Fabien Gaston Razakandrainibe, Ph.D

Doctor in Ecology, Population Genetics and Parasitology.

Hello Mr. Razakandrainibe,

First of all, allow me to thank you for giving us your time to share with our readers your expertise in ecology and the environment.

• To start our interview, I would like to know the definition you give to the term "ecology" and the place it occupies in your daily life?

Ecology covers a very large and complex area. I would be obliged to choose a well-defined field to try to provide an attempt at definition which would not include everything. The most consensual definition that comes closest to mine is "the study of ecosystems, the relationships of organisms with their environment". Going green is a call to live permanently, in full awareness, that everything that surrounds us and includes us, is in permanent interaction. Understanding and internalizing this is fundamental to understanding the ecological problem, the climate crisis that we are currently experiencing or going through.

Looking back, my conception or my definition of ecology has not remained the same as yesterday. Today, it has evolved and continues to evolve permanently under several meanings but also with different understandings, actions and commitments. Ecology has taken on several conceptions, it has presented itself to me in several forms. And this, with different perceptions at each phase of my life. It passed from the carefree contemplation and love of nature of youth, passing by an ardent and passionate desire to know it, this explains the passage by the pursuit of an academic formation. Subsequently, it is by feeling the threat perpetrated to nature and by seeing the collateral victims that my will was born and the need to protect nature. This resulted in an educative, militant and political form. Today, ecology occupies an important place in my life, even central in my daily choices. I am reaching a stage where I need to synthesize all this with the wish to carry out actions rather oriented towards a certain conception of ecology that is more committed, more civic, with a strong desire to transmit, to give example and build. It is my humble wish to impact where I am. This is how we come back to this idea of “positive” interaction with what surrounds me.

• You spent at least ten years educating yourself and studying ecology, until you got a doctorate. Do you think that respecting the environment must be learned? If so, should we be teaching it in school from an early age on the same basis as any other subject without delay?

There are societies that do not have universities or school benches but have managed to live in harmony with nature while respecting it. But make no mistake, these societies have developed a certain form of learning that modern society has abandoned, calling them wild or primitive. But we have to face the facts, they have developed capacities that we have, unfortunately, lost today: observation, autonomy, love, patience and learning while living within nature. They have built up detailed knowledge of their environment and have been able to manage and set up viable and sustainable interactions, win-win, both for man and for nature. With all the knowledge acquired and passed down from generation to generation, they have developed an innate and acute sense of how to keep their ecosystem in harmony. This is the very excellence of the model of respect for the environment. Use cases that have shown their effectiveness and that we must study.

Learning is of course essential, but in what form? We have thinking heads, hyper-educated people who have never set foot in a dense humid tropical forest but who want to defend it by sometimes taking decisions to the contrary. How many political decisions are doomed to failure because the theories from full heads are not enough. It is time and essential to integrate in this learning, in environmental education from early childhood, full awareness of the notion of cause and effect, because ecology is that, it is the interaction of oneself with its environment. As they say, "The flapping of a butterfly's wings can cause a typhoon on the other side of the world", when we have learned or grasped the deeper meaning of this, we will pay more attention to each of our actions, our actions. decisions, our choices in this world where we only interact with each other.

• Personally, what led you to study ecology?

The beauty. I believe that nature is beautiful par excellence, without needing to add anything or need any artifice to embellish it. Nature is self-sufficient. She is everywhere. She is extremely and perfectly sophisticated and tidy for the eye that knows how to look at her. The more we understand the meanings and meanings of all the interactions around us, the greater the wonder.

• The concepts of ecology and environmental protection are very often unanimous within the public sphere and the political class as a whole. However, it is easy to notice the difference, not to say the gulf, which still exists between words and actions, how do you explain that?

It is a front union. We are rather in a kind of collective denial. This translates into agreements, charters, which everyone can break at all costs, want to break as they please, try to apply according to their will. From one country to another, we are really witnessing the clash between these two worlds: the public sphere and the political sphere or political ecology. The first is often blamed and considered irresponsible. The second is rather authoritarian, moralistic and punitive. Of course, we are witnessing an unprecedented depletion of resources. Of course, modern capitalism has rushed our world to force it into the era of the Anthropocene. Of course, humanity likes to see its self-destruction in the face. Of course, no one wants to argue for degrowth etc. etc. . So, yes, a chasm has been created that separates these two spheres because, too often, we get the wrong target. We do not aim at evil as such. The protection of nature is relegated to the background. Societal imperatives, timetables and political interests no longer coincide. There is no more harmonious interaction, some will say that ecology is uneconomic and others will tell you that economics is uneconomic. It's terrifying, frightening even to say it: behind all this, profit and money are largely the engine of this battle between these two worlds to be reconciled.

• Random walks in the forest or in nature, waste of all kinds including disposable masks now litter the floors, do you think that these are simply isolated irresponsible acts or that on the contrary, it gives more information? depth on all the educational work yet to be done?

We are wrong to reduce this to irresponsible acts. Instead of judging, it is better to ask ourselves: what are the chains of behaviors that have accumulated and which have led these people to act thus? an approach that would not be judgmental, but on the contrary would be more exploratory in order to identify the weak link to put an end to these behaviors. It can be ignorance that will call for education. It could be irresponsibility that will call for a punitive solution. This could be a lack of urban infrastructure, which will call on the competence of our local authorities.

Solving a problem under the eyes of ecology is to provide a multi-faceted solution.

• Through the climate and resilience law currently under consideration in the Assembly, we have been able to note that, ultimately, very few of the proposals of the Citizen's Climate Convention had been taken up? How do you explain that ?

Ecology is everyone's business. But from the outset, the right has already announced that it will not vote for the climate bill by accusing the LREM of immobility and the left of being steeped in dogmatism. The idea of the Citizen's Convention is laudable, a collective and social impetus which could have been an unprecedented demonstration of a certain idea of the evolution of our conception of a democratic ecology. But it quickly becomes utopian in the face of politico-political issues. The next deadlines and electoral agreements which are fast approaching have got the better of the measures built in the consensus. It's a shame that the citizens' convention ends on a false note. It is political and ideological blindness to reject it. We are not ready to do, live and commit together, in terms of ecology. The priorities are elsewhere.

• Do you think it is difficult to legislate when it comes to ecology, whether in France or abroad?

I do not surprise you by answering in the affirmative. And this is really unfortunate given the current climate context. Lobbies that defend financial and economic interests are powerful. The departure of Nicolas Hulot from the previous government shows and illustrates once again that the country, France, but it is also valid abroad, is under the influence of ideological pressures and under the influence of lobbies. To get to the end of your question, this brings us back to other questions: are we determined to defend ecology? do we really want to free ourselves from these blinding and destructive forces for the planet?

• COP 25 ended with a global agreement on CO² emissions targets to be respected in order to contain global warming, COP 26 will open in Glasgow next November with, most certainly, the observation that the great majority of signatory countries are very far from the commitments. Does that mean, for you, that we will not be able to stay the course? Is he too ambitious? Do we still have time to achieve these goals by 2040 or 2050?

COP 21, COP 25, COP 26 etc… The positive point to remember in all this is the awakening of a planetary awareness to the various climate issues. We are starting to realize together that the earth is our common home and that it is only by staying together, acting together in a coordinated and harmonious way that we can turn the tide of global warming.

I believe that we will be able to achieve the objectives but at the cost of what climatic, health, economic and social damage before arriving there? In this case, covid-19 is a warning to all of humanity. The change will be a gradual, painful and slow march comparable to work to give birth to a new world of hope for all.

• All countries are fine-tuning their recovery plans to prepare for the post-Covid 19 era. In your opinion, are growth and ecology compatible or should we resolve to change our habits to preserve the world of tomorrow?

The world after Covid-19 will be different. Maybe it already is. The return to the new "normal" will be marked by this unprecedented experience that all of humanity has gone through at the same time. These past times of confinement and restrictions have forced us to revise our priorities and values. In this, the Covid-19 has played a transformative role. People are beginning or have started to reexamine their lives and especially their relationship to work. They need a change. They need to make sense of their life not only for their well-being but also for the planet. This will push companies to have strategic plans that take into account the environment, social issues and good governance. Ecology therefore has its place at the heart of the policies of the companies of tomorrow. A business that has meaning on its own and which, in addition, allows its employees to make sense of their work, will be a more resilient company than the others. In this sense, ecology can be the common vector of positive transformation and resilience. It is quite compatible. Businesses can benefit from the productivity of more fulfilled employees.

• With an ecological awareness like yours, do you see the decades to come with optimism or pessimism?

I sometimes imagine the environment in which future generations will live. I admit that it is rather pessimistic, because our societies have never been threatened by so many dangers and I have the impression that each time, we take the wrong path, the wrong decisions.

But my optimism is rekindled when I see the great societal and ecological initiatives carried by people, especially young people from all countries. I am convinced that there is likely an awakening for an ecological conscience on a global scale. The seed of change is there, waiting for its germination. I hope that she will manage to resist the forces which tend to destroy the Earth.

• One last question that brings us closer to Madagascar. On March 24, we published an article about Shaama Sandooyea, a young activist of 24, who chose to alert on the pollution of the seabed off the Seychelles by organizing the first global underwater demonstration, what do you think of this kind of initiatives and to a greater extent, all the initiatives initiated to preserve the environment? Do you think this is useful? Does this have a real and effective reach within our societies or is it just swings in the water doomed to undergo the current emotional dictates of the image and to be forgotten just as quickly?

It is useful and for its purpose. We must together make all the necessary efforts, no matter how small or large, to raise awareness, to educate, to discover problems as well as solutions. So many actions that serve both to protect but also to be amazed. We need all of these transformational initiatives for the ecological cause. These are not emotional dictates, but a picture is better than a thousand words. Rather, we must encourage them, strengthen them. So thank you for your article. The key to success lies in a concrete and united approach. To do together.

Another fact in the Indian Ocean, last year, when an oil tanker ran aground near Mauritius. I would have liked to see a concrete and coordinated response from the Indian Ocean islands to such a disaster. We must consider the creation of new local and regional ecological governance, a competent organization that will have the means to protect and provide solutions to climate disasters, to work for the maintenance and safeguard of biodiversity.