Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics

, Volume 19, Issue 6, pp 563–585 | Cite as

Farming and Landscape Management: How French Farmers are Coping with the Ecologization of Their Activities

Article

Abstract

In Europe, an increasing share of public subsidies for food production is being transferred towards the production of goods and environmental services. Today, farmers hesitate between the quest for technical and economic performance, which has been the paradigm of their professional activities since the 1960s, on one hand, and taking account of the environmental concerns that have been imposed since the middle of the 80s, on the other. Is it possible for farmers to continue to work according to the paradigm of the producer of agri-food goods, and how do they react to the ecologization of their activities? In this paper, we will see the difficulties and sources of tension induced by landscape maintenance in the daily professional practice of the farmers. We will see that the professional identity of the farmers is profoundly brought into question by these changes (substitution of strictly “agricultural issues” by more general concerns such as “rural issues,” substitution of the farmer by the “ecologized” peasant...). The topic of landscape reveals social strains between farmers. It also raises the question of the legitimacy of farmers to define the sense of their activities by themselves. Finally we will see that environmental orientations do not systematically open up new prospects for all farmers; they sometimes contribute to increase the inequalities between farmers (financial support proportional to land property, marginalization of farmers who are less socially integrated...).

Keywords

agri-environment farmers professional identity landscape multifunctionality rural amenities social contract 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aznar O., Perrier-Cornet P. (2003). Les services environnementaux dans les espaces ruraux: une approche par l’économie des services. Economie Rurale 273–274:142–157Google Scholar
  2. Berque A. (1995). Les raisons du paysage. de la Chine antique aux environnements de synthèse. Paris, HazanGoogle Scholar
  3. Berger P., Luckmann T. (1986). La construction sociale de la réalité. Paris, Méridiens KlincksieckGoogle Scholar
  4. Bourdieu P. (1977). Une classe d’objets. Actes de la Recherche en Sciences sociales 17–18:2–5Google Scholar
  5. Candau J., Le Floch S. (2002). Le paysage comme catégorie d’action publique. Natures, sciences et sociétés 10(2):59–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Candau J., Chabert M. (2003). La multifonctionnalité, un sens en discussion. La place accordée au paysage dans le projet agricole de la Dordogne. In: Caron P., Pivot J-M. (eds), Les Cahiers de la multifonctionnalité “Coordinations locales et action collective pour une agriculture multifonctionnelle. Paris, Editions Cemagref-Inra-Cirad, pp. 71–87Google Scholar
  7. Darré J.-P. (eds) (1994). Pairs et experts en agriculture. Dialogues et production de connaissance pour l’action. Ramonville Saint -Agne, ErèsGoogle Scholar
  8. Deffontaines J. P. (1998). Les sentiers d’un géoagronome. Paris, Editions ArgumentsGoogle Scholar
  9. De la Soudière M. (1991). Paysages et altérité. En quête de ‘cultures paysagères’: réflexion méthodologique. Etudes rurales 121–124:141–150Google Scholar
  10. Douglas M. (1999). Comment pensent les institutions. Paris, La DécouverteGoogle Scholar
  11. Droz Y., Miéville-Ott V. (2001). On achève bien les paysans. Genève, Georg éditeurGoogle Scholar
  12. Dupré, L., (2001), “Relancer une activité agricole traditionnelle en (re)qualifiant son paysage? Quand une châtaigneraie ardéchoise devient ‘paysage de reconquête’.” pp. 451–458 in Dynamique rurale. Environnement et stratégies spatiales (Montpellier: ed. A. Berger)Google Scholar
  13. Gravsholt Busck A. (2002). Farmers’ Landscape Decisions: Relationships Between Farmers’ Values and Landscape Practices. Sociologia Ruralis 42(3):233–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Greider T., Garkovich L. (1994). Landscapes: The Social Construction of Nature and the Environment. Rural Sociology 59(1):1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Halfacree K. H. (1995). Talking About Rurality: Social Representations of the Rural as Expressed by Residents of Six English Parishes. Journal of Rural Studies 11(1):1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Harrison C. M., Burgess J., Clark J. (1998). Discounted Knowledges: ‘Farmers’ and ‘Residents’ Understandings of Nature Conservation Goals and Policies. Journal of Environmental Management 54(4):305–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kitchen L. (2000). Environmental Policy and the Differentiation of Rural Space: an Actor-Network Perspective. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 2:135–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Laurent C. (1994). L’agriculture paysagiste: du discours aux réalités. Natures Sciences Sociétés 2(3):231–242Google Scholar
  19. Lémery B. (2003). Les agriculteurs dans la fabrique d’une nouvelle agriculture. Sociologie du travail 45:9–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Luginbühl, Y., “La demande sociale de paysage.” In Conseil National du Paysage, rapport de la séance inaugurale du 28 mai 2001 (Paris: Ministère de l’écologie et du développement durable, 2001) 11–30.Google Scholar
  21. Mallein P., Chemery J. -B. (1996). Agriculteurs et environnement: y aller ou pas?. Travaux et innovations 25:51–55Google Scholar
  22. Marsden T. (1999). Rural Futures: The Consumption Countryside and Its Regulation. Sociologica Ruralis 39(4):501–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mauss M. (1985). Essai sur le don. Forme et raison de l’échange dans les sociétés archaïques. Paris, PUFGoogle Scholar
  24. McHenry H. (1996). Farming and Environmental Discourses: A Study of the Depiction of Environmental Issues in a German Farming Newspaper. Journal of Rural Studies 12(4):375–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Miéville-Ott V. (2000). Les éleveurs du Jura face à l’écologisation de leur métier. Le courrier de l’environnement de l’INRA 40:75–84Google Scholar
  26. Mitchell C. J. A. (1998). Entrepreneurialism, Commodification and Creative Destruction: A Model of Post-modern Community Development. Journal of Rural Studies 14(3):273–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Morris C., Potter C. (1995). Recruiting the New Conservationists: Farmers’ Adoption of Agri-environmental Schemes in the U.K. Journal of Rural Studies 11(1):51–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Murdoch, J. and J. Clark (1994), “Sustainable Knowledge.” Geoforum 25, pp. 115–132Google Scholar
  29. Notteghem P. (1991). Haie sèche, haie vive et ronce artificielle. Etudes rurales 121–124:59–72Google Scholar
  30. Périchon S., (2004), “L’impossible reconstruction des bocages détruits.” L’Espace géographique, vol. 2004, n°2, pp. 175–187Google Scholar
  31. Perret, J., (2002), “La mise en valeur d’aménités touristiques rurales pour une élite.” Ingénieries EAT, spécial vol. “Aménités rurales” pp. 35–42Google Scholar
  32. Rémy J. (1998). Quelle(s) culture(s) de l’environnement?. Ruralia 2:85–103Google Scholar
  33. Rémy J. (2000). Multifonctionnalité agricole et pluralité sociale: Les contrats territoriaux d’exploitation. Aménagement et Nature 136:25–36Google Scholar
  34. Schoon B., Te Grotenhuis R. (2000). Values of Farmers, Sustainability and Agricultural Policy. Journal of Agricultural and Environnemental Ethics 12:17–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schütz A. (1987). Le chercheur et le quotidien. Paris, KlincksieckGoogle Scholar
  36. Silvasti T. (2003). The Cultural Model of “The Good Farmer” and the Environmental Question in Finland. Agriculture and Human Values 20(2):143–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Svendsen G. L. H. (2004). The Right to Development: Construction of a Non-Agriculturalist Discourse of Rurality in Denmark. Journal of Rural Studies 20(1):79–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Williams R. (1977). Plaisantes perspectives. Invention du paysage et abolition du paysan. Actes de la Recherche en Sciences sociales 17–18:29–36Google Scholar
  39. Wilson G. A., Hart K. (2001). Farmer Participation in Agri-environment Schemes: Towards Conservation-oriented Thinking? Sociologia Ruralis 41(2):254–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cemagref, UR Agriculture and Dynamics of Rural AreasCestasFrance

Personalised recommendations