Lad Skiftet Ske!

“There are two sides: the agents of waste and the lovers of the wild. Either for life or against it. And each of us has to choose.” (Jay Griffiths, “Wild: An Elemental Journey”, 2008: 9) | “…Der er to sider: skrottens agenter og dem der elsker det vilde. Enten for livet eller imod det. Vi skal alle vælge…”.

Lad skiftet ske er et tankeeksperiment om et nyt, positivt og kreativt fællesskab på delte værdier og principper om det gode liv. Fri fantasi fra den indre biograf: Tag med og lad skiftet ske. Baseret på samtaler med jordbrugere, aktivister, forskere, og andre som kræver en omstilling – her og nu – som er mere end bare et grønt varemærke og i sidste ende bidrager til industriel vækst og konsoliderer alt det vi simpelthen ikke gider mere: Vi anerkender ikke længere deres autoritet! Vi kan og vil selv!

Lad skiftet ske er også et opråb opstået i tilløb til dette arrangement – GMO-konference / Tirsdag d. 27/2 2024, 10.00-16.00 / Christiansborg, Prins Jørgens Gård 1, København (se programmet her):

TILMELDING:
Det er gratis at deltage, men tilmelding er nødvendig
på tilmelding@gmofrimad.dk
Plads efter først-til-mølle.

---

For at sætte scenen, for argumentationens skyld, lad os antage følgende…

---

Det var olien, der reddede den moderne verden…

… eller olien er den moderne verden. Jorden var allerede udpint efter industriel kul og damp i flere hundrede år. Sidst i 1800-tallet kommer olien i spil og genføder det plov- og korn-baserede fødevaresystem i den centralstyrede stat der har kendetegnet de fleste civilisationer de sidste godt 5000 år: en ‘ekstraktiv‘, uanstændig udnyttelse af ressourcer, inklusive mennesker, hvor arealanvendelse altid er et resultat af en kold, kynisk beregning af omkostningseffektivitet med hensyn til elitens magt til at videreføre og videreudvikle klasseskellet mellem de 0.1% og de 99.9%.

Nu kan der snart ikke pines mere ud af jorden:

Noget nyt skal der til. Vi står ved en korsvej. Den ene vej frem er belagt med dræber droner og algoritmer, der søger, identificerer og eliminerer det uønskede i landskabet og dyrker monokulturelt på genetisk “optimerede” frø, hvor en fisks kvaliteter kan findes i et salathoved; dvs. et præcist (digitalt) fødevaresystem, hvor “bæredygtig mad” fx. kan dyrkes vertikalt i midt-byen omringet af beton, stål og glas, uden jordkontakt på en eksakt formel. Således at alting bliver forandret for at alting kan forblive det samme: de rige bliver rigere og de fattige bliver fattigere. Derfor siger vi: Lad skiftet ske!

---

“…If humans are to have the strength to confront the ethos of the Worldeater in all of its manifestations, they must take seriously the organization of colonial/statist society. Specifically, this requires maintaining permanent tensions against human (racism, sexism, all-phobia) and non-human hierarchies (speciesism/human supremacy), symbolic culture, patriarchy and divisions of labor/specialization. All of these technologies in the widest sense—and in all of their variants—create allure and enchantment. People enjoy what these technologies—and by implication capitalism—offers….” (Dunlap & Jakobsen, “The Violent Technologies of Extraction: Political Ecology, Critical Agrarian Studies and the Capitalist Worldeater”, 2020: 122-123 / pdf).

Dræberdronefremtiden kan vi kalde ‘det elektriske paradigme’:

Molekylært, digitaliseret og algoritmisk styret i forlængelse af en snæver gruppes intentioner og vilje, der i sidste ende – igen og igen; fraktalt, allestedsnærværende – fremmaner den virkelighed, vi alle er underlagt. Det elektriske paradigme er plantebaseret – hvilket er en vækst-strategisk term/ide/koncept for etableret kapital – og det forledende, men fornærmende koncept reanimerer fremskridtsmyten, som i 500 år lineært har drevet kolonialismen og den hvide mands herskermentalitet fremad; en myte, der dog nu er blevet et element i en global civilisation, hvor der ikke længere er et enkelt kulturelt center eller andre former for racemonopoler.

Europa og dets ideer har spillet fallit, paradoksalt og trist nok samtidig med at det er en bragende, verdensomspændende succes. Så … skal vi have mere af samme skuffe, et enkelt fix mere, fixet der fixer alt? Eller skal vi kigge frem mod den horisont, som den anden vej lover og lokker med: regenerativ, mangfoldig og jordnær?

---

Den opmærksomme læser oplever nok en mistanke komme snigende og det er helt korrekt: Jeg er på ingen måder upartisk og klapper ganske uden skam i livet, med stolthed sågar, helt og aldeles på det regenerative hold: det er mig helt åbenlyst at mennesket historisk har, kan og vil efterlade jorden i bedre stand, hver dag, gennem indfølende initiativer i alliance med alle de andre væsener, som vi nu en gang deler livets komplekse netværk med. Hvis vi bare får lov! Hvis uretfærdige begrænsninger fjernes. Eller som ministeren siger: Der skal luges ud!

Derfor / Når vi siger ‘Lad Skiftet Ske!’:

Lad Skiftet Ske!, skal forstås på den måde, at det der egentlig skal til for at virkelig omstilling kan realiseres er at lovgiverne løsner tøjlerne, så vi kan tage det regenerative arbejde til det næste selvbestemmende niveau: Der tænkes her såvel biologisk, socialt, kulturelt, og økonomisk, som filosofisk og kunstnerisk: landskabet kan blive det smukkeste maleri, den Edens Have, vi alle har indeni, længes efter og drømmer om.

— Og vi siger ‘lad skiftet ske’, fordi der er regelsæt, der gør det nærmest umuligt at redde jorden uden at komme i karambolage med bureaukratiets forlængelse af de siddende kræfter – såvel systemisk som konspiratorisk. Hvorfor skal et lille regenerativt jordbrug på 3 hektar, der hver dag beriger jorden med flere arter i en symfoni af fælles ånd være underlagt samme rammer som en 1500 hektar Round-Up katastrofe, eller en svinetorturfabrik?

Bevægelserne er på plads:

Permakultur, regenerativ jordbrug, biodynamisk, holistisk afgræsning osv., samt vores eget lille eksperiment – og organisationerne, der støtter. Tiden er kommet til at skabe et føderalt fællesskab, der anerkender forskelligheden, som styrkende diversitet, og sammen skaber at ‘participatorisk garanti system’, der afgrænser en positiv tilgang til omverdenen og siger klart og tydeligt ‘Nej tak!’ til landmisbrugets fortsættelse. Lad os komme fremad, lad os udvikle vores eksperimenter og datasæt, samtidig med at landskabet bliver vildere og mere nærende: Vi forlanger at blive hørt, at få vores eget interessentstyrede regelsæt og råderum til regenerative initiativer. Fremtiden er enten vores eller ikke værd at snakke om.

Forbundne for jorden: et participatorisk garanti system

En fælles stemme fra denne fælles, mere-end-bæredygtige ånd har brug for en fælles, føderal platform, der signalerer et værdi- og principbaseret sammenhold i forskellighed, en certificering og en forfatning i samme åndedrag. Et participatorisk garanti system, hvor dem der elsker det vilde, dem som beriger og bebuder en fremtid der er værd at leve i, hvor vi er forbundne for jorden og snakker med klar stemme: Lad Skiftet Ske!

Et PGS er mere end bare certificering

Det er også en forfatning der trækker grænsen: her til og ikke længere. Fx. har Open Source Seed bevægelsen taget Free Software ideen et skridt videre og skabt en fælles platform og et råderum, der binder sammen. Selv-konstituering, fællesskab på egne præmisser, som reflekterer delte værdier og principper om det gode liv, frit fra dominans og profit-orienteret forurening. De specifikke former/strukturer skal selvfølgelig defineres i mangfoldighed.

Med hensyn til værdier og principper omkring jordbrug, kan der trækkes på det værktøj, som kollektivt er udviklet i ‘the Agroecology Coalition‘ i forlængelse af forskningsbaseret evalueringsmetodik og de ’13 agroøkologiske principper’:

Specielt kan man i denne sammenhæng bide mærke i at det nye, spændende design og evalueringsværktøj har røde flag, streger i sandet, som kun skrottens agenter overskrider: Når et eller flere af disse elementer er til stede i et projekt design eller udførelse, så er det degenerativt:

Red flags of the agroecology assessment framework

Red Flag	Definition and Justification
Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs)	Project introduces GMOs and associated genome-editing technologies
	GMOs are generally considered incompatible with the principles of agroecology, both from agronomic and social perspectives (Altieri, 2005). One of the key concerns is that GMOs often rely on monocultures, leading to a reduction in biodiversity within production systems. Additionally, many GMOs are engineered with herbicide resistance genes, which necessitates the use of herbicides associated with environmental toxicity and soil fertility reduction (Tsatsakis et al., 2017). Furthermore, GMO varieties are primarily commercialized by a few large multinational companies that dominate the market. These varieties are protected by intellectual property rights, resulting in increased costs for farmers and creating harmful dependencies on agro-industries, particularly impacting smallholder farmers. Notably, the development of GMOs typically excludes the participation and involvement of farmers in the decision-making processes.
Synthetics	Project focuses on the promotion of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides
	The production and utilization of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides have profound adverse effects across multiple dimensions. These effects include the collapse of biodiversity (Alliot et al., 2022; Rigal et al., 2023), pollution of air, water, and soil (Carvalho et al., 2017; Benton et al., 2021; Pathak et al., 2022), impacts on human health (Curl et al., 2020; Inserm, 2021), and the escalation of greenhouse gas emissions (Tripathi et al., 2020).
Monoculture	Project focuses exclusively on promoting extensive single cash crop production at the expense of diversified strategies
	Monoculture, monocropping, and industrial-scale feedlots lead to uniformity at the heart of agricultural systems. This uniformity is associated with a dependency on synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, and preventive use of antibiotics, which has negative outcomes for the sustainability of food systems (IPES Food, 2016). Genetic uniformity in agricultural systems has systematically generated vulnerability to epidemics and other biotic and abiotic stresses (Scarascia-Mugnozza and Perrino, 2002). Monocultures and highly mechanized practices are directly linked to land degradation (Shannon et al., 2015). Large-scale monocultures also entail widespread contamination of soil and water through runoff and erosion (Boardman et al., 2003). They also lead to wild biodiversity reduction (Gallai et al., 2009), economic and health vulnerability of farm workers, food insecurity, and cultural erosion (Owens et al., 2010; Bacon et al. 2012; Ye et al., 2013; Gliessman, 2014).
Productivity	Project focuses exclusively on productivity resulting in avoidable destruction of vital ecosystems and their functions and services
	The prioritization of productivity at the expense of ecosystem integrity is considered an exclusionary criterion for agroecological projects, as it contradicts the integrated nature of agroecology as defined by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO, 2018b) and the HLPE (2019). The FAO underscores agroecology as a holistic approach that concurrently addresses agronomic, ecological, social, and economic aspects to enhance the sustainability and equity of food systems. The HLPE distinguishes agroecology from other approaches by emphasizing its focus on sociocultural, environmental, and governance dimensions while ensuring productivity is not compromised rather than solely emphasizing productivity enhancement.
Seed systems	Project actively promotes regulations and/or actions that hamper and/or destroy local and farmer-managed seed systems
	Seeds, in addition to soil, water, and sunlight, form the foundation of agriculture. Throughout history, farmers have been actively involved in the selection, preservation, storage, sharing, and planting of seeds, which has significantly contributed to agricultural biodiversity (Moeller, 2021). The right of farmers to engage in these practices is recognized and protected under Article 19 of the Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas, endorsed by the United Nations Human Rights Commission in 2018. The knowledge of seed preservation, exchange, and storage systems plays a critical role in supporting agroecological systems that prioritize the empowerment of producers (Pimbert, 2022). Consequently, initiatives that undermine local and farmer-managed seed systems cannot be regarded as agroecological, as they contribute to the erosion of these essential components. This includes the implementation of restrictive seed laws and regulations, which prioritize the adoption of uniform, standardized, and certified seeds while disregarding alternative sources. Similarly, the enforcement of stringent intellectual property rights on plant varieties and traits further exacerbates this erosion (GAFF, 2016).
Factory farming	Project focuses on large-scale intensification of animal production
	Factory farming (feedlots and other large-scale and intensive animal production) is in conflict with numerous principles of agroecology, particularly those related to animal health and biodiversity. The practices employed in factory farming contribute to the destruction of natural habitats, leading to a reduction in overall biodiversity. This system also drives deforestation and causes pollution of air, water, and land (Turner, 1999). Furthermore, factory farming poses a significant threat to small-scale farmers who rely on livestock for their livelihoods but struggle to compete with the scale and efficiency of industrial operations (D’silva, 2000).
Women and marginalized groups	Project excludes or actively discriminates against women and other marginalized groups
	Food systems serve as significant sources of livelihood for women, with global statistics indicating that 36% of women are employed in agrifood systems, a percentage that can exceed 70% in certain regions (FAO, 2023). Achieving gender equality and promoting women’s economic empowerment are therefore crucial for fostering inclusive food systems, as women fulfill critical roles as agricultural producers, farm managers, processors, traders, wage workers, entrepreneurs, and decision-makers regarding household nutrition. The prevailing food systems contribute to the perpetuation of social inequalities, as marginalized social groups experience higher levels of food insecurity and suffer from food-related health impacts.Agroecology embeds at its core the values of fairness, participation, and justice, ensuring that food systems are built with and based on social and gender equity and the culture, identity, and tradition of local communities. It encourages a rights-based approach addressing the political, social, economic, and cultural rights, including food sovereignty, the right to food, food justice, and women’s empowerment. Agroecology also draws on the ancestral knowledges of peasants and indigenous peoples (Pimbert et al., 2021), whose practices and food systems help preserve global biodiversity (FAO, 2021).
Processed food	Project focuses exclusively on promoting highly processed, industrially produced foods (with low nutrient value)
	The consumption of processed foods, particularly ultraprocessed foods (UPFs), has significant implications for both human health and the environment. The production of UPFs involves the use of harmful ingredients, excessive packaging, and large-scale industrial processes, which contribute to environmental waste, resource depletion, and the release of potentially harmful compounds (Seferidi et al., 2020). Moreover, highly processed foods heavily rely on and exacerbate the demand for a limited number of high-yielding plant species, thereby undermining the diversity of traditional crops, cuisines, and diets (Leite et al., 2022). These products also have a negative impact on nutrition, as studies have shown that a high consumption of UPFs is associated with low dietary diversity and inadequate intake of essential micronutrients (Marrón-Ponce et al., 2023). By exclusively promoting highly processed or industrially produced food, the development of agroecological food systems and the promotion of health-supporting nutrition are undermined.
Extractivism	Project promotes extractive raw material production that depletes local resources over time
	The operations of extractive industries have profound detrimental effects on local ecologies and result in the depletion of value and resources within affected communities. Extractivism encompasses a complex set of practices, mindsets, and power dynamics that justify and enable destructive socioecological modes of organizing life through domination, violence, depletion, and one-sided relationship (Chagnon et al., 2022). Such dynamics are frequently observed in development projects that enable the forceful appropriation of natural resources, such as land and water grabbing, thereby directly undermining the progress of agroecological transformations (Anderson et al., 2021).
Human rights	Project promotes approaches that violate rights, including customary rights, ignores prior informed consent, or results in population displacement and/or land grabbing
	The promotion of human rights is an inherent component of the concept and overarching framework of agroecology, forming the bedrock for the establishment of sustainable food systems (HLPE, 2019). Agroecology strives to alleviate poverty, hunger, and inequalities while safeguarding the right to food, food sovereignty, indigenous rights, and sustainable production and consumption practices that ensure future generations’ access to food (De Schutter, 2012; FAO, 2018b; HLPE, 2019; Wezel et al., 2020). It is essential to acknowledge that any project that violates the principles outlined in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights cannot genuinely contribute to the promotion of healthy food systems and agroecology.

Men det er alt sammen noget man skal snakke om – i blandt dem, som vil være med til at trække en fælles streg i sandet – man skal diskutere de djævelske detaljer, med fokus på de værdier og principper der deles, på det der samler, og alt det som gør at man på ingen måder kan sammenlignes med eller skæres over samme kam som landmisbruget. Forskellene skal weaponises til primus motor i den genopbyggelse, der er større end selve skabelsen, i en mangfoldig, flerartig, retfærdig mere-end-menneskelig og mere-end-bæredygtig fremtid.

Fremad og opad, på vej mod ‘den anden side af det anthropocene‘:

Der hvor menneskets påvirkning af jorden og virkeligheden er positiv, berigende og samlende: Forbundne for jorden, med klar stemme: Lad Skiftet Ske!