Farming systems as providers of public goods: a sociological perspective

BipPop Project

Sandrina PereiraCatherine DarrotPhilippe Boudes

XIII WORLD CONGRESS OF RURAL SOCIOLOGYWG 38 - 4 August 2012, Lisbon

BipPop Project BipPop : « Biens Publics en agriculture, et Politiques

Publiques » (Public goods provided by agriculture, and public policies)

French project (National Agency for Research) 2011 – 2013 (3 years)

3 teams, interdisciplinary approach « Compared agriculture » (Agro-economy focusing on

farming systems trajectories at the local level) Institutional economy and political sciences Sociology

Field work : France, UK, Germany, Portugal, Poland

BipPop Project BipPop : « Biens Publics en agriculture, et Politiques

Publiques » (Public goods provided by agriculture, and public policies)

French project (National Agency for Research) 2011 – 2013 (3 years)

3 teams, interdisciplinary approach « Compared agriculture » (Agro-economy focusing on

farming systems trajectories at the local level) Institutional economy and political sciences Sociology

Field work : France, UK, Germany, Portugal, Poland

Some public goods in agriculture…

Litterature, reviewed by Bazin, G., Devienne S., Garambois, N. for BipPop Environmental

public goods

Biodiversity, water, soil, air,

Animal welfair, fires and waterfloods prevention…

PG and landscapes

Social Public goods

Food security Rural jobs, social vitality of

rural areas Equity (between farmers ;

between farmers and other citizens ; between rural inhabitants and the rest of society) : income, decisionmaking, life conditions…

Heritage, knowledge and know-how

Public health Social insertion of

agriculture ; governance conditions

A specific definition of Public Goods

PG : multi-dimensional definition considered for BipPop

PG, neo-classical economical definition « Good » = usefull for human beings No rivality, no exclusion possible (Ex : Moonlight)

PG (« tutélaire »), political dimention Formal public action, justified by the potential ou real

risks compromising the future of this good

PG, sociological dimension Moral and social elaboration of its value (through public

action + management + production + uses) [Kaul & Mendoza, 2003 ]

Inter-disciplinariry in BipPop projectTerritorial approach - A short synthesis

sociology

Farming systems

Compared agriculture, detail

Describing the contribution of each farming systems to PG privision, at each period of time

Which role of PG in the evolution of each farming system ?

Sociology, detail

What drives a farmer to become more or less provider of PG ?

1) Globally influenced by his personal history and situation

A) Influenced by his production system

A) The trajectory of the system along time are explained by sociological elements (capitalisation/de-acpitalisation of the farm)

PG Public policies

PG managers

A

PG and agricultureWhy a focus on sociology ?

PG is a notion born in neo-classical economy

« Good » = usefull for human beings PG = No rivality, no exclusion possible (Ex :

Moonlight) Within the neo-classical paradigm, the market is

able to optimise the repartition and care of the goods

But public goods must be regulated by State (or any public structure) to preserve them

PG and agriculture : Why a focus on sociology ?

Pb with the neo-classical economical perspective

What is a public good, i.e. goods interesting everybody, which should be managed by State ?

Difficulty to raise a consensus in the designation of those goods : no normative definition

PG and agriculture : Why a focus on sociology ?

PG = social construction Variety of values related to those goods

Describe the conditions of publicisation of PG [Kaul & Mendoza, 2003, triangle of publicisation] BipPop proposes a square Policy Management Users Producers

Micoud [2005] : Public goods can be considered under 3 dimensions Scientifical concept Action modality Rhetorical object

PG, agriculture and sociology : research questions within BipPop

1. Identifying the PG supported by public policies in a given area. Why supporting and preserving those goods ? Cognitive and normative dimensions of this policies

1. Identifying the values attached to those PG by farmers, within the frame of their activity ; what can explain that they become or not producers of this PG ?1. Personal history and values2. Constrains and rationality of their farming systems3. Networks to which they are connected

2. Do the public policies supporting a given PG correspond to the logic of farmers (as producers of PG) ? consequences on the evolution of this PG

Field work area 2007 et 2012

Sources E.Chantre 2007

Localising the area

Sources E.Chantre 2007

Driving interviews

• A national and local context already known Compared agriculture : Emilia Chantre (Master report in

PIeniny region in 2007) Sociology : Catherine Darrot (PhD in 2008 at the national

level, including firld work in this area – « The Polish paysants facing CAP »)

A specific focus for this new field work within BipPop Context data already known Interviews focused on BipPop issues A constrain : a short, intensive week only for interviews Consequently only 10 interviews (2 – 3 hours each)

7 interviews with farmers 3 institutional interviews

Limits of this work

Only limited generalisation

Only one interview by farming system Allows to raise hypothesis Sociological conclusions valid at the individual scale, but not for each

farming system and/or social group

A contrario Some elements can be generalised out of each interview

Regarding institutional informations Genericity of the social trajectories (« life story methods »)

Main issue : building a methodology for all the case studies

1 - Identifying the PG supported by public policies in a given area.

First elements

Frame : connecting PG to farming systems (who produces what)

BP 1 BP 2 BP 3 BP 4

Sheppards in open common

pastures + cheese

production + direct

marketing of cheese

Indicateurs et évolutions X Indicateurs et évolutions X

Mountain peasant-like

pluri-production

with cow milk

Indicateurs et évolutions Indicateurs et évolutions X X

Specialisation in cow milk in

low lands

X Indicateurs et évolutions X Indicateurs et

évolutions

ExampleEvolutions 2007-2012

BP 1 Peasnt-like landscape in

mountain

BP 3

BP 4

SP 1 Indicateurs et évolutions

Peasant-like

poly-productions with cow milk

Moins de meules de foin trad, emblématiques car moins de MO (déprise), davantage d’ensilage d’herbe en balles (effet aides PAC 1er pilier et 2eme p. modernisation)Mise en herbe progressive des champs en lanièreEmboisement de certaines lanières (déprise)

SP 3

20122007