte, defender o seu estatuto fundiário comunitário se necessário), mobilizando simultaneamente procedimentos reconhecidos pelos actores dominantes (administrações, ministérios, agências de desenvolvimento e investidores). Paralelamente, a observação de uma campanha pedológica realizada por uma empresa algodoeira, que obteve um título de uso da terra em 2014, e a análise das reacções dos habitantes em relação às intervenções fundiárias, realizadas entre 2014 e 2017, permitem documentar a prática e a recepção da pedologia in situ. Os métodos analíticos e a ambiguidade da recolha de tarolos do solo parecem comprometer esta fonte. Os obstáculos são muitos antes de poder afastar o fundamento eminentemente utilitarista e finalmente colonial da pedologia: campus universitário isolado e sub-financiado, desconfiança dos habitantes em relação a abordagens que os prejudicaram no passado, utilização de trados, tanto pelos investidores como pelos cientistas e, de um modo mais geral, a situação de colonialidade do saber e do poder que coloca a investigação académica em posição subalterna. O estudo deste insucesso permite abordar as margens de manobra e os constrangimentos do conhecimento especializado aplicado, e discutir um modelo de ciência centrado em publicações e nas redes que conseguem produzir resultados. Ao analisar empiricamente os compromissos e o comprometimento de uma fonte, o artigo aborda as razões de uma ausência e as reticências face a certos projectos de conhecimento. Isto permite questionar os «vazios» de dados e interrogar a forma de produzir fontes.
Fichier principal
Vignette du fichier
SOURCES_04_06-N-LEBLOND-Fontes_comprometidas_Mocambique.pdf (4.42 Mo) Télécharger le fichier
Origine : Accord explicite pour ce dépôt

Dates et versions

halshs-03726156 , version 1 (18-07-2022)

Licence

Paternité - Partage selon les Conditions Initiales

Identifiants

  • HAL Id : halshs-03726156 , version 1

Citer

Nelly Leblond. Fontes comprometidas: ambiguidades e impasses pedológicos em Moçambique. Sources. Material & Fieldwork in African Studies, 2022, Knowing Nature | Savoirs environnementaux, 4, pp.161-196. ⟨halshs-03726156⟩

Collections

SOURCES
62 Consultations
41 Téléchargements

Partager

Gmail Facebook X LinkedIn More