Sustainable development ; Think forward and act now
Agricultures and sustainable development The stakes of knowledge and research
attitudes
1. The Three Dimensions of Sustainability
2. The Contrasted Viewpoints found in the Literature
3. Different "Objects" according to the Different Viewpoints
of Observer-actors
4. Researcher approaches to the world … and farmer
approaches
Does the sustainable development issue provide us with an opportunity to reconsider our viewpoint on the world and on the way we establish compromises within our society, especially regarding agriculture? Should we in fact not rather speak of agricultures when we observe their great diversity if viewed via the concept of sustainable development? This is what induced me to add an "s" to agriculture in the subtitle. I do not know whether there is a sustainable agriculture, but I suggest we examine the way to approach agriculture or the different types of agriculture from the angle of issues raised by the sustainable development concept.
[R] 1. The Three Dimensions of Sustainability
Applied to agriculture, the three components of sustainable development -
economic, ecological and social - may be considered at three different levels:
the farm, local agriculture, and the development models (as suggested by
the French agronomist E. Landais elsewhere in this publication).
I will also evoke three other dimensions of sustainability. Basically, this
concept differs from others as it associates facts and values. It rehabilitates
the political dimension of the management of human affairs, not as viewed
by politicians, but as in situations of public decision about political
priorities, which citizens must agree upon. These are the three dimensions:
- the political and strategic dimension;
- the dimension I have called normative, similar to the target
values defined by E. Landais (i.e. elements that have been agreed upon
and which set the framework for the priorities and actions to be
implemented);
- the analytical dimension to monitor the changes occurring in the state
of things and to decide about the indicators and methods to be used to evaluate
these changes.
The strategic and political dimension
The concept of sustainable development associates both global and local issues,
whether they concern ecological stakes or economic aspects. No decisions
can be taken in one area without considering what is happening in the rest
of the world and vice versa, no decisions can be taken on an international
scale without considering the repercussions these may have on the local scale.
This calls for reflection on the conditions of change and is therefore a
matter for politics. It is not simply a matter of communication, but definitely
of establishing principles and agreeing to apply them. While governing bodies
and institutions are at the heart of these objectives, these also concern
and mobilise a diversity of actors and organisations, which unavoidably leads
to controversies and even conflict. Talking about sustainable development
implies acknowledging all these features and taking them into
consideration.
The normative dimension
This is where the target value comes in.
Setting goals such as equity and social justice constitutes a strong point,
which leads to prioritising the expected outputs of the commonly used economic
tools, and elaborating the necessary models and tools. Yet, in conventional
thinking, the economic model and the tools used to implement it are often
available a priori and are taken for granted, while the output objectives
and consequences are too often implicit as they are included in the model
and induced the conditions of its use… which are not systematically
stated.
To manage the issues of water and water costs in an equity perspective, we
will thus first need to determine the economic tools to be used, and not
only those that allow an evaluation of costs. This means that management
tools as different as regulations, quotas, licenses and taxes will be used
differently according to the results expected. This implies reconsidering
the tools according to the conditions and objectives for which they are used,
and clarifying the consequences of using such or such a tool. From an economic
viewpoint, we are thus compelled to take into consideration and analyse
simultaneously production, consumption and the allocation of goods.
The objectives of social justice and equity are also a strong incentive to
acknowledge cultural diversity and thus multiculturalism. This introduces
the issue of the transmission of goods and knowledge, of equity between women
and men, of social, professional and family hierarchy, of modes and quality
of life, etc…
Besides, something new has emerged. For two centuries, production was organised
on the basis of the allocation and distribution of riches, whereas today,
production is also organised on the basis of risk distribution. This evolution
is an outcome of technological progress and the risks it induces… and
is linked to risk distribution among the different social groups, and to
its acceptability.
The analytical dimension; methods and indicators
At the international level, we were long satisfied with carrying out evaluations
in monetary terms, as for instance, the GDP, or attempting to use monetary
evaluations to assess the services rendered by the environment. There are
alternatives: other assessment factors can be used, such as the "Human
Appropriation of Net Primary Production" (HANP), an indicator of the so-called
"Society Metabolism". Its aim is to measure the distribution of biomass
consumption, energy expenditure, etc. within the population. Assessment units
are being sought, other than that of monetarisation, which is based on the
monetary substitutability of each value. Some values are however not
substitutable in monetary terms. This fact is taken into consideration in
what is termed the "Human Development Index" (HDI). To evaluate a country
or a political system, this index takes into account the life expectancy,
gender equity, rate of illiteracy and public health, without trying to assess
these only in monetary terms. There are other indicators of sustainable
development: those that measure the distribution of taxation and other levies
or the distribution of access to goods, services and technologies. Equity
and social justice target values are present in the access to technologies,
goods and services.
In my opinion, the notion of sustainable development must be addressed in
these three dimensions in terms of knowledge and research attitudes. How
are the political objectives managed; how are target values and thus new
social standards defined; how are compromises about standards reached and
how are indicators and methods used to evaluate the way all this works…
so that one does not end up with declaring that all this is clearly important,
but extremely difficult to implement.
Besides, what are the consequences of taking these three dimensions into
account for scientific research?
[R] 2. The Contrasted Viewpoints found in the Literature
The literature available on this topic provided me with several definitions
of sustainability in terms of goals about natural resources and agricultural
production. This enabled me to identify two major ways of considering things:
one privileges the availability of resources as such and the other the way
biological and social systems function. Part of the current debates refers
to these two perceptions and the questions posed about the future of agriculture
and the possible courses of action.
Gordon Douglas was one of the first authors to consider sustainability in
agriculture in 1984. He identified three ways of dealing with this
sustainability:
-via productivity - how can production processes be sustainable? The aim
here is to make productivity and thus the resources it is based on
sustainable;
-by taking into account the biological and ecological processes
(stewardship). Production also concerns certain "natural objects"
that have their own life, interactions, cycles, uncertainties… The aim
is to preserve the biological processes underpinning these objects;
-the community approach - social life, the intensity of interaction systems,
access to and control over technologies. The aim is to prioritise dynamism,
social organisation and the culture of rural societies.
Douglas's approach implies that sustainable development must necessarily
take these three aspects into consideration, a difficult task as each of
these aspects refers to a specific ideological position.
The World Bank for its part (Munasinghe and Shearer, 1995) distinguishes
three standpoints, which have different foundations:
-"input-output" based on the state of balance of the systems concerned;
-"capital" or "stock" which aims to maintain the present state of the resource
stocks;
-"potential throughput", the aim of which is to design a way to safeguard
the capacity for resource renewal.
Although these two types of categorisation cannot be superimposed, they roughly
make a distinction between approaches that privilege the availability and
preservation of resources, on the one hand, and those that insist on the
quality of the functioning of biological and/or social systems, on the other.
It is however insufficient to say that these are only ideological conflicts:
controversies may arise on matters of technological investment, international
negotiations, the definition of policy and economic management tools such
as regulations, quotas, licences, taxes, etc.
Paul B. Thompson (1997) reformulated the distinction between "resource
sufficiency" and "functional integrity". The "resource sufficiency" approach
gives priority to resources and makes a distinction between resources that
are plentiful, renewable resources and critical resources (those that pose
a major problem). This approach is based on resource substitutability as
regards consumption and, on the other hand, on their utilisation efficiency
in relation to the state of technological progress. The second approach,
that of "functional integrity", prioritises a systems approach which includes
human activities or at the very least their impact on biogeochemical systems.
The approaches considered by Thompson are thus far more geared towards a
vision of resource use within a functional system that includes human activities,
i.e. forms of social organisation underpinning the resource management
modalities. He considers that what is perennial is the way the system functions
using these resources and not necessarily the resource itself. Therefore
the critical points on which the perenniality of these functional systems
is founded will need to be identified, reinforced and improved. The debate
is thus refocused on the issue of knowing whether the present state of the
system should be maintained or whether it is liable to transform itself by
its own means.
How can agricultural production systems effectively continue to function
in a different institutional and political framework, with other types of
target values? Sustainability involves being able to deal with a different
social contract and a different mission to that originally expected of French
agriculture.
Such an approach to sustainability relies widely on a modelling approach
as defined by J.L. Le Moigne (1984). The observer of a system is not only
required to dynamically report on the system functioning, but also on its
changes and relationships with the environment. In assessing the sustainability
of such a system, the focus should no longer be exclusively on performance
in a given environment, but should also consider its ability to adapt to
its changing environment. The approach clearly refers to the notion of
"functional integrity", which privileges the future of a system rather than
the present state of the resources that are being mobilised. For my part,
I consider this type of approach better suited to deal with issues raised
in situations of local development, as it targets the ability of current
functionings to evolve and maintain or change the system. It compels us to
look to the future. This approach is nevertheless fairly demanding as the
first necessary step is to identify the "objects" that are relevant for this
type of evaluation, and as these relevant objects are only rarely the objects
usually considered by conventional approaches in the agronomic sciences.
We need to privilege the objects directly managed by the farmers as these
are at the core of action. These "objects" are those that emerge from observing,
analysing and modelling the practices of farmers or of other actors in the
rural environment, as discussed in other publications (Landais and Deffontaines,
1988; Hubert and Bonnemaire, 2000).
[R] 3. Different "Objects" according to the Different Viewpoints of Observer-actors
The sustainability of production systems depends on a diversity of factors
that revolve around the design of these systems: their configuration just
as the way they are steered, the diversification of products, agreements
with other operators, safety of production conditions, etc. Superimposing
all these layers of information will however not give us a full picture and
understanding of the way systems function, as such a comprehensive vision
cannot be achieved. However, we must learn to look at the functioning of
systems from another angle, by associating different and complementary
viewpoints, as suggested by Richard Bawden (1997).
Bawden invites us to move beyond the strictly anthropocentric and strictly
technological vision that generally prevails in the agronomic sciences, while
avoiding to become trapped in a solely ecocentric analysis, which would privilege
a strict naturalist approach only, in order to set the values that give facts
their resilience into their societal.
Bawden considers that the oppositions evoked above need to be clarified so
as to avoid paralysing confusions. In the first stage it is indeed important
to understand that the objects underlying the notions of sustainable development
or management of resources, cannot all be the same and will differ according
to the viewpoints mobilised - although they may sometimes bear the same name.
This sometimes leads to confusion and prevents us from taking action. Take
the case of water, for instance, which some view as a stock-resource and
some as a functional element of a system: this may induce disagreements and
lead to not knowing how to intervene. How can we thus change viewpoints or
at least foster the conditions for creating bridges between the different
viewpoints?
I propose an exercise to find our way in the diversity of perceptions of
what seems important and of the way actors will position themselves with
regard to the way they plan to act. We act according to our understanding
of the world around us and to the concepts we possess to represent it and
thus produce knowledge and act on that world. It is therefore useful to know
how we, researchers, situate our modes of action, the type of knowledge we
produce, how we intervene and the type of partnership we engage in. Today's
farmers are equally challenged by this diversity of perceptions and the way
they can be articulated.
In order to do so, I will use a grid proposed by Richard Bawden. Professor
Bawden comes from Cornwall, in England, and teaches at the University of
Agronomy in Hawkesbury, Australia. This grid consists of four sections or
quadrants delimited by two orthogonal axes: a vertical axis contrasting
reductionist visions of the world, in the lower part, with holistic
visions in the top part of the plane, and a horizontal axis distinguishing
an objectivist (or positivist) vision, to the right, from a constructivist
vision, to the left. There are thus four quadrants, the bottom-left one of
which is not relevant in terms of sustainable development. R. Bawden defines
a techno-centric quadrant (bottom-right), an eco-centric quadrant
(top-right) and a "holono-centric" quadrant (top-left) (Fig. 1).
The techno-centric quadrant
This section is centred on technicity as a means to develop and exploit nature
and is characterised by the notion of productivity. This paradigm has dominated
at least a major part of scientific thinking in agronomy since the beginning.
It involves standardisation, i.e. the production of standards and references,
as well as prescription as a means of transmitting knowledge. This type of
thinking has underpinned the vigorous development of French agriculture over
the last 40 years. It is founded on objectivity; reality is the truth. It
is based on "objective" knowledge.
The eco-centric quadrant
This section represents a more ecologically-centred perception, in the scientific
sense of the term; nature is not exclusively at the service of people.
Productivity is not the primary objective. What is being sought is rather
how to deal with nature's functioning, how to preserve the integrity of the
biological processes and geochemical cycles on which these functionings are
based. The notion of ecosystem is a theoretical concept developed by ecologists
to represent the world and the way it functions, its cycles, balances and
dynamics; yet the ecosystem has no spatial dimension. We may be tempted to
reify ecosystems and to say, for example, that ponds (easy, as they are well
delimited) or grasslands (more difficult as there is continuity with pathways,
field and forest margins, hedges, etc.) are ecosystems. The functioning of
a pond can of course be described using an ecosystem model, but the pond
is not an ecosystem in itself. We will also encounter the concepts of dynamic
(population dynamic, for instance) and balance. As opposed to the previous
quadrant, this one takes into consideration the coherence of "things", rather
than their objectivity; that is to say the relevance of identified interactions
that interlink the components of these "things". The input of ecological
science consists in studying these interactions and the associated functioning.
This leads to studying their cycles, dynamics, rhythms, inputs and outputs.
Here the central issue is that of coherence, balance sheets, and not of the
absolute objectivation of the things that make up the world. There is no
longer a truth as such, but more or less complete knowledge - and therefore
uncertainties - on the complexity of the world…
Figure 1
The holono-centric quadrant
Here the focus is on communities: the aim is to find out what people are
interested in, what links them to the world as they see it, and thus, know
it. Therefore, what is chiefly considered are the interactions between
individuals and between social groups, their content, power, strength and
numbers. This unavoidably entails facing the diversity of viewpoints on the
world, as one point of view may prevail in one area and a different one in
another. Some people even consider that nature is not as distinct from human
beings as Western thinking would have it. We need to recognise these differences
and the fact that knowledge and concepts are needed on these different systems
of thought (which brings in the other quadrants) to act on the world: the
role of mediation systems and the different representations of these systems
of thought is to allow such compromises. This world is also one that emphasises
coherence rather than objectivity, so long as we accept the existence of
a diversity of viewpoints and that each is relevant for those people who
bear them and express them. There are thus several truths…
When moving across this grid from the bottom right to the top left corner,
we progress towards increased reflexivity and recognition of the length of
the temporal processes involved. Reflexivity goes along with taking long
term aspects into consideration.
In terms of action procedures (Fig. 2), when acting exclusively in the
techno-centric quadrant, we refer to procedures that are based on hierarchical
forms of organisation (1), standard knowledge,
so-called references, produced by public research and specialist technical
institutes. Moreover, agriculture in France was developed as a protected
domain, set apart from other spheres; the agricultural and agri-business
sphere thus functioned as an isolate in French society, with specific outputs:
the vital foods supplied to the rest of society whose other concerns were
managed otherwise, via different procedures within different but just as
specialised spheres. Agriculture was a reserved sphere, with its
professionals, technical framework, training system, State bodies, Ministry,
etc… When one works in such a context, responses to uncertainties or
environmental change relate to what may be called "first-order changes":
all in all, in this framework, the solution to a problem consists of revising
the routines applied, changing the rules or readjusting well-known
standards.
In the eco-centric quadrant, procedures are considered in the framework of
non-hierarchical deliberative organisations that encourage debate
(2), such as forums. These deliberative organisations
are based on socio-technical networks, within which diverse actors get together
and discuss their value systems, standards and objects, regarding the ecological
systems or processes being debated. These forums are open to outsiders to
the domain or system. The statements of each participant are expressed within
the collective, thus allowing their sharing and socialisation. In this case
the adaptations, changes and solutions to problems relate to "second-order
changes". The process will not stop at just changing the standards and rules,
but will also call into question the principles and standards at the origin
of these rules: the solution to the problem may lie in considering the problem
differently.
The third quadrant is the realm of "collective action", which is more organised
than the above forums. These are forms of organisation that centre on the
social actors, as opposed to the eco-centricity of nature. They are
distributed-type organisations, in which the different forms of knowledge,
concepts and activities of the different actors are duly identified. This
section is therefore strongly oriented towards design objectives, i.e.
construction of the reasoning frameworks that underlie the understanding
of the world, learning processes and production of new emerging knowledge,
stemming from interactions among participants. When problems are dealt with
in this kind of context with such principles and procedures, the issue is
no longer to change the routines and rules or to call into question the reasoning
underlying these routines, but rather to call into question the values on
which this reasoning and the underlying principles are based. In a word,
this implies changing the value systems.
Figure 2
Engaging in a course towards sustainable development does not mean adhering exclusively to this latter viewpoint (the more so as it acknowledges the other two), but it means at least clarifying and recognising these different viewpoints and, thus, the forms of knowledge and types of objectives they involve. They need to be clarified so they can be mobilised complementally and so that there respective positions are clear in order to move from a short-term to a long-term vision and to increase our reflexivity on what is being implemented or even challenged.
[R] 4. Researcher approaches to the world … and farmer approaches
Following A. Hatchuel's studies (2000), I perceive three attitudes in the
field of scientific research, which each correspond to one of the above
quadrants. There is a direct link between the researchers' attitudes or
approaches, modes of knowledge production and the knowledge produced. Each
individual chooses a scientific attitude according to his/her activity,
background and culture, and depending on the attitude chosen, the individual
will fit into a specific quadrant. In my opinion, this is an important point,
since if we are mistaken and believe ourselves to work in a quadrant that
is not the one in which we effectively work, we will generate controversies
leading to dead-ends by no longer being able to understand one another, or
we will develop counter-productive, and therefore unacceptable solutions.
The laboratory model
The laboratory model is the most traditional research model used in agronomy
sensu lato, physics and biology … This model is based on the consideration
that the world is vast and complex and that to study its components, they
need to be isolated from the rest. The researcher will thus extract a "piece"
and separate it from the rest of the world: this is typically the experimental
culture. The researcher recreates an experimental situation on which (s)he
can act and then proceeds to "manipulate" it; (s)he acts on so-called "control"
factors so as to highlight the effects the action of these factors has on
the process investigated. A hypothesis on these control factors has been
previously elaborated, as well as a protocol to test the hypotheses and
performance criteria for the experiment that will enable us to assess the
results of these hypotheses. The experimental protocol is thus designed to
manipulate a particular factor and to measure its effect at the result end
so as to confirm or invalidate the previously established hypotheses on the
role of this factor. In this situation, knowledge is produced by researchers,
i.e. people specialising in the production of scientific knowledge, people
who control the experiments. The results are published and disseminated so
they may be of use to potential users.
The field model
This is a model which stems from ecology and the social sciences. It assumes
that the world is not a closed entity, that it is complex and based on a
great diversity of interactions. The researcher will go out and investigate
it as it is, whether in nature or in society, using "objects" or artefacts
to account for it. This is the case of the ecosystem, for instance, a concept
conceived to study interactions and fluxes in natural systems. I also believe
that part of the economic models are designed in this way, so as to abstractly
(and not physically(3)) represent the
functioning of the world. We do not deal with the real world, the world as
it is, but we develop a model of it based on the viewpoint on the world which
we wish to explore. We therefore perform observations rather than experiments.
The performance criteria have been identified ex ante and were taken
into consideration in designing the observation protocols and models used
to represent the processes studied and interpret results. The knowledge produced
is published and disseminated so as to be applied outside the field of
research.
The intervention-research model
This model stems from the management sciences, from ethno-methodological
or "comprehensive" approaches in sociology. The researcher is assumed to
be part of this universe and is thus an actor of the world being studied.
Producing knowledge on the world is also a way of being an actor in the world.
Rather than simply recreating a part of the world in the laboratory or developing
models to represent it according to particular viewpoints, the researcher
places him/herself in situations of interaction, by getting involved in
collective actions with the partners who have requested his/her help. The
performance criteria allowing to evaluate the progress and outcome of this
type of research have not necessarily been pre-defined. We do not often
concretely know what this type of research will lead to, although we know
what problems initiated a cooperation with the researchers. These performance
criteria must nevertheless be explained ex post so as to demonstrate
that something really new has been contributed to the initial problem, or
to the situation. In this approach, knowledge is produced via action, through
interaction between the researchers and their partners. When constructing
the setting to deal with this type of research, we do not know the outcome
a priori. There is a method but not necessarily pre-programmed results,
and the criteria that will guide us in our action can only be defined once
the process is completed (4); before that,
we can't tell. Such a process rests on learning on the part of all the
participants. In addition, the method is likely to improve and gain in precision
at each stage of its implementation and each time it is applied.
When we work in the laboratory model, we are essentially producing knowledge
within the techno-centred quadrant. The knowledge produced in the eco-centred
quadrant is not easily useable, as the criteria and modalities underlying
knowledge production are not compatible with the principles of eco-centricity.
Taking into account ecological processes in an agronomic approach which remains
strictly experimental raises considerable difficulties as, in so doing, these
processes will be over-simplified and thus risk producing near to nothing.
To overcome this problem, the work methods will need to be changed, using
field observation protocols and modelling. Similarly, in order to deal with
the questions in the third quadrant, the researcher must be involved in the
collective action, in situ, with the other partners concerned by a
problem raised by the situation.
My paper does not aim to show that one research attitude stands above another
or that one is more scientific than another. Its aim is to recognise that
specific objectives can only be reached through specific research attitudes
and that each attitude has its own rules and values that should be respected:
this is the criterion of scientificity. The issue of sustainable development
in agriculture cannot be dealt with solely in the techno-centred quadrant,
the one most common in agronomic culture, with only lip service being paid
to ecological, sociological or even political aspects…
Each quadrant is concerned with specific outputs which all contribute their
piece to research efforts to improve the consideration of sustainable development
objectives in agricultural and agri-business issues. We must be able to recognise
the relevance and limitations of each quadrant regarding outputs that are
both specific and complementary.
The problem doss not concern the researchers only. Differences in approaches
and viewpoints on the world are also to be found amongst farmers. A paper
by S. Fréret and J.-M. Douguet, published in the French journal
Natures, Sciences, Sociétés (first quarter 2001), compared
the objectives of integrated farming and those of sustainable agriculture.
The authors refer to an earlier study called the Seven Agricultural Families,
in which they identified seven types of statements about agricultural projects,
based on the major documents and discourses relative to each project: organic
agriculture, farm production, peasant agriculture, sustainable agriculture,
integrated farming, precision agriculture and integrated production. On the
basis of the available documents and the recommended farming practices, they
tried to identify the definition of each project by the people who carried
them: the stated objectives, evaluation methods (we are clearly within the
ambit of political concerns, target values, and the normative and
analytical), practices used, scientific back-up, principal actors and recommended
approaches.
These differences and changes in ways of viewing the world are not simply
intellectual issues of concern only to researchers and academics; on the
contrary, they directly touch on the agricultural world. We can now represent
the different worldviews of today's agricultural actors in the four quadrants
described above, on the basis of the criteria proposed and the principles
underlying the forms of organisation of actors and actions (from hierarchical
institutions to forums and distributed organisations).
These four quadrants can be considered as windows through which to look at
the world. When using them to compare the viewpoints of different groups
of farmers, we are able to see in what ways they are contradictory or
complementary (Fig. 3). However, if we compare their superficial differences,
without taking the pains to look for the target or underlying values,
we will overlook the fact that certain differences go very deep and that
we are comparing terms that cannot be compared, as they are often simply
operational variants of different systems of thinking. I believe in this
respect that what is presently occurring within the agricultural profession
is indicative of profound mutations and not just marginal adjustments.
To conclude, I would like to recall the slogan: "Think globally and act locally",
which reflects one of the major issues of the early ecological movement and
of globalisation. In deciding to take the question of sustainable development
seriously, we face a new dimension, that of thinking for tomorrow - and beyond
- by acting now. I would willingly say: "think ahead, act now". We definitely
need to act here and now, action is not for later, but we must be able to
design today's action according to the future we wish to build. For this,
we need to be aware of the diversity of systems by accepting diversity as
an asset, recognising the complexity of the problems to be solved without
trying to reduce them, acknowledging that things are dynamic and constantly
change just as the world we live in, and finally, that all this is based
to a large extent on interactivity between human beings and social groups
and between these and the world in which they live and on which they act.
Figure 3
Sustainable, integrated, peasant... the seven agricultural families"
Finding one's way in the maze of approaches to agriculture
by Samuel Féret (FR Civam Bretagne)
| DESIGNATION | DEFINITION | OBJECTIVES | EVALUATION | PRACTICES | ACTORS | APPROACHES |
| Organic Agricultural |
"A Comprehensive concept based on the choice of values
such as respect of the land and biological cycles, health, the environment, animal welfare, social life… It is an agricultural production method based on complex techniques excluding the use of synthetic chemicals." (FNAB - Fédération Nationale des Agriculteurs Biologiques) |
Respect natural ecosystems · Respect human and animal health· Coherent economic development |
Specifications for each production· Independent controls· Certification· Attribution of the AB (Agriculture Biologique) label |
·Concerns all types of production· Synthetic chemicals prohibited· Long crop rotations· Organic matter management |
·Fédération nationale des agriculteurs
biologiques (FNAB)· Nature & Progrès· Ecocert (European Cogeneration Certificate Trading Project)· Organic cooperatives (BIOCOP) International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) |
ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS |
| Farm Production |
"The specificity of this form of agriculture resides in the fact that the people concerned fulfil several functions: that of producing, transforming and selling products to consumers. Agricultural producers are implicated in the evolution of society: they must meet consumer demands, create activities and jobs, revitalise territories and develop the rural living space. They thus participate in maintaining a link with the town." (FNAPF - Fédération Nationale des Associations de Producteurs Fermier | ·Create added value via on-farm processing and
marketing Adopt a product quality approach· Encourage exchanges between the producer and consumer· Participate in a harmonious development of the territory |
·National charter of agricultural producers· Specifications for each product and terroir (to be developed) |
Concerns all production types· Raw material exclusively from the farm· Control and assume the product· Transparency / consumer· Welcome the public· Maintain the rural space |
·Fédération nationale des producteurs
fermiers (FNAPT)·Fédération nationale des centres
d'initiatives pour valoriser l'agriculture et le milieu rural (FNCIVAM)
·Confédération paysanne |
TERRITORIAL PLURI- FUNCTIONAL |
| Peasant Agriculture |
"Peasant agriculture must allow as many farmers as possible, spread over the territory, to live decently on their income, by producing healthy and quality-based food on human-scale farms, without calling into question future natural resources. Along with all citizens, this agriculture must participate in reviving the rural environment within a lifestyle appreciated by everyone." (FADEAR - Fédération Associative pour le Développement de l'Emploi Agricole et Rural | ·Respect peasant societies and rural agricultural
activities, spread over the territory, on human-scale farms.
|
·Charter for peasant agriculture Socio-economic indicators· Agri- environmental diagnosis |
·Concerns all production types· Protein autonomy· Reducing inputs· Long crop rotations· Grassland management· Farm products· Maintaining the rural space |
·Fédération associative pour le
développement de l'emploi agricole et rural (FADEAR)· Confédération paysanne· European Farmers Coordination· Via Campesina (international farmers' movement) |
SOCIAL UNIONIST |
| Sustainable Agriculture |
"Sustainable agriculture encourages the promotion and implementation of an economically viable agriculture, healthy for the environment and socially equitable. This type of agriculture is considered sustainable as it answers today's needs (healthy food, quality water, employment and quality of life) without endangering natural resources for the years to come." (RAD - Réseau Agriculture Durable) | ·Promote autonomous and economical production
systems· Make farms viable, liveable and transmittable ·Encourage exchanges between farmers and citizens |
·Specifications for each production type· Independent controls (in certain cases)· Certification (idem) Attribution of the sustainable agriculture label (idem) |
·Concerns mixed-crop/livestock farms and livestock
farms ·Reducing inputs· Long crop rotations· Grassland management· Protein autonomy·Maintaining the rural space |
·Réseau agriculture durable
(RAD)· Agricultural training· International institutions (OECD, FAO)· European Commission |
SOCIETAL INSTITUTIONAL |
| Integrated farming |
"A competitive form of agriculture taking into consideration, in a balanced way, the economic objectives of producers, consumer demands and respect of the environmentIntegrated agriculture shows that it is possible to conciliate profitability at the farm level, conservation of the natural environment, good quality, regular and affordable productions, contribution of agriculture to the national economy." (FARRE - Forum de l'Agriculture Raisonnée Respectueuse de l'Environnement) | ·Reasoned use of herbicides and fertilisers
·Communication axis aimed at improving the image of farmers ·Become
the standard in terms of French agriculture in the futur |
·Recommendation base· Professional technical guides ·Self- diagnosis· Possible external controls ·Qualification of farms (as projects) |
·Concerns all production sectors· Respectsregulations· Logbooks· Closed storage premises ·Soilanalyses· Equipment control |
·Forum pour une agriculture raisonnée et
respectueuse de l'environnement (FARRE)· Phytosanitary industries (UIPP)· Unions (FNSEA, CNJA)· Chambers of agriculture· Agricultural cooperation· Distribution (super and hypermarkets): Auchan, Casino… |
TECHNICAL AGRI-BUSINES |
| Integrated production |
"An agricultural system producing food and other high-quality products, which uses natural resources and regulation mechanisms to replace inputs that are damaging for the environment and which ensures a viable agriculture on the long term." (IOBC - International Organisation for Biological and Integrated Control of Noxious Animals and Plants | ·Reference mark for European scientists· Development and application of plant protection concepts based on the ecosystem |
·Directives et recommendations· Specifications for each production· Approval· "Integrated production" label |
·System more often used in Northern Europe than in
France · Organic control methods concern arboriculture, viticulture, crops· Animal welfare· Long crop rotations |
·International Organisation for Biological and
Integrated Control of Noxious Animals and Plants (IOBC)· Production
specialising in arboriculture, viticulture, arable crops· Institut Technique des Céréales et des Fourrages (ITCF)· Swiss agricultural polic |
AGRONOMIC SCIENTIFIC |
| Precision agriculture |
"This agriculture uses the new technologies now being
developed in the agricultural world to adjust - as far as possible - crop
practices to the needs of plants according to within-field heterogeneity."
(ITCF - Institut Technique des Céréales et des
Fourrages) |
·Increase the benefits and competitiveness of
products·Development of analysis and decision-making tools·Farmers
must understand the information and master all precision tools ·Take
environmental protection into consideration on a wider
scale |
.Evaluation via within- field variability management:
correction, modulation, improvement |
·Concerns arable crops, arboriculture,
viticulture·New information technologies ·Electronic measurement
instruments (GPS, SIG, maps and yield sensors, satellite
correction…)·Automatic control of agricultural
machines |
· Institut Technique des Céréales
et des Fourrages (ITCF)· Research (CEMAGREF, INRA)· Agrosupply cooperatives (UNCAA)· Office national interprofessionnel des oléagineux (ONIDOL) Data processing and electronic companies |
TECHNOLOGICAL INFORMATIONAL |
NB : We selected the most specific characteristics of each approach; they are not exhaustive.
Notes
(1) I believe that a good part of the structures backing
the French agricultural system functioned in this way for a very long time,
with a specific ministry, professional organisations, an educational and
training system, a research establishment and technical institutes, technical
advisory services, etc. This model, which is rather specific of France, also
exists in areas other than
agriculture.[VU]
(2) An illustrative caricature of this world is the
French Green party; they deliberate
…[VU]
(3) Whereas when carrying out an experiment, the
researcher takes out a piece of the world which is brought into the laboratory
or reconstructed there or on experimental
plots.[VU]
(4) See the approach adopted by the French organisation
TRAME, Tête de réseau pour l'appui méthodologique aux
entreprises en milieu agricole; www.trame.org/
[VU]
Bawden R.J., 1997, Learning to Persist: A Systemic View of
Development. In F.A. Stowell, R.L. Ison, R. Armson, J. Holloway, S. Jackson
& S. McRobb : Systems for Sustainability. Plenum Press, New York
and London, 1-5.
Douglass G.K., 1984, The Meanings of Agricultural Sustainability. In G.K.
Douglass: Agricultural Sustainability in a Changing World Order.
Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado.
Fréret S., Douguet J.M., 2001. Agriculture durable et agriculture
raisonnée. Quels principes et quelles pratiques pour la
soutenabilité du développement en agriculture ? Natures,
Sciences, Sociétés, 9(1), 58-64.
Hatchuel A., 2000. Intervention Research and the Production of Knowledge.
In LEARN : Cow up a Tree. Knowing and Learning for Change in Agriculture.
Case studies from Industrialised Countries. INRA Editions, Paris,
55-68.
Hubert B., Bonnemaire J., 2000. La construction des objets dans la recherche
interdisciplinaire finalisée ; de nouvelles exigences pour
l'évaluation. Natures, Sciences, Sociétés, 8(3),
5-19.
Landais E., Deffontaines J.P., 1988. Les pratiques des agriculteurs. Point
de vue sur un courant nouveau de la recherche agronomique. Etudes rurales,
109, 125-158.
Le Moigne J.L., 1984, La théorie du système général.
Théorie de la modélisation. (2e éd.), PUF, Paris.
Munasinghe M., W. Shearer, 1995. Defining and Measuring Sustainability:
The Biogeophysical Foundations. World Bank and United Nations University,
Washington, D.C.
Thompson P. B., 1997, The Varieties of Sustainability in Livestock Farming.
In J.T. Sorensen : Livestock Farming Systems ; More than Food Production.
4th International Livestock Farming Systems Symposium, Foulum (Denmark),
22-23 Aug. 1996. EAAP Publ. n°89, Wageningen Pers
(Wageningen).
