prospects for value chains of alternative crops to support

ISARA-Lyon Wageningen University 23 rue Jean Baldassini Droevendaalsesteeg 1

69364 LYON CEDEX 07 6708PB WAGENINGEN

Prospects for value chains of alternative crops to

support sustainable agriculture and preserve water

resources in the Rhône-Alpes region, France

Master thesis: FSE-80430

AGROECOS 7 (2013-2015) Gwladys Huctin

Student number: 910817371100

Date: 10/15/2015

ISARA tutor: Audrey Vincent External tutor: Maud Bouchet

WUR tutor: Dr Walter Rossing

This document was written by an ISARA student in the framework of a convention with Coop

de France Rhône-Alpes Auvergne. For all citing, communication or distribution related to

this document, ISARA has to be mentioned

Acknowledgements I would like to thank my supervisor Maud Bouchet for her help, her trust and the support she

showed me throughout this project. I would not have been able to complete my project

without her guidance.

I would also like to thank all the Coop de France team for their warm welcome that enabled a

rapid integration to the team. In particular, I am very grateful to Annie with whom I shared

the office during the six-month project period. Thank you for the valuable and nice exchange

we had. I am also grateful to Audrey Vincent my ISARA supervisor for her availability and

guidance, and to Dr Walter Rossing, Wageningen University for his valuable remarks and

advice.

Special thank you to all the other interns of the building, for all the nice relaxing moments we

shared.

Lastly, I am very grateful to my parents and sister for their encouragement and financial

support throughout my Master course.

Table of Content

Abbreviations

1 General context ............................................................................................................................. 1

2 State of the art ............................................................................................................................... 6

3 Research questions .................................................................................................................... 10

4 Material and method ................................................................................................................ 11 4.1 Identifying alternative crops ......................................................................................................... 12

4.1.1 List of criteria defining alternative crops ......................................................................................... 12 4.1.2 Literature review and conference attendance to identify alternative crops ........................... 13

4.2 Identifying project experiences at national scale on the French territory ......................... 13 4.2.1 Criteria for selecting the projects ....................................................................................................... 13 4.2.2 Expert consultancy on project experiences at national scale ..................................................... 15

4.3 Selecting case studies for an in-depth analysis .......................................................................... 16 4.4 Expert consultancy for the selected project examples ............................................................ 17 4.5 Feasibility assessment at Rhône-Alpes regional scale ............................................................. 20

4.5.1 Focus group interviews of expert consultancy ............................................................................... 20 4.5.2 Individual interviews of expert consultancy ................................................................................... 21

4.6 Initiating the next step of the study ............................................................................................. 22 4.7 Methodology summary time line .................................................................................................. 24

5 Results .......................................................................................................................................... 25 5.1 Defining alternative crops .............................................................................................................. 25 5.2 Alternative crops identified ........................................................................................................... 25 5.3 Project experience identified ......................................................................................................... 31

5.3.1 Identified projects .................................................................................................................................... 31 5.3.2 Selected projects ...................................................................................................................................... 31

5.4 Feasibility assessment regarding regional actors point of view ............................................ 37 5.4.1 Regional cooperatives point of view and concerns....................................................................... 37 5.4.2 Possible line of approach for project development in the Rhône-Alpes territory ............... 42 5.4.3 Example projects emerging in the coming years ........................................................................... 44

6 Discussion .................................................................................................................................... 47 6.1 Diversifying rotation system with alternative crops ................................................................ 47 6.2 Key elements for value chain development ................................................................................ 49

6.2.1 Stakeholders involved in the creation of supply chain for alternative crops ........................ 50 6.2.2 Financial dimension ................................................................................................................................ 52 6.2.3 Added value creation .............................................................................................................................. 53

6.3 Development potential of alternative crops in the Rhône-Alpes region ............................. 56 6.3.1 Delimitation scale of the action plan ................................................................................................. 57 6.3.2 Role of cooperatives ............................................................................................................................... 59

6.4 Methodological strengths and weaknesses ................................................................................. 61 6.5 Future perspectives .......................................................................................................................... 61

7 Conclusion................................................................................................................................... 63

8 Bibliography ............................................................................................................................... 64

9 Bibliography appendix ............................................................................................................. 68

10 Appendix ................................................................................................................................... 72

Tables of illustrations

Figure 1: Map of pesticide pollution pressure in the Rhône-Alpes region and location of

measurement sites (ATMO Drôme-Ardèche et al. 2010) ............................................................ 2 Figure 2: List of agronomic characteristics used for the identification of alternative crops and

plant specificities. ................................................................................................................................. 12 Figure 3: Criteria for assessing the examples in order of importance at national scale. In red, it

corresponds to an eliminatory criterion. ......................................................................................... 15 Figure 4: Criteria for selecting the examples for interviews in order of importance. ................ 17 Figure 5: General agronomic and production characteristics for the final alternative crop

selection ................................................................................................................................................... 23 Figure 6: Summary time line of the six-month research period (2015). ........................................ 24 Figure 7: List of the fifteen low input crop identified during the six-month study period. ...... 26

Table 1: General elements of the interview guideline for regional projects ................................. 18 Table 2: Mean TFI of wheat, peas, sunflower and malt barley in France 2011, (Agreste 2013)

.................................................................................................................................................................... 27 Table 3: Overview of the listed crop regarding the six agronomic criteria identified for

selecting alternative crops .................................................................................................................. 30 Table 4: Example of successful development of a supply chain from the cooperative

Coopedom (alfalfa production) and example of failure from the river basin Bièvre-

Valloire (hemp production)................................................................................................................ 32 Table 5: Regional agricultural cooperative point of view regarding the potential of

development of the alternative crops listed in this study .......................................................... 39

Abbreviations

CAP: Common Agricultural Policy

CDF RAA: Coop de France Rhône-Alpes Auvergne

Coop: Agricultural cooperative

DREAL Rhône-Alpes: Regional Directorates of Environment, Organization and

Accommodation

ERDF: European Regional Development Fund

Ha: Hectare

INRA: National Institute of Agricultural Research

MAET: Territorialised Agri-Environmental Measures

PAM: Aromatic plants

SDAGE: framework scheme for planning and managing the water

TFI: treatment frequency index

Water Agency RMC: Rhône-Mediterranean-Corsica Water Agency

1

1 General context

Water issues on the French territory

Over the past decades, agriculture practices had significant negative effects on quality of

surface and ground water worldwide. Significant contamination was linked to the increased

use of agricultural external inputs around the 1950s with the reduction in crop diversity,

specialization of the production systems and the desire of producing higher quantities in the

same amount of time (Meynard and Messéan 2014). The use of these external inputs,

comprising irrigation, fertilisation and pesticides rapidly spread and was generally adopted

due to their positive impact on crop productivity. Many different types of inputs can be

classified under the term pesticides, such as insecticides, herbicides, fungicides,

molluscicides, nematicides, rodenticides and other biocides (Edwards 2013).

The primary benefits of using external inputs are their labour-saving effects, economic

benefits of pest, disease and weed control and increase the nitrogen availability for the plant,

which may result in increased crop productivity. The main goal and use of pesticides is to be

lethal to the targeted pest but not to non-targeted species such as crops, beneficial insects or

humans. Unfortunately, this goal has not been reached, so the controversy about the use and

abuse of pesticides has emerged (Vinita and Veena 2015; Aktar et al. 2009). Pesticide

contamination of surface and ground water has become a major environmental issue.

In his study, Edwards (2013) drew attention to the rapid and alarming increase in pesticide

use throughout the world. Approximately 1,000 active ingredients are commonly used world

wide, including 250 in the agricultural sector. Every year, in the Rhône-Alpes region with 1

497,225 km2 of utilized agricultural area (Chambre de Commerce et d'Industrie de région

Rhône-Alpes 2015), approximately 6,100 tons of pesticides are being used by the agricultural

sector (DREAL Rhône Alpes 2014). The geographical areas in the region that are the most

affected by pesticide pollution were mapped in a study in 2008 by the Regional Unit

Observation and Prevention of Pollution from pesticides (Fig. 1) (ATMO Drôme-Ardèche et

al. 2010). The results showed that 3 areas were especially affected: the wine production sector

in the Beaujolais (Rhône department), the cereal sector in the plain of Bièvre (Isère

department) and the suburban area around the city of Valence (Ardèche department).

2

Figure 1: Map of pesticide pollution pressure in the Rhône-Alpes region and location of measurement sites (ATMO

Drôme-Ardèche et al. 2010)

Many studies have reported that pesticides applied to cropland have the potential to

contaminate drinking water supplies. This contamination is due to the fact that pesticides can

easily make their way into surface and ground water systems and then move along ground-

water flow paths to surface water (Van der Perk 2013; Winter et al. 1998). Excess application

of inorganic nitrogenous fertilizers and manures creates nitrogen leaching in the soil, and has

a direct impact on the water quality (Van der Perk 2013). Concerns regarding the acidification

of surface waters and soil caused by atmospheric nitrate deposition and the eutrophication of

lakes and streams have been reported since the last decade (Winter et al. 1998). Many factors

should be considered when determining the soil and water contamination by pesticides and

fertilizers such as climate, farming system, manure management, crop diversity and soil type.

There is now overwhelming evidence that some of these chemicals presents a potential risk to

human health, especially to farmers that are in direct contact with the pesticides. Other effects

have been noticed, pest and diseases are becoming resistant toward certain pesticides which

can lead to important yield and production losses and soil fertility has been affected as well as

air and non-targeted vegetation (Aktar et al. 2009).

Government policies on water resources

Over time The European and the French governments implemented laws and regulations in

order to preserve natural resources (Edwards 2013; Van der Perk 2013). Environmental

protection and pollution control measures were created and incorporated into legislation at

national and European level. In 1991, the Nitrate Directive (91/676/EC) was implemented.

3

This measure concerns the monitoring of surface and ground water, the designation of

vulnerable water catchment areas, the designing of protocols for good agricultural practice,

the adoption of action programs and the evaluation of the implemented actions (Eur-Lex

2013). In 2000, the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) of the European Commission

was created in order to organize public action and to address many other problems threatening

water ecosystems. The overall objective is to achieve, by the end of 2015, a good

environmental status of the water quality throughout Europe (Eau France, 2015).

In France, different types of organisations are present on the territory and conduct actions

regarding the preservation of surface and ground water quality. Since fifty year the French

Water Agency implement, within seven metropolitan watersheds, actions promoting efficient

management of water resources and aquatic environments, drinking water supply, flood

control and sustainable development of economic activities (Article L213-8-1 Environmental

Code; Water Act and aquatic environments of December 30, 2006 - Article 82) (Les Agences

de l’eau 2015). In 2009, the Water Agency set in place for every watershed a framework for

planning and managing surface and ground water resources (SDAGE). The main goal is to

identify the water catchment areas and deploy targeted action plans, which consist of specific

measures to reduce point source pollution. As an example, developing collective spraying

equipment washing areas and measures to reduce diffuse pollution (Agence de l’eau Rhône-

Méditerranée-Corse 2015). To achieve this objective, a guideline was implemented taking

into account the recommendations under the ‘Environmental Roundtable’ (Grenelle

d’Environnement) guidelines for good water quality status to be achieved by the end of 2015

and the European Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC), which is implemented in France

by the law on water and aquatic environments preservation. In the Rhône-Alpes region, 57

water catchment areas have been designated as priority water catchment zones (DREAL

Rhône-Alpes 2015).

The monitoring of the selected actions is coordinated between the Water Agency and the

DREAL (Regional Directorates of Environment and Accommodation Development) of each

French region. The DREAL is the regional service of the Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable

Development and Energy and the Ministry of Housing, Equality Territories and Rural Affairs.

The DREAL implements and coordinates state policies regarding “sustainable development

and management; ecological transition; fight against climate change; preservation of the

environment (water, air, soil, nature), biodiversity and landscapes; prevention of pollution;

housing, construction, urban renewal; transport and infrastructure” (DREAL Rhône-Alpes

4

2014b). The project SDAGE is one of the main actions they have implemented at national

scale in favour of environment, biodiversity and landscape preservation, as well as pollution

prevention.

In 2009, the National Plan of Environmental Health have set into place the Ecophyto plan

2025 for reducing to 50% of the use of pesticides over the period 2009-2025 on the French

territory. One of the actions involved the design of efficient low input agricultural systems,

such as developing crop varieties that would be more adapted to the climatic change

(Direction régionale de l’alimentation de l’agriculture et de la forêt d’Auvergne 2015). Since

a few years the French Water Agency also seeks to promote farming practices that consume

less input in order to protect and restore the water quality in water catchment areas.

Financial support by governments & public institution

In 2013, the Water Agency established the 10th

action programme in which the agency plans

to spend 288 million euros to protect water catchments including 190 million euros for

fighting against agricultural pollution by targeting first the drinking water catchment areas

(Agence de l’eau Rhône-Méditerranée-Corse 2012).

Financial compensation from public authorities is accessible to farmers. The second pillar of

the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) offers financial support to farmers that voluntarily

adopt better environmental practices in their farming system such as reducing their pesticide

and fertilization use, the implementation of grass strips, etc (Fiches techniques sur l'Union

européenne 2015). This financial help is renewable every year and only accessible if the

farmers comply to 3 recommended criteria, which are developing ecological interests area in

their farming system (e.g. agroforestery, hedgerows), diversify their rotation system and

maintain permanent grassland. The average payment amount for farmers that adopt

agricultural practices favouring environmental preservation is 86 €/ha/year (Nouvelle PAC

2015 2015).

Since 2007, the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) has created Territorialised

Agri-Environmental Measures (MAET) (Aten 2015). These measures are intended to

promote innovative environmentally friendly agricultural practices. They are intended to

compensate the additional costs and loss of profits generated by the introduction on farms of

more environmentally friendly agricultural practices. The agri-environmental measures are an

5

essential element of the system designed to integrate environmental concerns into the CAP.

Farmers who subscribe to executing agri-environment measures commit themselves to respect

for 5 years agri-environmental practices in exchange for remuneration. These measures

contribute to the preservation water resource, landscape, biodiversity and soil quality

(FEADER, 2015).

Involvement of agricultural cooperatives in water quality management

Since several years, the French Water Agency would like to create awareness and mobilise a

large number of farmers and industrials in the region to join their cause regarding the

preservation of surface and ground water resources. Their aim is to implement long-term

action in the agricultural sector on priority water catchment areas that are sustainable in time.

This goal can be reached by involving economical and technical actors of the region such as

agricultural cooperatives in the creation of adapted solutions. Agricultural cooperatives are

important drivers for sustaining practice change among farmers by bringing technical and

financial support. An agricultural cooperative (Coop) is defined as “an autonomous

association of persons united voluntarily to meet their aspirations and their economic, social

and cultural needs they have in common, by a company whose priority is collective and where

power is democratically controlled”. (Coop de France 2009). The farmers thus own their

cooperative and supply it with animal and plant products. Cooperatives can play an important

role in creating links between upstream and downstream actors of the supply chains due to

their intermediate and coordination position in the chain. They may also offer the possibility

to design long-term contracts between the different stakeholders of the chain to insure the

sustainability of the process.

Therefore, at the beginning of the year 2015 an agreement between the Water Agency Rhône-

Méditerranée-Corse (Water Agency RMC) and Coop de France Rhône-Alpes Auvergne (CFD

RAA) was signed. The objective is to develop and promote agricultural practices compatible

with the protection of water resources while taking into account the socio-economic stakes of

the agricultural sector. This project should allow initiating a change in practices, and

promoting long-term innovations and experimentation to achieve the protection of water

resources in the region. One of the measures for the amelioration of water quality that will be

promoted is lowering the external inputs by including alternative crops on farms and in

particular low input crops. In order to investigate further the development potential of these

crops, this study was initiated and will be continued in the following years.

6

2 State of the art

Sustainable solutions to preserve water quality

Alternative farming systems that are linked to the preservation of landscape and natural

resources are being analysed and monitored by scientific studies in France and all around the

world by research institutes. These researches can address alternative solutions to help and

advise farmers through the development of methods that might alter some of the negative

effects of external inputs on soil fertility and water resources (Liebman and Schulte 2015;

Winter et al. 1998). For example, at field level the introduction in the system of cover crops

(Maltais-Landry et al. 2015), grass strips (Le Bissonnais et al. 2004), or intercropping (Pelzer

et al. 2012) were investigated and at farm scale the conversion to alternative or organic

systems (Cambardella et al. 2015). The most relevant solution to limit water and soil

contamination by pesticides and nitrates must be by lowering the quantities to a minimum

(Edwards 2013). This goal can be used as a win-win approach to convince farmers to change

their practices while compensating production losses by diminishing their costs in pesticide

and fertilizer use and optimizing their risk management.

One of the solutions is to design a low input farming system (LIFS), which was defined by

Parr and al (1990) in a broad and qualitative definition: “LIFS seeks to optimize the

management and use of internal production inputs and to minimize the use of external

production inputs, such as purchased fertilizers and pesticides, wherever and whenever

feasible and practicable, to lower production costs, to avoid pollution of surface and

groundwater, to reduce pesticide residues in food, to reduce farmer's overall risk, and to

increase both short- and long-term farm profitability." A more recent definition was given by

Pointereau and al (2012) with a quantitative point of view at farm level: “The LIFS are a

combination between intensity (level of input used per hectare) and efficiency (level of input

used per quantity of product).” In this study, lowering the input needs will be analysed by

taking into consideration the rotation system and the possibility of diversifying it by inserting

alternative crops.

7

Crop diversification by the introduction of alternative crops

To achieve the restoration and preservation of surface and ground water quality resources,

several steps are required to modify the farming system resulting in limiting the amount of

external input use at the field level. Diversifying the rotation system by introducing

alternative crops such as low input crop can be implemented in farmers production systems

and limit the use of external inputs. These alternative crops can bring diversity to the system,

reduce the chances of appearance and proliferation of pest and diseases, increase biodiversity

and favour the presence of beneficial insects, fight against weed proliferation, improve the

soil fertility and in the long term ameliorate the water quality and increase the soil and

landscape biodiversity (Liebman and Schulte 2015; Hérault 2012; Power 1987). If the crop is

a legume, it may also lower the fertilizer needs of the following crops by acting as a primary

nitrogen resource. A degree of crop diversification might also have beneficial effects on crop

productivity (Bennett et al. 2012).

For low input farming system to be economically profitable to the farmer, crop production

needs to be connected to a regional supply chain with an identified market. To avoid the

lock-in effects in the structuration of a supply chain where one party is heavily dependant

upon the other party, strong connections between the producers, the consumers and industrial

or cooperative actors need to be established (Lonsdale 2001). Downstream economical

stakeholders need to be involved in the implementation of farmers practice change and help in

sustaining these changes regarding common long-term perspectives. Regional cooperatives

may help in designing sustainable systems where the production, financial and information

flows are fairly distributed between all the actors of the chain since they play an intermediate

role between producers and industrial or consumers in the supply chain (Meynard et al. 2014;

Magrini et al. 2012).

The role of agricultural cooperatives in implementing territorial supply chains

Sustainable production chains must result in the creation of quality product that the consumer

is willing and able to buy. This requires the ability to “communicate and cooperate across

cultural and ideological borders among the stakeholders of the chain, produce safe and

desirable products for a competitive price and to be open-minded to recognize that different

means can reach a jointly desired goal or that different goals may serve a common purpose”

(Van Dam and Van Trijp 2011). It also requires commitment from all the actors of the chain,

8

linking local producers to global markets, returning information and money from global

markets back into the chain and favour exchange between chain actors by either product,

finance or information flow.

Implementing a supply chain and creating value for a product requires coordination of

activities and services from upstream to downstream. Agricultural cooperatives can provide

these services, as well as technical support and assistance to farmers that are willing to change

their practices and the necessary coordination skills for structuring a supply chain.

Cooperatives are run democratically under the “one member, one vote” principle. The original

business model and regional attachment of the agricultural cooperatives means that they

cannot be moved to another country. In addition, the unique link between the farmers and

their cooperative guarantees a better economic return for producers by the creation of contract

between the stakeholders (Chomel et al. 2013). Nonetheless, some agricultural cooperatives

are involved in pesticide sales and act as multinational firm on the territory, which can thus

slow down or block change towards more alternative agricultural practices in some of their

members farming systems.

Scope of the study

Organic systems were not taken into account in this research since these types of systems only

represent a small percentage of the utilized agricultural area in the region. Conventional

production systems present greater needs in this sector to increase sustainable production and

bring change in priority water catchment areas. In 2014, cereal production occupied ¼ of the

utilised agricultural area of the region, with dominances of maize and wheat (Passion céréales

en région Rhône-Alpes 2015). The majority of the most sensitive water catchment areas are

currently dominated by cereal production (FNAB et al. 2015; Ministère de l’Écologie, du

Développement durable et de l’Énergie, Ministère de l’Agriculture, de l’Agroalimentaire et de

la Forêt 2013). Cereal and vegetable production are based on a multi-annual rotation system,

which can be more easily restructured and adapted to different solutions than perennial

production systems. A large number of cooperatives present in the region are supply

cooperatives. They provide raw material, advice and consultancy to farmers and may create

add value to their product. Their direct link to farmer can be used as an asset in creating

awareness on a large number of regional farmers especially the ones from the cereals sector.

9

Project aim and approach

The aim of this project was to characterise alternative crops and estimate their production

potential among agricultural cooperatives of the Rhône-Alpes territory. This study should

lead to the assessment of alternative crops that would have the most potential to be produced

by farmer’s part of a regional cooperative. It should also lead to the creation of awareness

among regional cooperatives regarding the environmental and economical benefits that

diversification with alternative crops can bring to farmer’s rotation and farming system.

Several objectives were identified and three out of four were entirely fulfilled during this

research:

Objective 1: Identify and list alternative crops that are compatible with the preservation of the

water quality in water catchment areas and that are consistent with the maintenance of

practice changes already implemented in these zones. Identify the agronomic benefits and

constraints of these crops to be produced.

Objective 2: Identify at national scale examples of projects that have led to sustainable supply

chains and that can be reproduced in the Rhône-Alpes region. Analyse the difficulties faced

during the implementation of the project, as well as the tools used to overcome these

dilemmas.

Objective 3: Identify regional stakeholder opinion on feasibility of implementing different

alternative crops and their value chains on the Rhône-Alpes territory.

Objective 4: Study the economical and technical potential development of the supply chains

for selected alternative crops at medium and long term. Apply this project to one or several

targeted territories in partnership with local actors.

10

3 Research questions

The implication of agricultural cooperatives of the Rhône-Alpes region in the research for

solutions regarding the amelioration of surface and ground water quality on priority water

catchment areas, offers the possibility to create coordination among the different local actors

and encourage a large number of farmers to volunteer and participate to the project. The

diversification of farmers rotation system with development of alternative crops may offer an

interesting management solution to reduce the use of external input needs. These crops till

need to be identified and their development potential analysed. Nonetheless, facing the

necessity to impulse and sustain changes in agricultural practices, the development of supply

chains for alternative crops in the Rhône-Alpes region appears to be an interesting solution.

To implement this solution the following research questions will be addressed:

What criteria define alternatives crops? What type of crops can be considered

answering those criteria?

What are the success and failure factors that need to be considered for creating a

supply chain for alternative crops at medium and long-term?

What are the development potential of the listed alternative crops in being produced in

the Rhône-Alpes region? What are the roles of cooperatives in implementing these

supply chain?

To answer the questions, different assumptions were formulated:

None of the commonly produced crops such as low input crops can diversify farmers

rotation system and have a favourable impact on soil fertility and limiting water

pollution.

The creation of partnership between cooperatives and farmers can favour the

development at medium and large scale of alternative crops.

Similar projects in France can help identifying the essential elements to take into

consideration while creating a sustainable supply chain regarding the production of

low input crops, taking into account the local context specificities.

11

4 Material and method

A methodology made of defined steps was applied to the research in order to answer the

formulated study research questions:

•1° Literature review to define the term alternative crop to guide the research thanks to a precise terminology.

•2° Literature review and conference consultancy to identify alternative crops.

Objective 1

•1° Literature review and expert consultation to identify previous projects of alternative crop supply chain creation at national scale.

•2° Review criteria for selecting case studies towards an in-depth analysis.

•3°Expert consultation of the main project's skakeholders to identify elements explaining the success/failure of these selected experiences

Objective 2

•1° Expert consultancy to conduct feasibility assessment at regional scale regarding the development potential of the listed crops.

•2° Expert consultancy to identify potential development leads in the region.

Objective 3

•Literature review to identify the main production, processing constraints/opportunities and market juncture regarding four crops examples.

Initiate Objective 4

12

4.1 Identifying alternative crops

Literature review has been conducted to define alternatives crops and its associated criteria

that favour surface and ground water quality resource preservation by limiting the use of

external input.

4.1.1 List of criteria defining alternative crops

In order to identify and list the crops that can be considered as alternative crops, a set of

agronomic criteria and plant characteristics were defined and separated in 3 categories

presented according to the range of importance (Fig. 2). The crops should correspond to at

least 3 out of 6 criteria of the first column to be accepted as alternative crops for this study.

The other criteria were reported to collect information about the crops specificities, which will

be use in the future when the study will be continued in 2016.

Figure 2: List of agronomic characteristics used for the identification of alternative crops and plant specificities.

The agronomic characteristics and the plant specificities of each crop were identified during

website and literature research. A summary table for each identified crop was created and is

available in the Appendix 1. For a number of crops the treatment frequency index (TFI)

would be established, which is the number of times an agricultural area in rotation is treated

Primary set of criteria

• Low pesticide needs

• Low fertilizer needs

• Low irrigation needs

• Nitrogen fixing

• Good rooting system

• Weed control

Secondary set of criteria

• Main pest and disease resistance

• Drought sensitivity

• Sowing and harvesting date

• Place in the rotation

• Annual or perennial crop

Third set of criteria

• Minimum rotation space

• Gluten free

• Important amount of protein

• Possibility of Intercropping

• Other specificities

13

with a standard amount of pesticide per year. The calculation is based on a defined reference

dose and the amount of active ingredient used by the farmer. The surface implicated in the

treatment is also taken into consideration (Agreste 2013; Brunet et al. 2008). The TFI can

help confirming the low input needs of the alternative crops by comparing the TFI of the

crops to a reference crop, which is most of the time, a commonly produced crop. TFI of crop

such as wheat (TFI 3.8) can be used as comparison to identify alternative crops.

4.1.2 Literature review and conference attendance to identify alternative crops

This approach allows covering a broad-spectrum of crops that can be considered as having the

characteristics of low input crops and the abilities of diversifying a rotation. Most of these

diversification crops have not been produced on the territory before or are not well known.

The listed alternative crops were identified according to literature research and attended

conferences. The main literature resource was taken from the publication edited by Meynard

et al (2014) regarding crop diversification and how to remove agronomic and economic

obstacles. In their study they analysed 12 low input crops, which are the following: peas, faba

bean, lupin, chickpeas, soybean, alfalfa, Flax for fibber, linseed, sunflower, mustard, sorghum

and hemp. The French ministry of agriculture, agribusiness and forestry and the ministry of

ecology, sustainable development and energy requested this research. Faba bean, sorghum

and buckwheat were also identified during a conference orchestrated by the group Céréales

Vallée (2015) at the university Polytech Clermont-Ferrand on the theme, ‘What

characteristics for which innovations?’. Quinoa was suggested by several regional

cooperatives during the Agroecology conference organised by CDF RAA in 2015. In total 15

alternative crops were identified.

4.2 Identifying project experiences at national scale on the French territory

4.2.1 Criteria for selecting the projects

To have a better understanding of what is being done at national scale regarding the

production of alternative crops, an assessment of previous projects implementing the creation

of supply chain for alternatives crops productions was conducted.

14

The examples were identified during website research and interview exchange (presented in

the next section) where information was collected following the snowball procedure.

Different criteria were defined in order to select the examples during the research (Fig. 3).

The first criterion was based on the list of selected crop that were identified during the first

step in the research. Only project examples linked to the production of alternative crops were

selected. Secondly, only projects that were implemented medium or large-scale supply chains

were taken into account. Short supply chains were not considered relevant for this study as

the aim of the project commissioners CDF RAA and the Water Agency RMC is to create a

supply chain that will have an impact on the regional economy and will be competitive on

regional, national or global market. Therefore, niche markets were not included.

Thirdly, the project leaders were an important element to take into consideration for selecting

the experiences. They were identified during website review. Those people correspond to the

interviewed person and their expertise and point of view on the project is valuable

information for understanding how the project was created. Projects executed by agricultural

cooperatives were selected preferably to elucidate their motivation in supporting practice

change among their members and helping them in the transition and in the creation of a

sustainable supply chain for their new product. Other types of project leaders such as farmers,

community of commune, Chamber of Agriculture were also selected to have a diversity of

opinion in the sampling.

Finally, projects were selected based on their actual status, if the experiences are new cases,

long-standing cases and cases that failed. This diversity allowed understanding the different

steps in the creation of a supply chain, the benefits and the problems that can occur for it to be

operational and economically sustainable on the short and long term. The examples of supply

chains that did not survive in the long term or that stayed at the stage of preliminary ideas

played an important role in understanding the different issues to create a sustainable supply

chain. These difficulties were compared to the ones found for the Rhône-Alpes region. If

similarities were found, issues for creating a supply chain may be avoided and the research for

solution may be facilitated by applying solutions from the examples. In total 77 project

examples were identified and evaluated on the 4 criteria (Appendix 2).

15

Figure 3: Criteria for assessing the examples in order of importance at national scale. In red, it corresponds to an

eliminatory criterion.

4.2.2 Expert consultancy on project experiences at national scale

To understand the history of the various chain-development projects in the different regions

of France, interviews were conducted. The main actors involved were 6 Federations of

cooperatives: Coop de France from the Centre region, northern Parisian basin, Midi-Pyrénées

region, Poitou-Charentes Limousin region, CDF National and Invivo. They were selected due

to their ability to have an overview of the projects that are being implemented in the region

regarding alternative crops since they represented a large number of agricultural cooperatives

in their region. They were also interviewed regarding their experience in creating new supply

chain since they may have been implicated as technical support for cooperatives in the

implementation of the chain.

An interview guideline was developed in order to identify similar projects that are being

conducted in their region, the type of alternative crops that are being produced, the actors

involved in the projects and the key factors of success or failure. The questionnaire frame is

presented below:

Actual project status

New cases Long-standing cases Cases that do no longer exist

Project leaders

Preference for agricultural cooperatives Other

Size of the supply chain

Medium and large scale Short supply chains were not inclued

Crop produced

Alternative crops

16

1. Presentation of the project: why this type of project is being conducted and the link

between the implication of the agricultural cooperative in actions that favour surface

and ground water resource preservation.

2. Have you heard of similar projects being implemented in your region?

3. What type of diversification crop were involved?

4. At what development stage is the project currently? (Draft/operational on the

territory/no longer existing?)

5. What are the limits and the opportunities identified for the implementation of the

supply chain?

6. What types of market are targeted?

7. Is the project linked to water quality preservation?

8. Who is the project leader? May I have his contact details?

4.3 Selecting case studies for an in-depth analysis

Among the numerous examples that were identified, 15 study cases were selected for an in-

depth analysis. The selection criteria were based on 4 elements (Fig. 4). Firstly, the projects

were selected according to the alternative crops that were produced, especially low input

crops since they are more likely to contribute positively to water quality preservation.

Secondly, the type of project leader identified for the projects. As before, a preference for

examples conducted by agricultural cooperatives was undertaken during the research. This

particularity allowed understanding of their point of view on the essential elements needed to

encourage farmers in diversifying their rotation systems and creating a sustainable supply

chain for alternative crops in their action zone. Other types of project leaders such as farmers,

community of commune, Chamber of Agriculture were also selected to have a diversity of

opinion in the sampling.

Thirdly, the geographical localisation of the projects was used. Projects were favoured when

they were implemented near the Rhône-Alpes region or in areas presenting similarities in

climate and topography. If the projects were a success and are still functioning the results

from their experimental trials may help in assessing the development potential of the crops in

the Rhône-Alpes region and identify the varieties that are the most suitable for producing

quality products. Finally, the selection of the projects was based on the willingness of

candidate projects to participate during the research period.

17

Figure 4: Criteria for selecting the examples for interviews in order of importance.

In total 15 projects were selected with 9 projects led by agricultural cooperatives (with 4 on

alfalfa, 4 on soybean and 1 on hemp) and 6 projects led by different stakeholders such as

farmers, Chamber of Agriculture, community of commune and department associations (5 on

hemp and 1 on miscanthus).

4.4 Expert consultancy for the selected project examples

An interview guideline was created in order to exchange with the different stakeholders

implicated in the establishment of these supply chains for alternative crops. To facilitate the

interview and the data collection, 5 sections in the guideline were created. For each section,

qualitative questions were asked followed by quantitative questions regarding essential

figures linked to the creation of the supply chain. For projects led by a cooperative, the

numbers of workers and members of the cooperative and the cooperative’s turnover were also

asked (Table 1).

Response rate

Geographical localisation

Located near the Rhône-Alpes region Others

Project leaders

Agricultural cooperatives Others

Crop involed

Low input crops (especially low fertilizer needs) Others

18

Table 1: General elements of the interview guideline for regional projects

Sections Questions

Project history - Starting point of the project

o The crop was already produced in the region?

o Political decision?

o Farmers demand to diversify their rotation system?

o Market and consumer demand?

o Responding to water issues on the territory?

- Identify the actors implicated in the project

o Identify the project leader

o Economical & technical assistance

- The project leader’s motivation

- How did the development potential of the supply chain before its creation was assess? o Economical and technical feasibility analyse?

o Market identification?

Upstream (production steps) - Difficulties faced / Key of success

o Numbers of farmers involved in the project?

o Numbers of hectare?

o Numbers of hectors located on priority water catchment areas?

o The farmer’s income per Ha?

o Volume of business generated by the supply chain?

- Actions implemented

o Experimental trials?

o Work in collaboration with research institutes?

- Assess the evolution of practices

o Monitoring?

- Elements to guaranty traceability and product quality

o Multi-annual contracts?

o Trust?

19

Downstream (transformation and

marketing steps) - Difficulties faced/Key of success

o Maximum and minimum capacity of processing and storage?

o Volume collected and sold?

o Selling price?

o Market opportunities?

- Actions implemented

o Creation of a processing unit?

o Multi-annual contractual agreements between the actors of the supply chain?

- Targeted markets

Perspectives - What is needed to improve the system?

- What are you future perspectives?

o Increase the number of farmers that are part of the project?

o Increase the production rate and the number of hectares produced?

Other similar project in the region - Do you know if other project have been implemented on the territory?

- What type of crops are produce?

- Are the projects style in place?

20

After each exchange, interview transcripts were created in order to establish tractability sheets

regarding all the information collected. For each of the examples where sufficient information

and data were collected, synthesis leaflets were design (Appendix 3). Those leaflets were used

as information support to help creating awareness among regional cooperatives and their

members regarding the possibility to integrate alternative crops in farming system, which may

result in the creation of a new supply chain at the territory level.

4.5 Feasibility assessment at Rhône-Alpes regional scale

4.5.1 Focus group interviews of expert consultancy

In order to investigate current examples in the region and confront the local cooperatives with

the selected crops and examples, individual and group exchanges were organized. Some

regional cooperatives already initiated reflection on the possibility of development of supply

chains for low input crops. They requested the assistance of Coop de France regarding the

diversification of some of their members’ farming system through introduction of soybean or

alfalfa. This first exchange permitted understanding some of the regional needs and

constraints regarding the implementation of these two crops. It also showed the interest of

farmers in diversifying their cropping system with alternative crops and more specifically

with low input crops.

The second exchange took place during a meeting on Agroecology organized by Coop de

France RAA three months after the research study started. The study was presented to 6

regional cooperatives that were present at the meeting: cooperative Dauphinoise, Eurea,

Interrapro, cooperative Jura Mont Blanc, Natura’ pro and Terre d’Alliances. Objectives of this

presentation were to introduce the study to regional economical actors and show the

possibility of engagement they can have in the process. Encourage them to take an interest

regarding the economic and environmental benefits this type of practice change can offer to

their members. The overall objective was to interview collectively the regional cooperatives

regarding the potential development of each crop listed which helped identifying a small

number of crops that would have a development potential in the coming years regarding their

point of view. Their personal experience in producing certain crops in the past and by

knowing the actual market, some of the alternative crops did not present for now a potential

21

development in the region in the coming years regarding their point of view. Their concerns

and questioning regarding the development of these alternative crops were reported.

4.5.2 Individual interviews of expert consultancy

To identify possible approaches for project development in the Rhône-Alpes territory and

assess the usefulness of the leaflet examples that were created during the research, individuals

meetings with a selected number of regional cooperatives were organized. To facilitate the

exchange, the cooperatives that were selected for the interviews were local cooperatives that

were present at the Agroecology meeting and thus already aware of this project.

During the exchange, the results obtained after six months of study were presented. The

interest of Coop de France Rhône-Alpes Auvergne in working in a future collaboration with

regional cooperatives was mentioned and explained. The feedback of the local cooperatives

regarding the results was recorded. The needs and constraints the cooperatives might face if

they want to implement such project on their territory were mentioned by the cooperatives

present at the meeting. Finally, the future steps and perspectives of this study were

enumerated and presented to the cooperatives enabling them to see the importance CDF RAA

attributes to this project and for it to be continued. These exchanges allowed pointing out the

concerns regarding the development of the alternative crops, and which crop for them had the

best potential of being developed in the region in the coming years. It also permitted to collect

more concrete information regarding the specific needs of the cooperatives and the lack of

information needed to fully understand the environmental and economic benefits of a

potential agricultural production change. Finally, these exchanges allowed identifying the

cooperatives that would be interested in implementing this type of project to answer the

formulated demand of their members or by creating the interest among their members.

To help the cooperative in creating awareness among their members and studying the

potential development of certain low input crops on their territory, a guideline with an

overview of the most important steps and questions regarding the creation of a supply chain

was created and put at their disposal.

22

4.6 Initiating the next step of the study

The next step of the study consisted in an economical and technical analysis regarding the

potential development of the supply chain for selected alternative crops at medium and long

term. The first step to achieve this goal was initiated and consisted in identifying the

production specificities, the value creation characteristics and the market opportunities of

targeted crops. The crops that would benefit from additional information were selected. The

information was collected and classified in different information categories (Fig. 5). An

overview of the collected information is available in the Appendix 4.

23

Figure 5: General agronomic and production characteristics for the final alternative crop selection

Low input crops

Agronomic characteristic

Input needed

Pesticide

Fertiliser

Irrigation

Plant specificities

Place in the rotation system

Nitrogen fixing plant

Leguminous plant & protein content

Gluten free

Crop association

Other specificities

Pest and diseas resistance

Sowing and harvesting dates

Main geographic production sectors in

France

Production constrants

Specific equipement

Sowing and harvesting

Processing unit

Logistics

Storage space

Transportation

Others

Supply chain

Competitive position on the market

Optimising energy and natural resources

Create new product

Other

Product value creation & market types

Human consumption

Animal consumption

Other market sectors

24

4.7 Methodology summary time line

A time line overview of the different actions implemented during the six-month study period

is presented in Figure 6. It allows having a better understanding of the sequence of events that

occurred during the research and allowed answering the different objectives during the

allotted time.

Figure 6: Summary time line of the six-month research period (2015).

25

5 Results

5.1 Defining alternative crops

For this research, alternative crops were defined as crops that can bring diversity and

beneficial environmental services to a rotation, such as helping to control the pest and disease

dissemination, reducing weeds, act as nitrogen source, increase biodiversity and favour the

presence of beneficial insects (Liebman and Schulte 2015; Hérault 2012; Power 1987). Low

input crops can be classified under this definition based on to their agronomic specificities:

At the annual scale, low input crops need fewer external inputs compared to commonly

produced crops. This reduction could concern one or several elements: low irrigation,

fertilizer or pesticides. Lower needs can be explained by agronomic characteristics of the

crops such as deep rooting system, nitrogen fixing, pest and disease resistance and weed

control.

At the rotation scale (multi-annual), a low input crop is able to lower the input needs of the

entire rotation by enhancing soil fertility and limiting the dispersal of pests, pathogens and

weeds. For example, the introduction of nitrogen fixing crops in the rotation makes nitrogen

available in the soil for the next crop and therefore lowers its needs for external inputs. On the

long-term, they may contribute to the amelioration of the surface and ground water quality.

5.2 Alternative crops identified

During the research study fifteen crops were identified as matching the definition and

agronomic criteria of alternative crops (Fig. 7).

26

Figure 7: List of the fifteen low input crop identified during the six-month study period.

For the listed crops to be defined as alternative crops, their agronomic characteristics were

compared to 6 criteria (Table 3). The crops should present at least 3 out of the 6 criteria to be

identified as alternative crops. Under this limit the crop present less potential in having a

conclusive impact on the amelioration of surface and ground water quality and shows

practically comparable agronomical characteristics than commonly produced crops. The

selection criteria were related to their low external input needs, the capacity of fixing

nitrogen, limiting weed proliferation and having a good rooting system. For the crops that had

their TFI identified regarding the average dose used in France, such as peas (3.8 TFI),

sunflower (1.7 TFI), malt barley (3.1 TFI), their TFI was compared to the one used for wheat

(3.8 TFI) (Table 2). The TFI of wheat correspond to one of the basic references in the

literature to compare crops TFI since wheat and maize are the most common crops produced

in the Rhône-Alpes region (Ecophto 2018 2015; Passion céréales en région Rhône-Alpes

2015).

27

Table 2: Mean TFI of wheat, peas, sunflower and malt barley in France 2011, (Agreste 2013)

Wheat Peas Sunflowers Malt Barley

TFI herbicide 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.4

TFI without

herbicide 2.4 2.5 0.3 1.6

TFI total 3.8 3.8 1.7 3.1

The results revealed that sunflowers and malt barley crops need in general fewer treatments

than a commonly produced wheat crop. If they are introduced in a rotation system they might

have a better and favourable impact than wheat on soil fertility, fauna and flora biodiversity

proliferation and limit water pollution. However, the TFI for herbicides is identical to wheat,

which signifies that the crops might present important weed competition during their growth.

For peas, the mean TFI is similar to wheat, which indicate that regarding climatic and soil

conditions of the fields, peas might need to be treated a similar number of time than wheat the

same year. Therefore, diversifying rotation system by introducing peas may not always allow

lowering pesticide use during the time the crop is being produced. To obtain more precise

results regarding the TFI of each crop, the impact of agricultural practices needs to be

considered in relation to the farmers’ rotations system. Each system can bring variation in the

use of external inputs due to the type of soil, the climatic conditions, the agricultural practices

applied and the crops that are already present in the rotation system. TFI means that are

presented in this preliminary research allows having an idea of the general use of pesticides in

France regarding these crops. Specific calculation of TFI will have to be conducted at farm

level to have a precise understanding of the crop needs. This is also applicable for the other

crops, which TFI was not identified in the literature.

Nitrogen fixing plants & low fertilizer needs

The ability of the crops to fix nitrogen can be used as an interesting asset for nitrogen

management in a rotation system. The crops can be utilised as a primary nitrogen source for

the crop itself and the following crops in the rotation. Nitrogen fixing plants can enhance soil

fertility and limit water contamination by avoiding the use of external fertiliser during the

time the crop is produced and for the upcoming crop in farmers rotation system depending on

the release of the fixed nitrogen by the previous crop (Liebman and Schulte 2015; Power

1987). Different types of legumes were identified as alternative crops such as soybean, lentil,

28

peas, alfalfa, lupin and faba beans. Limiting water contamination by avoiding nitrogen

leaching is only possible if in the rotation system, the crop is followed by another crop to

capture the nitrogen.

Rooting system & low irrigation needs

A good rooting system is a valuable asset for producing crops and limiting the amount of

irrigation needed during the plant growth. Roots are important to plants for a wide variety of

processes, including nutrient and water uptake. It can also present many benefits in helping

structuring the soil, avoiding erosion and resisting the challenges posed by climate by helping

the plant to be drought resistant (Smith and De Smet 2012). Therefore, several crops were

selected as alternative crops for this agronomic characteristic, including alfalfa, linseed, Flax

for fibber, hemp, miscanthus, lupin, sunflower and sorghum.

Weed control & low pesticide needs

The capacity of a crop to limit the weed proliferation can be considered as an important factor

in reducing the use of external input such as herbicides during on the time the crop is

produced. Limiting the amount and use of pesticides might have a beneficial impact on the

surface and ground water quality. For example an interesting characteristic of the hemp is it

ability to control weeds by its rapid leaf growth. This characteristic may enable the farmer to

have a clean field after the crop is harvest (Réseau GRAB/FRAB 2009). Miscanthus also has

this ability to control weeds in autumn when the leaves of the plant cover the ground surface

by limiting their growth. Leaving the leaves covering the ground also allows at the same time

making nitrogen available for the plant for the following year, which limit the use of external

fertilization several years after the start of cultivation. Another weed control characteristic can

be seen in buckwheat. Since it is a high-density crop it can limit the weed proliferation by

suppressing them and limiting the access to the sun. The other listed crops are either slow-

growing plants such as quinoa or have a low density, thus they do not cover the entire ground,

which increases weed competition.

29

Quinoa

An exception in the selection of alternative crops was quinoa. Even though quinoa does not

represent specific low input needs or is a nitrogen fixing species, the development potential of

the crop was analysed in this study. This crop was taken into account to answer a common

demand formulated by the regional cooperative of Rhône-Alpes regarding the development

potential of this gluten free crop. This request was directly linked to the actual market

situation and the increase of consumer demands regarding gluten free products. Despite that

this crop is not a commonly produced crop in France since only short supply chains exist so

far. Introducing quinoa in a rotation can help diversifying systems, controlling the pest and

disease dissemination, increase biodiversity and favour the presence of beneficial insects.

These criteria are also valid for the 14 other listed crops.

Therefore, regarding the previous explanations and the results obtained in Table 3, all listed

crops have at least 3 out of 6 agronomic criteria to be considered as alternative crops in this

study.

30

Table 3: Overview of the listed crop regarding the six agronomic criteria identified for selecting alternative crops

Crops Low pesticide

needs

Low fertilisation

needs

Low irrigation

needs

Nitrogen fixing

species

Good weed

control

Good rooting

system

Criteria

identified

Soybean X X X 3/6

Alfalfa \ X \ X X 5/6

Linseed \ \ X 3/6

Flax for fibber \ \ X 3/6

Hemp X \ X X X 5/6

Miscanthus X \ X \

(Not the first year)

X 5/6

Faba bean \ X X \ 4/6

Peas (4.75 TFI)

X X X \ 4/6

Lupin \ X X \ X 5/6

Lentil \ X \ X 4/6

Sunflower (1.75 TFI)

\ \ \ \ X 5/6

Malt Barley \ \ \ \ 4/6

Buckwheat X X X 3/6

Sorghum X X \ X 4/6

Legend

X: Low or no external inputs needed; nitrogen fixing plant; good weed control and possess a good rooting system.

\ : Needs low external input; can sometimes limit the weed proliferation

31

5.3 Project experience identified

5.3.1 Identified projects

In total 77 project examples were pointed out related to the initiation of practice change by

diversifying farmers rotation system with alternative crops production, which led to the

implementation of a supply chain. The value chains identified included 20 on hemp, 15 on

miscanthus, 11 on alfalfa, 9 on flax for fibre, 8 on soybean, 5 on linseed, 1 on aromatic plants,

2 on lupin, 2 on malt barley, 1 on peas, 1 on lentil, 1 on quinoa, 1 on sunflower and 0 on

sorghum, buckwheat and faba bean. All projects that were identified during this study are

specified in Appendix 2.

During the interviews at national scale the most common crops associated with crop

diversification were legumes due to their ability to fix nitrogen (Groupe technique AB

Franche Comté 2012a; Groupe technique AB Franche Comté 2012b; Power 1987). The

second crop associated with crop diversification was hemp, which is also commonly linked

with crops that require low external input needs to be produced as well as miscanthus.

Therefore, more examples regarding these crops were identified during the website and

literature research rather than the other listed crops.

5.3.2 Selected projects

For this study, 15 experiences of similar cases have been selected to be in-depth analysed to

have a better understanding of the motivations the stakeholders had to create the supply chain

project as well as the actions that have been put into place to implement a supply chain and

the keys of success or constraints that may have occurred during the years of establishment.

One example of experience of success and one experience that have failed are presented in

Table 4. The other examples are shown in the Appendix 5

32

Table 4: Example of successful development of a supply chain from the cooperative Coopedom (alfalfa production) and example of failure from the river basin Bièvre-Valloire (hemp

production)

Sections Questions Cooperative Coopedom

(Success - Alfalfa)

Bièvre-Valloire

(Failure - Hemp)

Pro

ject

his

tory

Starting point of the project

Started: Farmers demand in 1969.

Twenty dairy producers decided to develop alfalfa

production to be able to maintain and improve the protein

content and quality of milk in winter. Producing

dehydrated alfalfa was the main project objective.

Started: Political decision in 2007.

Ended: 2010.

Following rural policy projects to improve water quality

and the environment in the territory of Briève-Valloire, a

supply chain for hemp production was created.

Identify the actors implicated in the

project Project leader: cooperative Coopedom

Other stakeholders: members of the cooperative, some

food manufacturer in the region

Project leader: Joint Association of Bièvre-Valloire

Other stakeholders: Local farmers, public and especially

private investors.

The project leader’s motivation

The cooperative wished to meet the needs of their

members and help them obtain quality products.

Coordinate, advise and lead projects on the territory that

contributes to the amelioration and the preservation or

territorial resources.

How was the development potential

of the supply chain assessed before

its creation?

A technical and economical feasibility analysis was

conducted to estimate the quantity of alfalfa needed for

the farmers of the cooperative to be self sufficient in

animal feed. This determined the size of the processing

unit and the financial investment.

A person was designated to identify the stakeholders

willing to be part of this project, identify major constraints

regarding the implementation of the supply chain and a

technical and economical feasibility analysis was

conducted.

Market identification was carried out.

33

Up

stre

am (

pro

du

ctio

n s

tep

s)

Difficulties faced

Economic /

Technique & regulation

The introduction and production of a new crop requires

new techniques and knowledge that the farmers may not

be acquainted to. Technical support needs to be set into

place to help the farmers during the transition period.

Environmental

/

Economic \


The appropriate harvesting equipment was not accessible

on the territory and was rented from Germany. Difficulties

to access the specific equipment during the harvesting

period.

The number of hectares cultivated was insufficient for the

processing unit to function all year long.

Environmental

\

Key of success Economic Solidarity of members helped maintain the industry during

crisis times in the 1980s after the oil crisis.

Reducing external input can be a cost saving measure.


Technical and advisory support by the cooperative to the

farmers.

Economic \


Crop variety adapted to the production zone.

Actions implemented

Experimental trials

No. ha produced: 2000 Ha

Average volumes collected: 12 T / year

Evaporation factory capacity: 44,000L/hour

Experimental trials.


For the fibber industry to be profitable, 600 ha of hemp

production should have been produced.

Assess the evolution of practices Monitoring Monitoring

Elements to guaranty traceability

and product quality

Farmers need to follow a set of specifications to produce

the crop and the cooperative needs to follow a set of

specifications for harvesting, collecting and processing the

crop.

Organic production (follow regulations, production and

processing specifications).

34

Do

wn

stre

am (

tran

sfo

rmat

ion

an

d m

ark

etin

g s

tep

s)

Difficulties faced

Economic Find financial support during the oil crisis.


Regulatory limits to increase the thermal capacity of the

processing unit.

Economic The upstream-downstream actors did not want to invest in

a processing unit

The financial investment was too high (3 million euros).

High market competition. Hemp products are not well

differentiated on the market. Industrials can find hemp at

lower price on the market compared to the one produced

locally.

Important transportation costs that need to be improved

for the all supply chain.


No existing processing unit on the territory

The volume collected and sold were inefficient.

Key of success Economic The choice to diversify production by the cooperative

allowed the processing unit to be profitable throughout the

year. In addition to the production of alfalfa in spring are

grown ryegrass, fescues and sometime corn, which are

also dried in the processing unit.

30% of the energy requirements of the processing unit are

provided by the production of 400 Ha of miscanthus.

Reduced transportation costs by setting up a harvesting

plan.


Implementation of a processing unit.

Multi-annual contract between the cooperative and

farmers.

Economic If the hemp is good quality and sold at an attractive price,

the production can be profitable for all the actors of the

supply chain.


\

35

Actions implemented


Multi-annual contract between the cooperative and the

industrials.

Approximately 65% of the production is carried out by

manufacturing alfalfa bales. The rest is processed in

pellets.

Targeted markets Part of the production is distributed to members as self-

consumption. The rest of the production is traded by the

cooperative and sold to farmers in the region who are not

members or traders and food manufacturers.

Eco building materials.

Per

spec

tiv

es

What is needed to improve the

system?

To increase the processing unit capacity of the cooperative

to answer farmers demand.

Find a second crop production that can be processed

during the time of the year were the hemp is not harvested.

This will enable the processing unit to be economically

profitable.

Invest in specific harvesting and processing equipment.

What are you future perspectives?

2015: a feasibility study to merge the processing unit with

another one located in the region is being conducted.

If the project should be restarted, regional cooperatives

could be an interesting project leader. Since private

industrials and community of communes do not want to

invest in specific equipment for hemp production. Maybe

cooperatives can have a different point of view on the

creation of the supply chain and can create awareness

among a large sample of farmer to produce high volume

for the processing unit to function.

36

These two projects introduce alternative crop as a way to diversify farmers rotation system

even thought the reasons linked to this practice change are different. On one hand, the project

leaded by Coopedom was started to answer an economical and technical issue. On the other

hand, the project leaded by the joint association of Bièvre-Valloire was implemented for

environmental reasons. However, both project lead to create coordination between the

upstream and downstream regional actors on the targeted territories. Farmers and economical

actors such as cooperatives and private investors participate to the implementation of the

project and the design of a new supply chain. For both projects, a technical and economical

feasibility analysis was conducted in order to estimate the agronomic development potential

of the crops by conducting experimental trials, the financial investment needed for production

and processing the crop and the identification of potential markets.

The project led by the cooperative Coopedom for producing dehydrated alfalfa was a success

for several reasons; technical and advisory support was brought to the farmers by the

cooperative. This support helped farmers to change their production practices and encouraged

them to modify their farming system. An economical insurance for farmers that their

production will be entirely bought by the cooperative helped in creating trust and encouraging

farmers to join the project. To guaranty a win-win situation between farmers and cooperative,

an agreement is signed and insures the quality and tractability of the product by the producers

and stable revenue by the cooperative to farmers. The creation of the alfalfa supply chain was

possible due to the investment of the cooperative in a processing unit. During hard time,

solidarity of members helped maintain the functioning of the processing unit. In addition to

the production of alfalfa in spring are grown ryegrass, fescues and sometime corn that are also

dried in the processing unit. The choice to diversify farmer’s production allows the processing

unit to be economically profitable throughout the year. Nevertheless, no specific actions in

this project are linked to the amelioration of surface and ground water quality.

The project led by the joint association of Bièvre-Valloire for the implementation of a supply

chain for hemp production was initiated to preserve the water quality of the priority water

catchment area. Unfortunately, the project did not remain in time. Several factors are

implicated in this failure. Firstly, the important financial investment needed to create a

processing unit that was necessary to process the crop production for it to be sold on the

market. No existing processing unit is present on the territory and none of the stakeholders

implicated in the project wanted to invest if the success was not guarantied. Secondly,

37

targeted market was identified but high competition between similar products was identified.

Concerns regarding hemp production characteristics to create added value to the product and

its low differentiation capacity on the market were pointed out. Thirdly, the number of hectare

involved in the project were insufficient to insure the profitability of a processing unit or the

transportation coast for the production to be processed in another industry in the region.

5.4 Feasibility assessment regarding regional actors point of view

5.4.1 Regional cooperatives point of view and concerns

During the Agroecology meeting several regional cooperatives exchanged their point of view

regarding the potential development of alternative crops that have been listed in this study. A

summary of the group interview exchange is presented in Table 5, which presents the

elements of success or failure that might occur during production of these crops and

implementation of a supply chain in the region. Several reasons regarding the lack of

alternative crops production in the region were pointed out.

Most of the crops are produced in small quantities and destined for niche markets. To have an

impact on water quality preservation agricultural change needs to be implemented on a

significant agricultural surface. Medium and large-scale production would need to be reached.

Isolated cases of alternative crop production already exist in the Rhône-Alpes region. If

higher importance were given to theses crops, their impact on soil and water preservation

would be more relevant. For now, the opportunities on the markets are limited and most of the

time there are no market opportunities to sell at medium and large-scale production for

alternative crops in the region. The main limiting factor might be due to the insufficient

competitiveness of the products on the markets regarding commonly produced crops that are

preferred since their selling price is lower for a similar product. Another limiting factor is the

absence of adapted sorting, harvesting and processing equipment. Without the correct

production and processing material the quantity produced stays at small scale for direct

selling or farmers own consumption. The quality of the product is not always matching the

industrials requirement standards. General concerns were raised among the cooperatives

regarding the availability of financial support to initiating practice change and implementing

new supply chains in the region, the presence of specific markets on the territory, as well as

the lack of information regarding the crop production characteristics and their ability to

38

produce quality product in sufficient quantity. Finally, on the difficulties they can have to link

theses agricultural change to exclusively farmers that are located on priority water catchment

areas if they want to benefit from the Water Agency financial support.

Nevertheless, elements that can help the development of the crop production in being a

success were also pointed out. Some of the crops are known to present agronomic production

characteristics that can match the soil and climatic conditions in the region such as alfalfa,

peas and linseed. The nutrition specificities of certain crops may present an interesting added

value to the final product and may help in differentiating it on the market. For example,

quinoa and buckwheat are gluten free crops and there is an increasing demand by consumers

for gluten free products. Buckwheat is mainly produced in the French Brittany region,

however other regions in France have been identified in having the appropriate soil and

climate for the production of the crop. For example, the region Bourgogne, Midi-Pyrénées

and Auvergne (Céréales Vallée 2015). Nitrogen fixing legumes also attracted large interest

among the cooperatives since several projects will be implemented in the region in the

coming years regarding alfalfa and soybean production by cooperatives that plays an

important role in the regional economy.

In the end, four alternative crops stood out from the list and further investigations were asked

to assess their potential on the Rhône-Alpes territory, quinoa, alfalfa, soybean and linseed. To

confirm the potential development of these crops, an economical study and market research

on the territory need to be done.

39

oTable 5: Regional agricultural cooperative point of view regarding the potential of development of the alternative crops listed in this study

Positive Negative

Indicators

Crops

Agronomic characteristics Production and market specificities Agronomic characteristics Production and market specificities

Quinoa -

- Significant amount of proteins,

phosphorus, magnesium and iron

- Majority of the production is

imported

- Diverse valorisation for human

consumption

- Gluten free

- Important weed competition

during early growth

- Few information regarding quinoa

varieties that are adapted to French

soil and climate has been reported

- Organic markets monopoly

Soybean - Nitrogen fixing

- Significant protein rate (40% seed)

- Can be used as green manure

- Good rooting system (act against

soil erosion) during short period of

time

- Provides many opportunities for

animal and human nutrition

- Regarding the production zone,

irrigation may be needed

Alfalfa - Nitrogen fixing

- Can be used as green manure

- Good rooting system

- Crop adapted to most of the soil

and climate of the Rhône-Alpes

region

- Provides many opportunities in

animal and human nutrition

- Can be used as food and protein

intake for farm animals: self-

sufficiency

- Perennial Crop (mobilizes the

ground during 3-4 years)

- May require a dehydration

processing unit

Linseed - Crop adapted to most of the soil

and climate of the Rhône-Alpes

region

- Good rooting system


animal (e.g. oil cake) and human

nutrition

- Nutritional value in Omega 3

(human and animal food)

- Requires a primary processing unit

- Difficulties to sell the straw

without the presence nearby of a

processing unit

Peas - Nitrogen fixing plant

- Good yield potential

- Crop adapted to most of the soil and


animal nutrition

- Culture perceived as sufficiently

competitive compared to other

crops (e.g. soya)

40

climate of the Rhône-Alpes region

-

Hemp - Good weed control (prevents the

development of weeds as the falling

leaves covers the soil)

- Low irrigation needed

- - No market opportunities at medium

and large scale in the region

- Niche market (producers - local

artisans)

- Not enough demand to use hemp as

a raw material in eco-building

- No primary processing unit in the

region

- Significant investment in sorting,

harvesting and processing

equipment

- Transportation cost to bring the

tools on farms is too high if nothing

is accessible in the region

- Specific machinery equipment not

available in the region

Miscanthus - Few irrigation needed

- High production of Biomass

- Perennial Culture (minimum 15-20

years) → mobilizes the ground

- Niche market

- No primary processing unit in the

region

- Specific machinery equipment

Malt Barley - Less demanding that the amount of

nitrogen needed for wheat

production

- Good weed control

- - Niche market in region

Sorghum - Nutritional composition

comparable to wheat

- - Main market opportunities in France

in animal feed (fodder)

- No interesting added value in

human food

Faba bean - Nitrogen fixing plant - - Requires a specific mechanization

for sowing and harvesting (the plant

has large seeds diameter)

- Market opportunities exclusively in

fodder (animal nutrition)

- Low nutrition value

41

Lupin - Gluten free

- High protein content

- - High irrigation needs

High weed competition

- Market opportunities exclusively

in fodder (beef production)

Flax for

fibber

- - Ability to use the same processing

units for Flax for fibber and hemp

- Market opportunities almost

exclusively in the Northwest of

France (Brittany and Normandy)

- Needs a primary processing unit,

mainly accessible in the northwest

of France

-

Sunflower - Good rooting system - High risk of ambrosia -

Lentil - High amount of iron - - Insufficiently competitive on the

market compared to other raw

materials like soybeans or lentils

that are grow under a regional

trademark label such as “Lentilles

verte du Puy en Velay”

Buckwheat - Gluten free

- High protein and vitamin content

- Many product added value (flour,

green fertilizers, herbicides,

pharmaceutical)

Can present heavy metal elements - Mainly produced in the French

region Centre and Brittany

- Need a primary processing unit to

remove the outer layer of the seeds

- Variable yield rate

-

42

5.4.2 Possible line of approach for project development in the Rhône-Alpes territory

Individual exchanges with Natura’ pro and the federation of cooperative Interrapro (that

regroup and represent 6 regional cooperatives) were undertaken to allow a better

understanding of their view on the potential of quinoa, linseed, soybean and alfalfa on the

territory.

Soybean

Natura’ pro and Interapro showed a large interest in the development of soybean crops since

the beginning of the year 2015. A financial bonus from the CAP is given to the farmers that

include and produce legumes in their rotation system. This financial help can be one of the

factors that can encourage farmers to diversify their system. The development of a supply

chain for soybean production by the cooperative Dauphinoise (which represent the biggest

cooperative in the region) has inspire them in developing their own chain. If the

Dauphinoise’s project is a success it signify that soybean varieties are adapted to the soil and

climatic conditions and targeted market have been found on the territory. This information

can help encourage farmers from other cooperative to diversify their rotation system with this

crop. This information needs to be verified with further research. Both cooperatives

formulated a demand regarding the possibilities of having more information on the production

areas that could be suitable for the crop and the types of market that are present in the

territory.

Alfalfa

The cooperatives seemed also interested in developing alfalfa production but for now the only

members of their cooperatives that are producing this crop are implementing it for their own

farm consumption. One of the limiting impacts of expanding alfalfa production is the

requirement of a processing unit, which is not present in the region. Alternative solutions

need to be designed to overcome this lack of equipment or avoid important financial

expenses. Similar solutions to the one implemented by the cooperative Dauphinoise could be

used by the cooperatives. Instead of dehydrating the alfalfa, dehumidification is applied to the

harvested crop, which seems to be a less expensive way to process alfalfa. Research for

different market opportunities also need to be done in the region to help encourage the

development of alfalfa in their members rotation systems.

43

Quinoa

Both of the two cooperatives have estimated that quinoa might have an interesting

development potential in the region in the coming years. There are already several French

industries that process quinoa seeds in the region and sell the product in organic shops.

However, it may seem that their entire seed supply comes from outside France and important

control and food safety tests are required to assess the quality of the product before it can be

processed and sold. Therefore, one of the solutions would be to introduce the quinoa

production in the region, which would bring added value to the final product and facilitate

the quality testing. On the medium and long term, many environmental, economic and

technical impacts could be favourably modified in the supply chain and beneficial for all the

chain stakeholders. Two geographical zones, the Ardèche and la Haute-Loire may be

interesting areas to produce quinoa. The soil, the climatic conditions and the topography may

correspond to the agronomic characteristic for the crop to be produced. Further investigations

need to be carried out to confirm this assumption and identify if these zones are priority water

catchment areas. Moreover, the cooperatives pointed out their lack of information regarding

the production of quinoa, the type of varieties that would suit best the targeted zone, etc. They

would like to be informed more on the subject to advice their field technician about the

modalities of production and the agronomic characteristics of the crop. This information can

help the cooperative to create awareness among their members by informing them with

concrete and precise information. In parallel, communication with the local industrials can be

establish to see if there might be a common opportunity for them and the cooperatives to

work in collaboration on the development of quinoa seeds in the region.

Linseed

Finally, the production of linseed could have a development potential on the territory but only

at small scale for now. Very few farmers are aware of the added value this crops may have

and the environmental benefits it can bring to the rotation system. To increase the production

potential development at medium and large scale, awareness among cooperatives and their

members need to be created as well as finding appropriate markets. The technical advisor

and field technician of cooperatives may play an important role in raising awareness among

all the members. Another way of diffusing the information can be by internal monthly

journal, which is sent to all the members of the cooperative.

44

Mutual assistance between cooperatives

The cooperative Natura pro mentioned facing the problem of finding storage space for the

new crop because their storage capacity has attained its maximum limit. Therefore, it might

be problematic for the cooperative if they want to encourage diversification in farmers

rotation system. This is a limiting factor for production expansion and for the moment they do

not have the finances to build a new storage unit. One of the solutions would be to create a

partnership between Natura pro and a bigger cooperative that is also interested in the

production of this crop and that would have the storage capacity to collect both of the

cooperatives production. This union may help volunteer members from the cooperative

Natura pro to change their practices and produce a new crop. Mutual assistance can also

reinforce communication and technical support among different economical actors of the

region. It can offer the possibility to smaller cooperatives to benefit from the influence of

bigger cooperatives, which can initiate and encourage practice change at higher scale.

5.4.3 Example projects emerging in the coming years

Two projects lead by the cooperative Dauphinoise and Eurea are being established in the

Rhône-Alpes region. Individual interviews with both cooperatives were carried out. The

conceptual model developed for the implementation of alfalfa and soybean production can be

used as inspiration for other regional cooperatives.

Alfalfa production

The project conducted by the cooperative Dauphinoise aims to create long term agreements

between cereal producers and livestock farmers. This contract insures the cereal producer that

his alfalfa production will be entirely taken into charge from the harvest, stocking, processing

step and the sale of the product by the cooperative. It also insures to livestock farmers that the

tractability and quality of the product matches the standardized norms and the farmer’s

quality requirements for a decent price. Since 2013 experimental trials were set up to select

the alfalfa species that best suits the soil and climatic conditions and offers good quality

product, and thus the development potential. In parallel a study conducted by an external

entrepreneur was undertaken to attest the development potential of this crop, its economical

benefits and the presence of targeted markets in the region.

45

The implementation of this project was linked to the willingness of the cooperative to help

local cattle breeders that are not self-sufficient in fodder resources and looked for local

quality feed at an affordable price. To meet the breeders feed requirements, a significant

portion of alfalfa was purchased externally. The development project carried out by the

cooperative Dauphinoise would allow to relocate the alfalfa production to the region and

offer the possibility to cereal producers to diversify their rotation systems. Experimental trials

in processing alfalfa by dehumidification will be carried out in 2015-2016 to insure the

quality of the product and the economical aspect to proceed this way instead of dehydrating

the product. Therefore, to secure the quality of the product, the price stability and at the same

time distribute the production risks among the stakeholders in the chain, a long-term contract

was signed between the farmers and the cooperative.

The secondary goal of this project is to target fields for the production of the alfalfa in

additions to the ones used for the experimental trials that are located on priority water

catchment areas. The cooperative is already implicated in actions in favour of the water

quality preservation on priority water catchment on the territory. Therefore, to facilitate

contact and identification of farmer located in those zones they will use their network. Their

next steps will be to set in place an action plan, which will consist in identify production

areas and locate surfaces where the crop may be produced based on risk of water pollution

and agronomic criteria, identify additional volunteers farmers than the one that participated to

the experimental trials to increase the production rate, determining the needs of farmers,

creating production protocols to help farmers that have never produced alfalfa before, monitor

the production, harvest quality forage, test the interest of dehumidification techniques and

promote and communicate the annual results in a scientific paper. In parallel, search for

financial support by public authorities has been engaged.

Soybean production

The cooperative Eurea decided to develop a project with the aim of relocate their soybean

production in the Rhône-Alpes region since their entire production is imported from outside

France. Eurea would like to produce their own primary material in order to have a better

return on investment regarding their production chain and in the same time create added value

to their final product. By producing their own seeds, they may assure a better quality and

tractability control since they desire to process only non-genetically modified crops. The

46

cooperative has already put into place in the region a sustainable supply chain with identified

market channels and consumers ready to buy their product. Therefore, their next step is to

determine the development potential of soybean crop in the region.

Since 2015, experimental trials are undertaken to confirm the hypothesis that the crop is

adapted to the soil and climatic conditions and to select the most adapted variety. A study was

conducted to estimate the cooperatives needs regarding the amount of seed that would have to

be produced in the region to fulfil the industrial unit’s actual requirements. Approximately 1

000 Ha would be necessary to produce the 3 600 tonnes of soybean seeds needed for the

Eurea industry to continue processing the same amount of seeds. If the experimental trials

were successful, the next steps would be to find financial support for their project and

conceive a campaign to create awareness among their members regarding the environmental

and economical benefits this crop diversification can bring to their farming system. To

consolidate the farmer’s commitment and divide the risk management, an agreement

between the farmers and cooperatives should be set into place.

Commonalities between the two examples

Many similarities can be found in the structuration of the action plan seeking for the

implementation of sustainable systems. Both projects required the establishment of

experimental trials to estimate the adaptability and production potential of the crop though

the climatic and soil conditions in the region and the resistance to pest and diseases. If the

experimental results are satisfying, finding volunteer farmers that are willing to initiate

practice change in their system by diversifying their rotation system with the introduction of a

new crop is essential. Creating awareness regarding the environmental and economic

benefits of the crop is necessary to initiate and involve farmers to the project. Technical and

financial support can be implemented by the cooperative towards their members.

Multi-year contracts can be created between the farmers and cooperatives to insure a stable

income for farmers, quantity and quality product for the cooperative, divide production risk

among the different stakeholders and insure sustainability of agricultural practice change.

Financial support can be identified and requests can be made for their acquisition to help

the cooperative in financing the equipment, the field technician and creating a backup solution

regarding production risk management during the setting up of the project.

47

6 Discussion

To initiate change in regional farmers rotation system, a prospective analysis was conducted

supported by three research questions in order to answer the objectives designed for this

study. Firstly, identify alternatives crops regarding a precise definition. Secondly, highlight

key elements to take into consideration for implementing a sustainable supply chain. Finally,

sound out regional cooperatives regarding the feasibility and development potential of

alternative crops in the Rhône-Alpes territory.

6.1 Diversifying rotation system with alternative crops

Defining alternative crops

In the literature reviews, there is no specific definition of crops that are exactly associated

with the preservation of the water quality in water catchment areas and that are consistent

with the maintain of practice change. Therefore, defining alternative crops was the first

essential step in this study. At field level, alternative crops were defined as crops that require

fewer external inputs compared to commonly used crops. Lower needs can be explained by

agronomic characteristics of the crops such as deep rooting system, nitrogen fixing, pest

and disease resistance and weed control. Even though the selected crops presented at least 3

out of 6 criteria, they offer more advantages than commonly produced crops to enhance

preservation of biodiversity as well as protection of water resources. At rotation scale,

alternative crops can play a role in lowering the input needs of the entire rotation by

enhancing soil fertility and limiting the dispersal of pests, pathogens and weeds. This

definition tries to take into consideration the agronomic and environmental benefits new crops

can bring to the field and to the other crops margin in the rotation. Nonetheless, each

alternative crop presents production specificities and constraints that need to be taken into

consideration when targeted production zones will be identified on the Rhône-Alpes territory.

Experimental trials will have to be conducted to confirm the production potential and

development of the crops in the chosen zone.

A study conducted by Paladian (2013) on the development potential of supply chain for low

input crops to meet the water resource protection issue, highlighted the importance of

considering the quantities of pesticides and fertilizer used regarding the different farmers

48

profile and farming system. For example, conventional system, integrated farming system

or organic system do not have the same external needs since their crop rotations are not

designed in the same way. For this current study, in retrospect of each project that will be

implemented on the territory, monitoring for checking of environmental performance will

have to be conducted. This evaluation will have to be assessed for each farmer that has a non-

common rotation system since the TFI varies according to the crops in the rotation system,

the soil type, the climate and the number of hectares produced.

Listing alternative crops

In total fifteen crops were listed as matching the criteria for alternative crops during this

study. Low input crops, nitrogen fixing crops and quinoa were identified as answering the

alternative crops selection criteria. This list is non exhaustive and can be modified according

to the future results obtained by a technical economic analysis that will be conducted for the

continuity of this study. The potential of the crop to reduce the environmental impact in

farmers rotation system will have to be analysed and will help confirming the reduction of

external input needs in their rotation system.

Among the listed crops, two crops present major specificities, miscanthus and quinoa.

Farmers that are wiling to diversify their rotation system with miscanthus will have to take

into consideration the increase of rotation length compared to the other listed crops.

Miscanthus is a perennial crops, it can be produced for a minimum of 15 consecutive years

(Besnard et al. 2009). This crop may presents technical difficulties for farmers to included the

crop in their rotation system pattern since it occupies the soil for at least 15 years. The

advantage of producing miscanthus is for its capacity of producing biomass and since the crop

is harvested once a year, less soil disturbance and erosion are noticeable than for conventional

arable crop (Defra 2007). Nonetheless, no specific literature research shows the beneficial

impact of the crop on water preservation even thought it is considered as a low input crop.

Quinoa does not present specific low input characteristic but offers several environmental

advantages identified for alternative crops, such as interrupting the life cycle of pests, diseases

and weed, which can reduce the needs in pesticides; reduce nitrogen leaching by covering the

soil. Therefore, producing quinoa can still have an impact on water quality preservation even

thought the impact might be less significant than for low input crops.

49

With the same intention of preserving natural resources from the impact of agricultural

practices a European project is being conducted. The project Inspia (European index for

sustainable productive agriculture) promotes sustainable practices that protect biodiversity,

soil and water and contribute towards maintaining ecosystems services. They want to design

the best management practices in agricultures to favour the preservation of natural resources.

They encourage the development of diversified crop patterns within rotation systems by

introducing alternative crops. These crops can offer several advantages such as interrupting

the conditions created by an ecosystem, which can have an impact on limiting pest, diseases

and weed proliferation, reduce external input needs, improve the structure and soil fertility

and reduce nitrogen leaching. They have observed that it can also optimise the crop margin

for farmers in a context of increasing input prices (Inspia 2015). Therefore, the development

of alternative crops in farmer’s rotation in the Rhône-Alpes territory may offer the possibility

to preserve the soil and water resources.

6.2 Key elements for value chain development

Before being able to evaluate the economical potential of the listed alternative crops in the

Rhône-Alpes region, an overview of similar projects implemented on the French territory

allowed to give an idea of the environmental, social and economical advantages and

limits alternative crop diversification might offer. Interviews were conducted to gather

information with the intention of having a better understanding of the project leaders

motivation when they decided to help farmers diversify their system and identify the key

elements for implementing a new supply chain for alternative crops. These elements were

essential to identify farmer’s needs and market opportunities in France for such products.

Several identical elements may be found for the Rhône-Alpes region and adapted solutions

will have to be provided to answer regional actors need from upstream to downstream level in

order to create new supply chains. Alternative crop production will also need to be adapted to

the willingness of farmers to change their practices, current market demand and soil and

climatic conditions of the region. The research did not cover all possible experiences

conducted on the French territory. No minimum or maximum project number was defined for

each listed crops. In general, commonalities have been found for the 15 case examples

regarding the motivation of the actors involved in the identified projects and the keys

elements that leaded to the implementation of a supply chain.

50

How to secure the supply chain?

Changing the production/farming system to produce new crops while at the same time

satisfying consumer’s quality and price requests, it can generate risk management for the

stakeholders of the supply chain. Therefore different solutions were identified during this

research in order to secure the sustainability of the supply chain, insure financial revenue and

maintain new crop production and practice change. Such as ameliorating upstream and

downstream actors communication and information flow; insure financial flow and profit

by implementing contacts between the chain actors; optimise geographical localisation of

stakeholders of the chain; create added value for product differentiation and favour market

opportunities.

6.2.1 Stakeholders involved in the creation of supply chain for alternative crops

For most of the project experiences identified during the study, the starting point was related

to market opportunities, increasing willingness of farmers to diversify their rotation system

and meeting the needs of regional farmers (e.g. fodder for livestock producers). Only very

few projects had as one of their main goals the preservation of the water quality on their

territory. When it was the case this initiative was drawn by political decisions from

community of commune or by farmers but never from downstream economical actors. The

Agreement signed between Coop de France RAA and the Water Agency RMC might change

this observation. Agricultural cooperatives due to their link to the territory, their bond to

farmers, their important role in terms of advice and assistance to farmers, their involvement

in the economic development of territorial agricultural production, can be considered as

important stakeholders to initiate and sustain actions for the maintenance of the water quality

on the territory (Paladian 2013).

For the majority of the cases that were studied, stakeholders involved in the implementation

of the supply chain are farmers and economical actors (mainly cooperatives). Lack of

information flows was pointed out between upstream and downstream stakeholders when no

industrial or cooperatives were linked to the projects. The market opportunities and crop

production does not always match if no industrial are interested by the product. All the actors

of the chain do not always embrace practice change. Each stakeholder has its own goals,

which are not always compatible with the ones of other actors of the chain. However,

51

common goal and agreements can be reach if communication between the stakeholders has

been installed and if they are ready to move beyond their fixed positions by enable the

possibility to innovate and design a strategy that will help creating a commonly desire

future. Implicating personally the different actors to a common mission can help in

coordinating and implementing the action of change towards the upstream and downstream

level of the supply chain. The aim is to find balance between individual and collective

interests by combining individual strengths to create chain strength in order to overcome

individual weaknesse.

A minority of projects work in partnership with research institutes. It has been pointed out

during the research and in scientific reviews (Meynard et al. 2014; Charrier et al. 2013;

Paladian 2013) that few experimentation and analysis are conducted on less commonly

produced crops. For farmers, the low availability of certified seeds and the reduced range of

varieties are one of the major constraints regarding the production of the majority of

diversification crops. However, the development of new markets can encourage research

on certain diversification species and results in the construction of networks and structures

bringing together institutional and private actors (Meynard et al. 2014).

- Coordination between upstream and downstream stakeholders

Efficient marketing of agricultural products requires working relationships between

upstream-downstream stakeholders of the supply chain. Quality and quantity standards

need to be coordinated between the producers and the buyers to insure selling the final

product. Commitment and coordination from all the actors is required to reach a sustainable

production chain and help the emergence of innovation processes. It will have a direct impact

on the organisation of the supply chain as well as the logistical and marketing function and

the distribution of value among the stakeholders (Van Dam and Van Trijp 2011). It also

implies linking local producers to global market and returning information and money

from global markets back into the channels flow.

- Technical support

Finally, technical support to farmers who initiates the production of a new culture can be

done by building networks of experimentation and consultancy but also by sharing

innovative experiences within the group of farmers. This seems to be essential elements to

52

ensure the maintenance of these crops on farms and areas where they have been introduced. It

also can help initiate farmers to new agricultural techniques.

6.2.2 Financial dimension

- Collective investment to initiate change

Some alternative crops may need adapted production and processing equipment for the crop

to be produced and sold on the market. Therefore, upstream and downstream stakeholders

may need to invest in material and change their infrastructure to match the quality and

quantity standards imposed on the final product by industrials or consumers. Most of the time,

the acquisition of a processing unit if needed to obtain the final product. For the processing

unit to be economically feasible all year long since the alternative crop is only produced

during a certain period of the year, a complementary crop that also require the need of a

processing step to be produced can be used. The production period of this crop need to

coincide with the time where the alternative crop is grown and cannot be harvested. For

example, the cooperative Sun Deshy optimised its alfalfa dehydrating processing unit by

alternating alfalfa and beetroots pulp processing during the year. These two crops have

different cultivation times and can be processed one after the other. The quantity of both crop

productions needs to be sufficient so the processing unit does not function to an economical

loss and to minimize the production coast.

- Quality product and price of interest

In the absence of quality differentiation recognized by markets and consumers, alternative

crops will be purchased based on their relative price compared to competing commonly

produced species. The product-selling price can be influenced by product added value, market

fluctuation and its quality. Most of the time, industrials and consumers require high quality

standards. Therefore, farmers and processors (e.g. cooperative) need to combine their

management strategies to sell final product that matches the expectations (Meynard et al.

2014). Sometimes, lack of knowledge regarding certain raw materials also influences the

choice of industrial supply.

53

- Financial subsidies

Little public financial help is provided to farmers that are willing to change their production

system towards a more environmentally friendly system that takes into consideration the

preservation of natural resources. CAP subsidies can help encouraging farmers to change their

practices but it is not sufficient to cover all risk management and equipment investment. To

help farmers during the transition period, the Water Agency RMC offers financial support.

This economical help is only however destined to farmers and not for the other actors of the

chain. It is also only accessible to farmers that are located in water catchment areas, which

might limit the number of farmers involved. For now, no other alternative solutions have been

identified.

- Economic interest of farmers at annual year scale

The evaluation of the economic interest of crops diversification is most of the time compared

to the data for wheat production on an annual basis, which shows nuanced results. The multi-

year scale is quantified less frequently but shows the economic benefit of introducing a crop

diversification in a rotation system, or on the following crop rotation by taking into account

the previous effects of the crop.

6.2.3 Added value creation

- Creation of added value for product differentiation

Creating added value to the product can act as a competitive advantage by delivering

superior value such as high quality and low price product. For example, nutritional

characteristics of the crops, low production cost and being locally produced can be

assimilated as an added value to the final product. Label creation and quality production

standards (e.g. terroir product) can also be linked to product added value. Quality control and

good product tractability can help creating added value to the final product. The creation of

value requires coordination of activities and cooperation among the actors to increase the

outcome. Competitiveness at all stages of the chain can be an important economic advantage.

The distribution of economic and financial constraints allows better preservation of farmers

margin. The distribution of added value can be similar to the distribution of cost, which can

be in some cases unequally spread across actors. Product differentiation can play an important

role against high market competition. Especially when the market is dominated by commonly

54

produced species. Nonetheless, sometimes the production of alternative crops may face the

lack of lucrative markets and the production stays at niche level or direct selling.

- Multiannual contracts

Medium and long-term agreements can be signed between farmers and downstream

economical actors such as cooperatives. This contract can insure that the farmers are

producing the crop at a certain quantity and quality standards and that the cooperative takes

care of harvesting, stocking and selling of the entire production. Combine risk management

among the different stakeholders of the supply chain can be implemented and comfort their

undertaken change initiative.

Another type of contract could be created between the farmers and the cooperative, which

would act as an economical insurance policy against climatic, environmental pressure

and change that could damage the crop production and its yield. For example, the

cooperative Axéréal bio works in collaboration with a insurance organisation that insure

farmers entire production against climatic conditions change that might impact the crops. The

financial compensation is calculated based on the percentage of contribution the value of the

culture can generate per hectare. A secondary financial additional help can be created for

farmers that just started producing the crop, if the crop is damaged by other external factor

than climate change. For example, if the competition between the weeds and the crop is too

strong and the crop cannot be harvest, the farmer will be compensated at least what he has

invested. Financial safety net may reassure farmers who want to engage them self in the

project. Financial help from public authorities or institutions can help actors of the supply

chain to change and maintain on the long term new agricultural practices and sustainable

supply chain.

- Optimise geographical localisation

To start a sustainable supply chains, the production sites need to be preferably located in the

surrounding of the processing sites. Plot dispersal can allow minimising the production

cost in transportation and help optimising the crop collect system itinerary. Local conditions

include taking into consideration soil and climatic conditions; socioeconomic dimensions in

terms of proximity and market opportunities regarding the different productions. For efficient

action on the territory, coordination among stakeholders in watershed, territorial changes in

55

cropping systems and biophysical processes of incorporation of water resource should be

taken into account (Benoit 2008).

Comparison to other findings in the literature

A study carried out by Baudrier and al (2015), on the identification of limits and opportunities

regarding the implementation of supply chain for low input crops located on water catchment

areas, established a similar methodology by interviewing several stakeholders to enhance their

literature review. It also allowed them to have a better understanding of the key points for the

implementation of a supply chain. The most recurrent criteria that were identified during their

study were: economic criteria (the search for financial support), scale criteria (territorial

actions regarding the location of the farmers farming system and water catchment areas)

related to the sets of actors (communication issues) or markets demand (localisation of

processing units) and finally, the diffusion of scientific knowledge. These results are similar

to the one’s obtained during this current study and no specific differences are noticeable.

To confirm these elements as key factors towards the implementation of supply chain for

alternative crops, similar results were also observed for the recent study conducted by

Meynard et al. (2014) at the National Institute of Agricultural Research (INRA). The research

was focused on diversification crops and the agronomic and economic keys of success and

failure they involve for each actor of the supply chain. Despite the similarities found for both

research, it has been noticed that some elements have not been approached during this current

study. More precise research has to be conducted on the importance of promoting

experimental trials on diversification crops by research institutes to increase the chances of

enhancing more scientific knowledge and in developing new markets adapted to the new

products. They also underline the fact that farmers know insufficiently about diversification

of crops and the information is not well spread to regional action regarding the beneficial

impact theses crops can offer. They also mention the importance of encouraging a standard

socio-technical system to evolve to better integrating supply chains for diversification. This

can be done by supporting the development of innovative niches; enhancing official

quality labels measures; increasing crop diversification through the settlement of the CAP

and encouraging the reduction of inputs.

Some stakeholders may have more difficulties to change practices by facing more constraints

than others. For examples, farmers faces uncertainty about the future due to the high

56

variability of the regulatory context, climate and cereal prices encourages short-term

strategies that do not favour the introduction of alternative crops. Therefore, the agronomic

and economic advantages to produce alternative crops on the medium and long term need to

be highlighted and awareness need to be created among the regional farmers and economical

institutions. Technical and advisory support has to be offered to farmers to consolidate their

technical and agronomic background regarding these new crops. Cooperatives and other

middleman may have infrastructure or logistic issues, which can fluctuate according to the

size of the production and the targeted markets (local, regional, national scale). However, the

development of innovation and creation of added value to alternative crop product can

facilitate the creation of new market opportunities. Therefore, increase the number of

producers that will have an impact on the produced quantity. The product quality and

tractability will be an essential element to consider among all the actors of the chain and can

be facilitated with good coordination and information flow.

6.3 Development potential of alternative crops in the Rhône-Alpes region

Presenting a divers list of alternative crops to cooperatives and their members can arouse their

interest and increase chances that one or several of these crops may met their needs or desire

in diversifying their system. Only a small number of regional cooperatives were interviewed

and helped identifying the crops that might have the best potential of being soon

development. In order to have a more accurate result, a larger number of cooperatives from

different agricultural sectors should be interviewed. The degree of precision regarding the

potential development in the region of the 15 low input crops identified stayed at a qualitative

level due to the limit of time imposed by the research period and the lack of interest in

producing certain crop by regional cooperatives.

Nonetheless, during this study some alternative crops showed a development potential in the

coming years form regional cooperatives point of view. Nitrogen fixing plant, especially

alfalfa and soybean present an increasing production demand. Two projects leaded by the

cooperative Dauphinoise on the development of supply chain for these two crops have created

interest regarding other cooperatives. The Dauphinoise is the most influential and biggest

cooperative of the region. If theses two projects are a success, it might reassure other regional

stakeholders regarding the economical potential of the crops and encourage their members to

57

diversify their rotation systems. It may also create new market opportunities in the region if

quantity and quality standards are reached. If these two crops are produced by the

Dauphinoise members, it also signify that adapted crop varieties were selected regarding the

soil and climatic conditions in their production zones. If other production zone in the region

presents the same topographic characteristics, it may increase the chances that the crops can

also be produced in those areas. Peas and lentil were also at first identified as interesting

diversification crops, but high market competition with soybean or other similar certified crop

produced in the region does not for the moment allow economical benefits for their

production.

Another market opportunity in the region linked to increasing consumers demand is related to

gluten free product. Production units for quinoa are already present on the territory, which

could facilitate implementing quinoa production in the region since market opportunities are

already identified. However, the agronomic characteristic of the plant have only been tested in

the North West of France were the soil and climatic conditions are different to the Rhône-

Alpes region. Experimental trials should be undertaken to identify the most appropriate

production zone in the region. Niche markets have been pointed out for miscanthus, malt

barley and linseed crops. These three crops present interesting agronomic and environmental

added value. The identification of targeted market and the development of agronomic

knowledge regarding crops production may help in developing their production number and

economical interest.

To attest with certainty the alternative crop production and value creation potential, an

economical and technical evaluation of their development possibilities should be carried out

in the coming year. This analysis should be conducted case by case for each project

experience that will be started and initiated by cooperatives. Precise agronomic crop potential

should be identified as well as targeted market opportunities, essential elements for

implementing a supply chain.

6.3.1 Delimitation scale of the action plan

For this study, the Water Agency RMC wanted to focus the implementation of action on

priority water catchment areas, since this scale has become a central position to the actions in

favour of the protection of water resources. Nonetheless, it may also present some obstacles

for cooperatives to encourage practice change among their members and the implementation

58

of a supply chain on the territory. First of all, the priority water catchment scale is not often

very relevant as it differs from farmers scale. Some farmers may only have a small percentage

of their field located on water catchment areas, which does not place water preservation issues

as one of their actual priority management. Similar results have been identified by Petit

(2013) in her research regarding the conversion of conventional farming system to organic

production systems on water catchment areas in the Ile-de-France region. The commitment of

farmers to change their practices did not necessarily depend on arguments regarding water

issues but on the size of the farming system and the technical and agronomic constraints

of the farmers.

Secondly, the partial localisation of a farmer production system on water catchment areas

might be problematic regarding his ability to access to Water Agency funding’s if he decides

to join the project and change his practices by diversifying his rotation system with alternative

crops. For now, the financial help brought by the Water Agency RMC is only available for

farmers that are located on priority water catchment areas. Cooperatives members that

volunteer to diversify their rotation systems but that are not located in the targeted zone will

not have access to the financial help. Therefore, new solutions to financially help the

farmers willing to take the risk of changing their system need to be found. Negotiations may

also be engaged with the Water Agency to redefine the terms regarding the access to their

financial support.

Even if cooperatives create awareness among their members by targeting farmers located in

water catchment zones, there is no guaranty that the farmers will be willing to change

their practice. A study conducted by Durpoix and Barataud 2014, regarding the

territorialised analysis of farming plot involved in a catchment feeding area has pointed out

that 50% of the utilized agricultural area of the farmer production system need to be located

on water catchment areas for the farmer to be willing to change his agricultural practices. In

parallel, if only a small group of farmers are willing to be part of this project, the amount of

cultivated product will not be sufficient to create a sustainable supply chain at medium or

large scale. Most of the time, water catchment area zones are to small to contain the entire

stakeholders of the supply chain. The production zones are not always located near the

collecting and stocking facilities or the processing unit necessary to obtain the finial product.

Limiting the study zone to priority water catchment areas in the region, can restrain the

possibilities of action to a small sample of farmers. It might also pass over the chance to work

with farmers that have already the interest in diversifying their rotation system but that are not

59

located in these targeted zones. Therefore, for this study, working at the scale of cooperative

rather than water catchment areas was easier to help creating awareness among a divers

sample of regional cooperatives. It also helped identifying leads regarding the development of

alternative crops that could bring environmental and economical benefits to the region and

answering in the best ways the market demands.

6.3.2 Role of cooperatives

Agricultural cooperatives can contribute to the development of these new supply chains, both

from a technical point a view by providing support to the farmers with the help of field

technicians, and from the economic point of view by helping in creating added value to the

product and insure farmers income. Cooperative model can help in coordinating up-stream

communication with farmers. Their direct contact can favour information circulation and

instate a better connection between market/consumers demand and farmer’s production and

product quality standards. It can also help ensuring mutualisation of prices and services

provided to farmers with multi-annual contracts. At down-stream level, coops can also help

establishing better information and economical flow by having an intermediate position in the

supply chain. They are also capable to adapt to market fluctuation, globalized or not that are

often led by the buying power of influential retailers, by creating strategies alliances

between cooperatives or creating added value to their product (Chomel et al. 2013).

The size of the cooperative can be a determining element in creation of a new supply chain,

due to it financial and equipment ability. Big cooperatives have more facilities regarding

logistical management and workforce available than smaller cooperatives. Their action

perimeter covers wide areas in the region, which offers bigger chances to find voluntary

farmers located on water catchment areas. However, financial subsidies are more incline to be

obtained by smaller cooperatives whishing to develop action in favour of environmental

services (Coop de France, 2009). For every cooperative, the most important element is the

geographical localisation of members regarding the location of different units and services

provided to them (e.g. logistical infrastructures, processing unit, ect). This will allow lowering

harvesting, transportation and processing cost and attract sufficient number of members

willing to change their practices to create regional sustainable supply chain.

Creating awareness among the cooperative members may allow some of them to take the time

to re-evaluate their systems in terms of profitability and environmental concerns.

60

Cooperatives should encourage farmers to see the benefits that practice change and crop

diversification of their rotation system may bring as a medium and long-term perspectives. To

help cooperatives to create awareness among their members, different tools may be used.

Tools designed to help cooperative

The cooperatives that have been interviewed expressed the need to have at their disposal

appropriate tools to create awareness among their members regarding the advantages of

diversifying their rotation systems and preserving water resources. Different tools and

network have been put into place to help accompanying cooperatives in creating awareness

and analysing the potential development of low input crops on their territory. In this study,

leaflets were created and put to their disposal. Those leaflets examples can be used as

information support to help creating awareness among regional cooperatives and their

members regarding the possibility to integrate low input crops in farming system, which may

result in the creation of a new supply chain. These concrete examples might help

Cooperatives and farmers of the region to understand the economic and environmental

benefits in diversifying their rotation system with low input crops. The issues on each

territory may not always be the same, such as soil and climatic conditions, the presence of a

processing unit on the territory or specific market channel, consumers demand, etc. Therefore,

these examples are only to be used as support information and not as case examples that need

to be identically reproduced.

If some farmers are interested in joining the project, different tools could be used to assess the

potential development of low input crops on their farms. Individual farm diagnostics can be

done to have a better understanding of farmers needs in logistic infrastructure and machinery

equipment, as well as the technical supported needed to produce this new crop. Other

elements can be considered, such as identifying the standards for establishing the production

of these new crops or assess a risk management study and research sustainable markets by

using the help of an external research firm. Many options are possible, it is mainly linked to

financial capacity of the cooperatives and the public institutional investments to the

elaboration of the project.

61

6.4 Methodological strengths and weaknesses

The methodology applied for this study was based on the desire to implement during the six-

month research period a prospective analysis. The literature review, internet research and

interviews allowed having a general overview of the French situation regarding crop

diversification and its link to water preservation with a diversity of opinion. The research was

not an exhaustive vision but it is a representative vision of national and regional French

actors’ point of view. To have more precise eyesight regarding the devolvement potential and

market opportunities of alternative crops, a more numerous number of people should be

interviewed.

Presenting this project to regional cooperatives helped to reinforce the link of CDF RAA

with cooperatives by establishing a common desired goal. The methodological approach was

adapted to the formulated objectives and information collection desired by Coop de France

RAA.

The different soil and climatic specificities of the Rhône-Alpes region have not been un-depth

analysed as well as the economical and market opportunities. The research period did not

offer sufficient time to analyse these criteria, however this research will be continued and

interviews and literature research will be used to determine the development potential of

selected alternative crops on the territory.

6.5 Future perspectives

This study will be continued in order to fulfil objective 4, firstly by studying the economical

and technical potential development of supply chains for selected alternative crops at medium

and long term. Secondly, by applying this project to one or several targeted territories in

partnership with local actors. An economical and technical analysis will be carried out in

order to estimate economical, agronomical and social feasibility of the project, identify

volunteer farmers, local stakeholders that would be willing to participate in the

implementation of the project and targeted market opportunities in the region. If one or

several projects emerge in the coming years, an action plan will have to be put into place to

ensure the sustainability of the crop production and supply chain implementation. For

example, asses cooperative members farming practices; establish a reflection group at the

62

basin scale to understand the knowledge and changing practices that need to be done; identify

tools and techniques to enable cooperatives to provide tailored counselling to members;

estimate the need for equipment and the financial investment needed; accompany members on

deploying decision support tools and the launch of experimental sites, etc.

Research regarding the possibility to target preferentially priority water catchment areas to

produce alternative crops and diversify farmers rotation system will have to be carried out.

Creating awareness among farmers located in those areas and experimental trial will have to

be done to estimate the development potential of the crops. The insertions capacity of the

crops to be introduced in farmers rotation system will have to be analysed in order to make

the best use of these diversification crop.

In 2015, a study conducted by the Water Agency RMC is being started regarding the

possibilities to identify or create solutions to sustain agricultural practice change in the

coming years and decades. This study may highlight the impotency of implicating

downstream economical actor such as cooperatives in the implementation of production

chains to sustain and link upstream and downstream stakeholders towards a common goal.

Finally, in 2016 at Coop de France RAA an internship position will be created in the

continuity of this study to investigate: What types of agroecological techniques and systems

examples are present on the Rhône-Alpes Cooperatives? This study will allow having an

overview of the actual situation regarding actions implemented to preserve natural resources

in the region. It will also allow monitoring the progress of this study regarding the

introduction of alternative crop in farmers rotation system.

63

7 Conclusion

This research allowed giving a prospective overview of what is being done on the French

territory regarding the implementation of supply chains for alternative crops and its link to

water resource preservation. Still a lot of work needs to be done to encourage farmers to

diversify their rotation systems with crops that requires less external input than commonly

produced crops. The analysis conducted regarding experiences at National level highlighted

key element to encourage the adoption of alternative cropping systems. It seems interesting to

develop information system to create awareness among regional actors regarding

environmental and economical benefits these crops may offer to farmers rotation system.

Even though they may require new agricultural production techniques and adapted equipment.

Experience exchange, and technical assistance can help developing economical and

environmental interest in these crops. Coordinating upstream and downstream stakeholders

can facilitate information, financial and production flow and help to secure the needs and

objective of every actor of the chain. Creating contracts between actors of the chain allow

combining risk management, which can encourage sustaining practice change overtime.

Encouraging research development on alternative crops and highlight products added value

potential can help in developing new market opportunities. In the Rhône-Alpes region,

agriculture cooperatives can help in providing these services due to their intermediate position

in the supply chain and their territorial anchorage.

The next step in promoting the development potential of alternative crops in the Rhône-Alpes

territory especially for alfalfa, soybean, linseed and quinoa, is to conduct a technical and

economical analysis. In parallel, agricultural cooperatives and their members that are willing

to initiate this type of agronomic and economic change should be identified. An action plan

should be conducted in order to test plant agronomic adaptation capacities, logistic and

equipment should be verified for producing and processing the new crop and market

opportunities should be targeted to insure the technical and economical potential of each new

alternative crop.

64

8 Bibliography

Agence de l’eau Rhône-Méditerranée-Corse, 2012. Programme d’action 2013-2018, Sauvons

l’eau!. http://www.eaurmc.fr/espace-dinformation/brochures-dinformation/programme-

dintervention-et-sdage/sauvons-leau-programme-daction-2013-2018.html (retrieved July

2015).

Agence de l’eau Rhône-Méditerranée Corce, 2015. Le SDAGE du basin Rhône-Méditerranée.

http://www.eaurmc.fr/le-bassin-rhone-mediterranee/le-sdage-du-bassin-rhone-

mediterranee.html (retrieved July 2015).

Agrest, 2013. Enquête Pratiques culturales 2011. Les traitements phytosanitaires sur les

grandes cultures. Agreste Les Dossiers. Numéro 18

Aktar, W., Sengupta, D., Chowdhury, A., 2009. Impact of pesticides use in agriculture: their

benefits and hazards. Interdisciplinary Toxicology, 2(1), 1-12.

Aten, 2015. Mesures AgroEnvironnementales territorialisées (MAEt). http://www.espaces-

naturels.fr/Natura-2000/Mise-en-oeuvre-des-Docobs/Outils-contractuels/Mesures-

AgroEnvironnementales-territorialisees-MAEt (retrieved July 2015).

ATMO Drôme-Ardèche, COPARLY, SUP’AIR, 2010. Suivi des pesticides dans l’air

ambiant. http://www.air-

rhonealpes.fr/sites/ra/files/publications_import/files/rapport_mesures2007_2008.pdf

(retrieved July 2015).

Baudrier, M., Boussier, J., Tariel, C., 2015. Etude des freins et des leviers à l’implantation de

filières de cultures économes en intrants dans les aires d’alimentation de captage. Cas de la

luzerne et du chanvre. SAFEGE, AproParis Techn. p9.

Bennett, A.J., Bending, G.D., Chandler, D., Hilton, S., Mills P., 2012. Meeting the demand

for crop production: the challenge of yield decline in crops grown in short rotations.

Biological Reviews 87: 52–71.

Benoit, M., 2008. Maîtrise des phyto à l’échelle d’un territoire: mode d’emploi. Adour

Garonne 104, p23.

Besnard, A., Marsac, S., Défossez, E., Cadoux, S., 2009. Fiche culture, le miscanthus. RMT

Biomasse.

Brunet, N., Guichard, L., Omon, B., Pingault, N., Pleyber, É., 2008. L'indicateur de fréquence

de traitements (IFT): un indicateur pour une utilisation durable des pesticides. Le Courrier de

l'environnement de l'Inra, (56), 131-141.

65

Cambardella, C. A., Delate, K., Jaynes, D.B., 2015. Water quality in organic systems.

Sustainable Agriculture Research, 4(3), p60.

Céréales Vallée, 2015. Filières Millet, Sarrasin, Sorgho : Quelles caractéristiques pour quelles

innovations ?. Polytech Clermont-Ferrand.

Chambre de Commerce et d'Industrie de région Rhône-Alpes, 2015. http://www.rhone-

alpes.cci.fr/economie/panorama/4_8_a_agriculture.html (retrieved August 2015).

Charrier, F., Magrini, M. B., Charlier, A., Le Bail, M., Messéan, A., & Meynard, J. M., 2013.

Alimentation animale et organisation des filières: une comparaison pois protéagineux-lin

oléagineux pour comprendre les facteurs freinant ou favorisant les cultures de diversification.

OCL, 20(4), D407.

Chomel, C., Declerck, F., Filippi, M., Frey, O., Mauget, R., 2013. Les coopératives agricoles:

identité, gouvernance et stratégies.

Coop de France, 2009. Coopérative agricoles: les associés coopérateurs, un capital à cultivar.

Guide pratique, p25.

Defra, 2007. Planting and growing miscanthus, best practice guidelines for applicants to

Defra’s energy crops scheme. p17

Direction régionale de l’alimentation de l’agriculture et de la forêt d’Auvergne, 2015.

http://draaf.auvergne.agriculture.gouv.fr/AXE-3-recherche-conception-de,312 (retrieved July

2015).

DREAL Rhône Alpes, 2014b. Rapport d’Activité 2014. http://www.rhone-

alpes.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/201508-PUB-RapportActivite2014-Web-

VF_cle25fa93.pdf (retrieved July 2015).

DREAL Rhône-Alpes, 2015. Eau biodiversité et resources minerals. http://www.rhone-

alpes.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/protection-des-captages-prioritaires-r919.html

(retrieved July 2015).

Durpoix, A., Barataud, F., 2014. Intérêts de l'analyse territorialisée des parcellaires des

exploitations agricoles concernées par une aire d'alimentation de captage. Sciences eaux et

Territoires. 6 p.

Eau France, 2015. http://www.eaufrance.fr/comprendre/la-politique-publique-de-l-eau/la-

directive-cadre-sur-l-eau (retrieved July 2015).

66

Ecophto 2018, 2015. Réduire l’utilisation des phyto dans l’agriculture: moins, c’est mieux.

Indice de Fréquence des traitements (IFT) région Centre.

http://www.centre.chambagri.fr/fileadmin/documents/CRA_Centre/Environnement/Ecophyto/

Com_Ecophyto_aout_2012/Ecophyto_Centre_IFT_BD.pdf (retrieved February 2015).

Edwards, C. A., 2013. Environmental pollution by pesticides (Vol. 3). Springer Science &

Business Media.

Eur-Lex, 2013. Nitrates agricoles. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/FR/TXT/?uri=uriserv:l28013 (retrieved July 2015).

FEADER, 2015. Mesures agroenvironnementales territorialisées.

http://agriculture.gouv.fr/sites/minagri/files/documents//maet.pdf (retrieved July 2015).

Fiches techniques sur l'Union européenne, 2015. Second pilier de la pac: la Politique de

développement rural. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/ftu/pdf/fr/FTU_5.2.6.pdf (retrieved July

2015).

FNAB, ONEMA and AMF, 2015. Les zones de captages d’eau potable, Aires d’alimentation

de captages, Enjeu eau potable des collectivités et agriculture biologique: quelles synergies,

quelles opportunités possibles? http://www.devlocalbio.org/wp-

content/uploads/2014/07/fiche-eau-AAC-12p-BD.pdf (retrieved February 2015).

Groupe technique AB Franche Comté, 2012b. Les fiches techniques la luzerne en Franche-

Comté. http://www.franche-

comte.chambagri.fr/fileadmin/images_docs/images_docs_contenu/espacepro/Agriculture_biol

ogique/fiches_cultures/Fiche_Culture_-_Luzerne.pdf (retrieved February 2015).

Groupe technique AB Franche Comté, 2012a. Les fiches techniques, le soja en Franche-

Comté. http://www.franche-comte.chambagri.fr/uploads/media/Fiche_Culture_-_Soja.pdf

(retrieved February 2015).

Hérault B., 2012. La diversification des assolements en France : intérêts, freins et enjeux.

Ministère de l’Agriculture, de l’Agroalimentaire et de la Forêt

Inspia, 2015. http://www.inspia-europe.eu/ (retrieved Avril 2015).

Le Bissonnais, Y., Lecomte, V., Cerdan, O., 2004. Grass strip effects on runoff and soil loss.

Agronomie, 24(3), 129-136.

Les Agences de l’eau, 2015. http://www.lesagencesdeleau.fr/les-agences-de-leau/les-six-

agences-de-leau-francaises/ (retrieved July 2015).

67

Liebman, M., Schulte, L. A., 2015. Enhancing agroecosystem performance and resilience

through increased diversification of landscapes and cropping systems. Elementa: Science of

the Anthropocene, 3(1), 000041.

Lonsdale, C., 2001. Locked-in to supplier dominance: on the dangers of asset specificity for

the outsourcing decision. Journal of Supply Chain Management 37 (2), 22–27.

Magrini, M. B., Triboulet, P., 2012. Transition agroécologique, innovation et effets de

verrouillage: le rôle de la structure organisationnelle des filières. Cahiers Agricultures, 21(1),

34-45.

Maltais-Landry, G., Scow, K., Brennan, E., Vitousek, P., 2015. Long-term effects of compost

and cover crops on soil phosphorus in two California agroecosystems. Soil Science Society of

America Journal, 79(2), 688-697.

Meynard J.-M., Messéan A., Charlier, A., Charrier, F., Fares, M., Le Bail, M., Magrini, M.B.,

Savini, I., 2014. La diversification des cultures. Lever les obstacles agronomiques et

économiques. Expertise scientifique collective. Quae, 128 p.

Ministère de l’agriculture, de l’agroalimentaire et de la forêt, 2014. Consommation: manger

local partour en France. http://agriculture.gouv.fr/consommation-manger-local-partout-en-

france (retrieved March 2015).

Ministère de l’Écologie, du Développement durable et de l’Énergie, Ministère de

l’Agriculture, de l’Agroalimentaire et de la Forêt, 2013. Protection d’aire d’alimentation de

captage en eau potable contre les pollutions liées à l’utilisation de fertilisants et de pesticides.

http://www.developpementdurable.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/Guide_methodologique_Protectin_d_aire

_d_alimentation_de_captage_en_eau_potable-2.pdf (retrieved February 2015).

Nouvelle PAC, 2015. http://www.pac2015.fr/1er-pilier (retrieved June 2015).

Paladian, K., 2013. Le potential de développement de filières agricoles à bas niveau d’intrants

face à l’enjeu de protection de la resource en eau. AgroParis Tech, Agence de l’eau Seine

Normandie. p4.

Passion céréales en région Rhône-Alpes, 2015. La filière céréale, la production. http://rhone-

alpes.passioncereales.fr/filiere-cerealiere/la-production-16 (retrieved June 2015).

Pelzer, E., Bazot, M., Makowski, D., Corre-Hellou, G., Naudin, C., Al Rifaï, M., Baranger,

E., Bedoussac, L., Biarnès, V., Boucheny, P., Carrouée, B., Dorvillez, D., Foissy, D.,

Gaillard, B., Guichard, L., Mansard, M.C., Omon, B., Prieur, L., Yvergniaux, M., Justes, E.,

Jeuffroy, M. H., 2012. Pea–wheat intercrops in low-input conditions combine high economic

performances and low environmental impacts. European Journal of Agronomy, 40, 39-53.

68

Petit, C., 2013. Transitions des exploitations agricoles vers l'agriculture biologique dans un

territoire: approche par les interactions entre systèmes techniques et de commercialisation.

Application aux aires d'alimentation de captages en Île-de-France. Doctoral thesis,

AgroParisTech, 261 p.

Pointereau, P., Bochu, J.L., Doublet, S., 2012. Characterization and elements for a

definition and an analysis of low input farming system in EU-27. SOLAGRO.

Power, J.F., 1987. "Legumes : their potential role in agricultural production", Vol. 2, No. 2,

pp.69-73

Smith, S., & De Smet, I. (2012). Root system architecture: insights from Arabidopsis and

cereal crops. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences,

367(1595), 1441-1452.

Van Dam, Y. K., & Van Trijp, H.C., 2011. Cognitive and motivational structure of

sustainability. Journal of Economic Psychology, 32(5), 726-741.

Van der Perk, M., 2013. Soil and water contamination. CRC Press.

Vinita, B., Veena, S., 2015. Impact of pesticides use in agriculture. International Journal, 2,

(2).

Winter, T. C., Harvey, J. W., Franke, O. L., Alley, W. M., 1998. Ground water and surface

water: a single resource. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1139, U.S. Government Printing

Office, Denver, Colorado, USA.

9 Bibliography appendix

Alfalfa

CIVAM Bio 09, GABB 32, FRAB Midi-Pyrénées, 2010. Les fiches cultures bios: Des

agriculteurs bios partagent leur savoir-faire, Luzerne un atout pour les rotations bios en Midi-

Pyrénées.

Groupe technique AB Franche Comté, 2012b. Les fiches techniques la luzerne en Franche-



ogique/fiches_cultures/Fiche_Culture_-_Luzerne.pdf (retrieved March 2015).

Buckwheat

Céréales Vallée, 2015. Filières Millet, Sarrasin, Sorgho : Quelles caractéristiques pour quelles

innovations ?. Polytech Clermont-Ferrand

http://www.franche-comte.chambagri.fr/fileadmin/images_docs/images_docs_contenu/espacepro/Agriculture_biologique/fiches_cultures/Fiche_Culture_-_Luzerne.pdf



69

Réseau GAB/FRAB, 2015. Sarrasin, Fagopyrum esculentum, Polygonacée. Grandes cultures

Fiches N°6. http://www.agrobio-bretagne.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Sarrasin.pdf

(retrieved March 2015).

Faba bean

Groupe technique AB Franche Comté, 2012e. Les fiches techniques, la féverole d’hiver et de

printemps en Franche-Comté. http://www.franche-

comte.chambagri.fr/uploads/media/Fiche_Culture_-_F%C3%A9verole.pdf (retrieved March

2015).

Hemp

Chambre Agriculture Centre, 2014. Structurer collectivement une filière locale autour du

chanvre. http://www.loir-et-

cher.chambagri.fr/fileadmin/documents/semaine_innovation/2014/41-

Chanvriers_Blaisois_.pdf (retrieved March 2015).

Chambre d’Agriculture de l’Eure, 2013. Pôle d’Excellence Rurale Création d’une filière de

valorisation du chanvre.

http://www.normandie.chambagri.fr/detail.asp?card=511789&siteAppelant=cran&chambreOr

igine=cran#.VeLKN87UcoQ (retrieved March 2015).

Réseau GAB/FRAB, 2009. Grandes Cultures Fiche n° 8 Chanvre, Cannabis sativa L.,

Cannabaceae. Les fiches information du réseau GAB/FRAB.

Lentil

Agro bio Poitou-Charentes, 2015. Lentille bio fiche technique. Chambre d’agriculture Poitou

Charentes. http://www.penser-bio.fr/IMG/pdf/Fiche_tech_Lentilles.pdf (retrieved March

2015).

Frab Midi-Pyrénées, 2015. La lentille. Association pour la promotion de l’agriculture

biologique de l’Aveyron, Fédération régionale des agriculteurs biologiques.

http://www.aveyron-bio.fr/fr/produisez-bio/documents/MA5-Fiche-Itk-Lentille-Apaba-m.pdf


Linseed & Flax for fibber

Cetiom, 2014. Guide de culture lin de printemps oléagineux.

http://www.terresinovia.fr/publications/guides-de-culture/guide-lin-de-printemps-oleagineux-

2014/

Gaumé J-F., Coulombel A., 2009. Fiche culture Lin oléagineux. Alter Agri n° 97.

Lupin

Réseau GAB/FRAB, 2013. Lupin de printemps, Fabacées. Cultures et Agronomie Fiche n°12.

http://www.agrobio-bretagne.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/FicheGC12_lupin.pdf


http://www.agrobio-bretagne.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Sarrasin.pdf

http://www.franche-comte.chambagri.fr/uploads/media/Fiche_Culture_-_F%C3%A9verole.pdf

http://www.franche-comte.chambagri.fr/uploads/media/Fiche_Culture_-_F%C3%A9verole.pdf

http://www.loir-et-cher.chambagri.fr/fileadmin/documents/semaine_innovation/2014/41-Chanvriers_Blaisois_.pdf



http://www.normandie.chambagri.fr/detail.asp?card=511789&siteAppelant=cran&chambreOrigine=cran#.VeLKN87UcoQ

http://www.normandie.chambagri.fr/detail.asp?card=511789&siteAppelant=cran&chambreOrigine=cran#.VeLKN87UcoQ

http://www.penser-bio.fr/IMG/pdf/Fiche_tech_Lentilles.pdf

http://www.aveyron-bio.fr/fr/produisez-bio/documents/MA5-Fiche-Itk-Lentille-Apaba-m.pdf

http://www.terresinovia.fr/publications/guides-de-culture/guide-lin-de-printemps-oleagineux-2014/

http://www.terresinovia.fr/publications/guides-de-culture/guide-lin-de-printemps-oleagineux-2014/

http://www.agrobio-bretagne.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/FicheGC12_lupin.pdf

70

Malt Barley

Gnis, 2008. Cultivons la diversité des plantes cultivées, Orge.

http://www.semencemag.fr/images/fiches_bo/cultiver-orge-fabriquer-malt.pdf (retrieved

March 2015).

Groupe technique AB Franche Comté, 2012d. Les fiches techniques l’orge de printemps en

Franche-Compté. http://www.franche-comte.chambagri.fr/uploads/media/Fiche_Culture_-

_Orge_Printemps.pdf (retrieved March 2015).

Réseau GAB/FRAB, 2010. Grandes cultures fiche n°4 Orge Hordeum vulgare Poacée. Les

fiches techniques du réseau GAB/FRAB. http://www.agrobio-bretagne.org/wp-

content/uploads/2010/09/Orge.pdf (retrieved March 2015).

Miscanthus

Ditner M. et Delattre S., 2014. Du miscanthus pour préserver la ressource en eau à

Ammertzwiller. Syndicat Intercommunal Alimentation Eau Potable et Chambre d’Agriculture

Alsace.

RMT Biomasse Énergie Environnement et territoire, 2009. Fiche culture Miscanthus.

http://www.biomasse-territoire.info/monter-un-projet-biomasse/produire-et-mobiliser-la-

biomasse/biomasse-agricole.html (retrieved March 2015).

Peas

Chaillet I., Biarnès V., Fontaine L. et Chataignon M., 2014. Fiche technique Le pois

protéagineux en AB. Institut technique de l’agriculture biologique.

http://www.itab.asso.fr/downloads/Fiches-techniques_culture/fiche-pois.pdf (retrieved March

2015).

Chambre d’Agriculture Pays de la Loire, 2011. L’indice de fréquence de traitement. Ecophyto

2018. http://www.loire-

atlantique.chambagri.fr/fileadmin/documents_ca44/environnement/planecophyto2018/plaquet

te_IFT.pdf (retrieved March 2015).

Chatain C., Dumoulin F., Gery E., Loy Q et Tournier A., 2015. Itinéraire technique du pois

protéagineux de printemps en Picardie. Protection intégrée et techniques alternatives des

Chambre d’agriculture de Picardie.

Quinoa

Benlhabib, O., 2005. Les cultures alternatives, Quinoa, amarante et épeautre. Ministère de

l’Agriculture, du Développement Rural et des Pêches Maritimes.

Sorghum

Loison J., 2015. Le sorgho. IDP ingénierie, Innovation Développement, Polytech. Céréales

Vallée

RMT Biomasse Énergie Environnement et territoire, 2013. Fiche culture, Le sorgho.

http://www.biomasse-

http://www.semencemag.fr/images/fiches_bo/cultiver-orge-fabriquer-malt.pdf

http://www.franche-comte.chambagri.fr/uploads/media/Fiche_Culture_-_Orge_Printemps.pdf

http://www.franche-comte.chambagri.fr/uploads/media/Fiche_Culture_-_Orge_Printemps.pdf

http://www.agrobio-bretagne.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Orge.pdf

http://www.agrobio-bretagne.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Orge.pdf

http://www.biomasse-territoire.info/monter-un-projet-biomasse/produire-et-mobiliser-la-biomasse/biomasse-agricole.html

http://www.biomasse-territoire.info/monter-un-projet-biomasse/produire-et-mobiliser-la-biomasse/biomasse-agricole.html

http://www.itab.asso.fr/downloads/Fiches-techniques_culture/fiche-pois.pdf

http://www.biomasse-territoire.info/fileadmin/documents/publications/energie_biomasse/RMT_biomasse/511-Fiche_culture_sorgho.pdf

71

territoire.info/fileadmin/documents/publications/energie_biomasse/RMT_biomasse/511-

Fiche_culture_sorgho.pdf (retrieved March 2015).

Sunflower

Chambre d’Agriculture Pays de la Loire, 2011. L’indice de fréquence de traitement. Ecophyto

2018. http://www.loire-

atlantique.chambagri.fr/fileadmin/documents_ca44/environnement/planecophyto2018/plaquet

te_IFT.pdf (retrieved March 2015).

Groupe technique AB Franche Comté, 2012c. Les fiches techniques le tournesol en Franche-



ogique/fiches_cultures/Fiche_Culture_-_Tournesol.pdf (retrieved March 2015).

Soybean

CETIOM, Institut de l’Elevage, 2009. Le soja, une culture à développer en Savoie. Chambre

d’agriculture de la Savoie. http://rhone-

alpes.synagri.com/synagri/pj.nsf/TECHPJPARCLEF/06235/$File/fiche technique soja 4 p

mars-09.pdf (retrieved March 2015).

Groupe technique AB Franche Comté, 2012a. Les fiches techniques, le soja en Franche-

Comté. http://www.franche-comte.chambagri.fr/uploads/media/Fiche_Culture_-_Soja.pdf


Lieven, J., 2013. Typologie des pratiques de désherbage en culture de soja.

http://www.afpp.net/apps/accesbase/bindocload.asp?d=7485&t=0&identobj=YyQuqNZ6&ui

d=57305290&sid=..&idk=1 (retrieved March 2015).

http://www.franche-comte.chambagri.fr/fileadmin/images_docs/images_docs_contenu/espacepro/Agriculture_biologique/fiches_cultures/Fiche_Culture_-_Tournesol.pdf



http://www.franche-comte.chambagri.fr/uploads/media/Fiche_Culture_-_Soja.pdf

72

10 Appendix

Appendix 1: Table of agronomic characteristics of the identified alternative crops

Low input needs and pest and disease resistance

Crop Low pesticide

needs

Low fertilizer

needs

Low

irrigation

needs

Treatment

Frequency

Index

(herbicides)

TFI without

herbicides

Main pest and

disease resistance

Soil cleaning crop *

Quinoa \ \ \ Pests: flea beetle and

caterpillars

Diseases: sclerotinia,

mildew, aschyta

hyalospora

Soybean X X High needs Pests: X

Diseases: shizoctonia

and sclerotinia

Alfalfa \ X

Exigent in

phosphors and

potassium

\ Pests: insects, nematodes

Diseases: Verse

Linseed &

Flax for

fibber

\ \ Pests: thrips, adult flea

beetle

Diseases: verse et

73

septoriose

Hemp X \ X Pest: Orobranch X

Miscanthus X \ X Pest: moths and wild

animals

X

Faba bean \ X Diseases: rust,

anthracnose and botrytis

Peas X X 1.3 2.5 Pest: thrips, aphids

Lupin \ X Pests: Sitones and slugs

Diseases: Anthracnose,

botrytis and sclerotinia

Lentil \ X \ Pest: midge, weevils,

aphids and budworms

Diseases: botrytis

Sunflower \ \ \ 1.7 0.3 Sensitive to many

diseases → resistant

varieties

Malt Barley \ \ \ 1.4 1.6 Disease: lodging

Buckwheat X X Pest: birds and small

animals

Disease: rust and mildew

Sorghum X X \ Diseases: lodging, rust

and mildew

* The density of the culture (N plants / m²) and plant height (more than 2m) limits the development of competing plants (weeds).

74

Agronomic specificities

Crop Annual /

Perennial

Place in the rotation Nitrogen fixing Important amount

of protein

Gluten

free

Good

rooting

system

Quinoa Annual ? X

X ?

Soybean Annual Beginning of the rotation

X X

Soybean with 40%

protein is an

excellent nitrogen

soil equalizer

Alfalfa Perennial: 3 to 4

years

Beginning of the rotation

Restores nitrogen to the

following crops

Precedes mainly straw

cereals of which it

significantly improves

yields

X X

Can bring food and

protein self-

sufficiency on

farming systems

X

Structuring

effect on the

soil

Fight against

erosion

Drought

resistant

Linseed & Flax for

fibber

Annual Beginning of the rotation

Precedes mainly cereals,

itself precede crops high in

protein

Avoid green manure for the

colza or mustered crop

family, which promotes the

flea beetle.

X

Hemp Annual

Precedes mainly cereals or

vegetables X

75

Miscanthus Perennial: 15 years

\

Faba bean Annual

Beginning of the rotation

Precedes wheat X X

Peas

Annual

End of rotation

Precede wheat or barley and

before canola

X X

Lupin Annual Precedes cereals X X X

Lentil

Annual

Precedes wheat

Avoid planting after

mustard and oats (difficult

for sorting out the seeds)

X X

Sunflower Annual

Follow and precede nearly

all crops X

Malt Barley

Annual

Precedes a corn, forage

kale, winter vegetable,

pasture land

Buckwheat

Annual

Avoid planting is before

spring crops due to crop

regrowth

X

Sorghum Annual

Follow and precede nearly

all crops X

76

Sowing/harvest dates and crop association

Crop Sowing date Harvest date Intercropping Other

Quinoa Legumes and cereals

(beans, red beans →

improves the nutritional

quality)

Significant amount of

phosphors, magnesium and

iron

The plant needs short days

and cool temperatures to

grow. Grows at high

altitudes.

Soybean Mid April – Mid May Seed moisture needs to be

between 14 and 16%

Active microbial soil life

Green manure

Alfalfa Spring: until mid April

End of summer: end of August

3 to 4 harvest per year

18 to 25% protein content to

be harvest

Legumes and grass

Good forage crop

Cover crop for cereal

production

Yield: 6 to 15 t of dry

matter/ha/year

Linseed & Flax for fibber Spring: mid February – mid

April

Winter: mid September- mid

October

Spring: August - mid

September

Winter: mid July- mid

August

Nutritional value: Omega 3

(human and animal sector)

Hemp Spring: beginning of May-

beginning of June

September Significant amount of

unsaturated fatty acids

77

(omega-3 and 6) and fibber

Miscanthus April Marsh-April (Dry)

Autumn (Green)

high biomass production

Faba bean Spring: end January – end

February

Winter: mid October – end

November

Ones a year at the end of

winter (70%-85% of dry

matter)

Peas February – mid Mars Spring peas: in the same

time as wheat

Winter peas: two to three

weeks before wheat

X

Lupin February – mid Mars End of July – mid September With cereals (e.g.: spring

barley)

Lentil March Mid July-August With camelina

Sunflower Mid April Humidity of the seed 9%

Malt Barley Spring: Mid February – mid

March

Winter: October

July

Buckwheat May September - October Nutritional composition of

the seed substantially

comparable to wheat

Plays a role in controlling

cholesterol and mimics the

power of insulin

78

Sorghum April - May August - September Biomass production (10 to

20 tonnes of dry matter per

hectares)

Presence of a toxin, wait ten

days after silage

(degradation of the toxin) to

use in animal feed

Agronomic production constraints

Crop Rotation High weed competition Drought sensitivity Other

Quinoa ? X

(Slow growing crop)

Soybean Minimum rotation space:

5 to7 years

Avoid planting after a

legumes, sunflower or colza

→ risk of sclerotinia

X X

(Less than the maize)

Random yields production

Alfalfa Minimum rotation space:

5 to7 years

Self toxic: do not plant

alfalfa after alfalfa

X Allow a minimum of 4 to 6

weeks between cuts and last

cut one month before the first

frost

Linseed & Flax for fibber Minimum rotation space:

Every 7 years

→ prevent the spread of

X

(Not very oppressing crop)

/

Sensitive during six weeks

Previous crop should be

limited to a biomass of 2.5 t

DM / ha. All dates respecting

79

Fusarium (10 days before the first

flower buds to 2 weeks after

flowering)

legal sowing and harvest of

the crop.

Hemp Avoid waterlogged soils

(sensitive to waterlogging)

Miscanthus \ \

(First year only)

X Productivity variable

according to soil and climate

conditions

Faba bean Minimum rotation space:

5 to 6 years

\ X Sensitive to asphyxiating,

moist soil

Peas Minimum rotation space:

5 years

\

Lupin Minimum rotation space:

4 to 5 years

\

Lentil Minimum rotation space:

5 years

X

Sunflower Minimum rotation space:

4 to 5 years

\

Malt Barley Minimum rotation space: \ Very sensitive to

hydromorphic soils

80

4 to 5 years

Buckwheat Minimum rotation space:

5 years

Plant capable of

accumulating heavy metals

Sorghum Minimum rotation space:

5 to 6 years

X High production potential but

low crop density

Good faculty of water and

soil minerals extraction

81

Appendix 2: List of all the project examples identified on the French territory

Hemp

Localisation Region &

department Contact person Project leader

Size of the

project * Specificities

Project to be

furthermore

investigated

Champigny en

Beauce

Region Centre

Val de Loire,

department of

Loir et Cher

Denis CHAL Environmental advisor

to CMA41, (Chamber of

Trades and Crafts of

Loir et Cher)

Group of farmers +++ Local small scale

market /

CC du Canton de

Beaumesnil

Region Haute-

Normandie,

department of

Eure

Isabelle Ghestem, Agro-Resource

Development Officer

(Chamber of

Agriculture of the Eure) Group of farmers +++

In 2011 the

Federation of

Cooperative

Festal (linseed

coop) acquires the

hemp processing

unit because it

wants to diversify

its production

/

Provence

d’Argens en

Verdon

Region Provence

Alpes Côtes

d’Azur,

department of Var

Julie PLAGNOL Economic development

officer (Provence

verdon)

Community of

communes

(Local

communities)

++

Implementation of

the project + They

are part of a label,

« Bâtiment

durable

méditerranéen »

Project to be

followed

Aouste, zone

d’activité Vicat

Region Rhône-

Alpes, department

of Drôme

CCCPS (Community of

communes of

Crestois, Pays de

Saillans and

Biovallée)

Local

communities,

farmers, local

artisans and

partner

associations

+ Market sector :

eco-material

To be furthermore

analysed

82

Region Rhône-

Alpes, department

of Drôme ?

Coop Eco Pertica

(Cooperative) +

Local supply

chain. Market

sector : insulation

material

/

Region Rhône-

Alpes, department

of Auvergne

Auvergne Hemp Producers + local

artisan + Civam +

Local supply

chain /

Luberon Between the

department of

Alpes-de-Haute-

Provence and

Vaucluse

Hemp Luberon Hemp growers

association +

Local supply

chain /

L’usine Flax for

fibber Emanuel

Lang – Hirsingue

(ville)

Region Alsace,

department of

Haut-Rhin

http://www.lalsac

e.fr/actualite/2014

/10/18/hirsingue-

le-Hemp-et-l-

ortie-pour-

rehabiliter-la-

filiere-Flax for

fibber

? -

Relaunch of a

culture that did

not work

(valuation: Flax

for fibber fiber)

To be furthermore

analysed

Bièvre Valloire Region Rhône-

Alpes, department

of Isère

Patrick Denolly (Mixt syndicate Pays de

Briève Valloire)

Local

communities /

Failure of the

supply chain

(2010)

The major

problem was the

amount of

investment.

Creation and

dissolution of the

Association

HempRA

/

83

Vienne Region Rhône-

Alpes, department

of Isère

http://dauphinoise

.portagri.com/Par

utions/Documents

/Journal-Agir-

N19.pdf

Dauphinoise

(Cooperative) /

Feasibility study =

Failure regarding

the potential

development of

the crop on the

territory (2010)

/

Region Midi-

Pyrénées,

department of

Haute-Garonne ?

Euralis

(Cooperative)

/

Closure of the

processing unit

(2014), produced

at a loss.

Stopped the

supply chain

/

Region

Champagne-

Ardenne,

department of

Aube ?

Chanvrière de

l’Aube

(Cooperative)

?

Valuation of

products in the

stationery and the

rope sector. Very

private

environment

The coop is part

of the Federation

of Cooperative

Festal.

To be furthermore

analysed

Region Île de

France,

department of

Seine et Marne

Cyril Flamin

(Cooperative

Coopenergie sur

la biomasse)

Farmer

(Association

Planète chanvre)

?

11 Farmer, Very

private

environment, hard

to exchange

information

/

Region Centre Gérard Gatay (Chamber of

Agriculture de Loir et

Cher) Farmer +

Project launch in

2015.

Investment in a

processing unit.

To be furthermore

analysed

84

Chartres Region Centre-

Val de Loire,

department of

Eure-et-Loir

? Valbiom Centre ?

1st processing step

of hemp and

linseed in the

region Centre

European project

Border-polymer

composite

materials

development of

hemp

To be furthermore

analysed

Region Midi-

Pyrénées

Department of

Haute-Garonne &

Region Provence-

Alpes-Côte

d’Azur,

department of

Vaucluse

Marie Bazet (Euralis)

Agrofribre,

Union between

Coopéval and

Euralis

(Cooperative)

/ Failure of the

supply chain /

Region Haute-

Normandie,

Department of

Seine-Maritime

Monsieur Coulier

Federation of

Cooperative

Festal (Coop

Hemp & Lin)

+

Grouping 10

Cooperative of

Flax for

fibber/linseed et 1

coop of Hemp

To be furthermore

analysed

Region Poitou-

Charentes,

department of

Deux-Sèvres

Florian Bernier

Mixed Syndicate

Pays Mellois +

Creation of a

supply chain «

Construire en

chanvre »

Arc Les Gray Region Franche-

Comté,

department of

? Groupe Interval

(Cooperative) ++

« Usine

EuroHemp »,

Very private

To be furthermore

analysed

85

Haute-Saône environment.

Region des Pays

de la Loire,

department of

Vendée

?

CAVAC

(Cooperative

céréalière)

+++

Two processing

units (separation

of the straw +

panel creating

unit)

To be furthermore

analysed

Miscanthus



Size of the


Project to be

furthermore

investigated

Ammertzwiller Region Alsace,

department of

Haut-Rhin

Mathieu Ditner (Mayor of the town and

farmer)

Farmer & local

community +

Project

implementation

on water

catchment area &

use the biofuel for

a municipal boiler

/

Brumath Region Alsace,

department of

Haut Rhin Mathieu Ditner (Mayor of the town and

farmer)

Farmer & local

community +

Project

implementation

on water

catchment area &

use the biofuel for

a municipal boiler

/

Mulhouse Region Alsace,

department of

Haut Rhin Mathieu Ditner (Mayor of the town and

farmer)

Farmer & local

community +

Project

implementation

on water

catchment area &

use the biofuel for

a municipal boiler

/

Region Île de

France (Seine –

Cyril Flamin (Cooperative

Biomis G3,

General ++ ?

Implementation of

action in the

To be furthermore

analysed

86

Normandie) Coopenergie regarding

biomass) delegation

Parisian Region

following the

framework

directive on water

Region Rhône-

Alpes, department

of Drôme Isère /

Working group

Drôme-Isère + ?

Difficult to find

information about

this working

group

« miscanthus

Drôme Isère »

To be furthermore

analysed

Region Picardie

/

Coop Agro

transfer

(Cooperative)

?

Member of the

competitiveness

cluster "Industries

and Agro-

Resources"

To be furthermore

analysed

Region

Bourgogne

Aline Lambert (Coop of Belgium, Nord

Parisian basin) Dijon céréale ?

To be furthermore

analysed

Region Centre-

Val de Loire,

department of

Eure-et-Loir

Gérard Gatay (Chamber of Agriculture

of Loir et Cher)

Farmer & Local

communities /

Valuation for

energy purposes.

No fulfilment in

the creation of the

supply chain.

/

Romans sur Isère Region Rhône-

Alpes, department

of Drôme

Caroline

Baconnier (in charge

of the experimentation)

Horticultural

college ‘Terre

d’horizon’

+ Experimental

trials

Project to be

followed

Saussay la

campagne

Region Haute-

Normandie

?

UCDV

(Cooperative

factory of

dehydration,

Vexin)

++ ? Replace the coal To be furthermore

analysed

87

Region Basse-

Normandie,

department of

Calvados

? NovaBiom (new

plant biomass) ?

Valorisation by

selling straw for

animal bedding

(140 Ha / year).

To be furthermore

analysed

Region Centre-

Val de Loire,

department of

Indre

? Chamber of

Agriculture -

Experimentation

pilot

Biomass Project

To be furthermore

analysed

Belgium ? Valbiom -

Biomass Project

from the 24th

of June

2015

To be furthermore

analysed

Region Pays de la

Loire, department

of Mayenne

Samuel Maignan

(Director) Coopédom ++

Product 30% of

energy needs of the

Cooperative is to

dehydrate the Alfalfa

To be furthermore

analysed

Montremond Region Bretagne,

department of

Morbihan

Laurent Point:

EARL de

Montremond

Enterprise + Composting platform

+ Valorisation of the

mulch for horticulture

To be furthermore

analysed

Alfalfa



Size of the


Project to be

furthermore

investigated

Region

Champagne -

Ardenne

Aline Lambert (Coop de France Nord

Parisian basin)

(Cooperative ?) +++?

http://www.draaf.champ

agne-

ardenne.agriculture.gou

v.fr/IMG/pdf/filiere_Alf

alfa_cle04e45f.pdf

To be furthermore

analysed

Region

Champagne -

Ardenne

Edouard Jannot (Technical adviser and

communications officer)

Sun Deshy (Société Cooperative

Agricole de

Déshydratation)

+++

Valuing the ball

dehydrated

Alfalfa (in

addition of the

granules)

/

88

Region Midi-

Pyrénées,

department of

Tarn-et-Garonne

Guillaume

Dyrszka (Project Manager

regarding the

environment - CDF

Midi Pyrénées)

Qualisol + coop

of cereal supply

(Cooperative)

++ ?

Creating a

common

dehydration

factory to supply

the demand. +

Link between

cereal producers

and livestock

farmers

To be furthermore

analysed

Region

Bourgogne,

department of

Côte-d'Or

? Dijon cereals

(Cooperative) ?

To be furthermore

analysed

Beaurepaire

Region Rhône-

Alpes, department

of Isère

Grégory Pinçon (Responsible livestock

market, Group

Dauphinoise)

Dauphinoise

(Cooperative) -

Feasibility study

and sector

development in

2015

Project to be

followed

Region Provence-

Alpes-Côte

d'Azur,

department of

Vaucluse

Marie Bazet Euralis

(Cooperative) /

Large market

competition with

Spain. Difficult to

secure the supply

chain. No

implementation of

the supply chain.

/

Domagné

Region Bretagne,

department of

Ille-et-Vilaine

Samuel Maignan

(Director)

Coopédom

Cooperative of

dehydration)

+++ /

Region Pays de la

Loire, department

of Mayenne

Samuel Maignan

(Director)

Codema

(Cooperative of

dehydration of

Mayenne)

+++

Project

dehydration

“Codema” set up

by Coopédom

/

89

Valuing the

biogas produced

by a landfill.

Chateaubriand

Region Pays de la

Loire, department

of Loire-

Atlantique

Samuel Maignan

(Director)

Coopédom

(Cooperative +

Group of farmers)

-

Creating a

dehydration

Cooperative. Only

50 Farmer out of

250 were ready to

commit.

The project is on

stand-by.

To be furthermore

analysed

Saussay la

campagne

Region Haute-

Normandie

?

UCDV

(Cooperative

factory of

dehydration,

Vexin)

++?

Organic &

conventional

production

To be furthermore

analysed

Region Bretagne,

department of

Ille-et-Vilaine

? Bleu-Blanc-Coeur + To be furthermore

analysed

Linseed



Size of the


Project to be

furthermore

investigated

Region Midi-

Pyrénées,

department of

Tarn-et-Garonne ? Coop Qualisol

(Cooperative) ++ ?

Organic

production

(Closed

environment,

difficult to

exchange

information)

To be furthermore

analysed

90

Region Rhône-

Alpes, department

de l’Isère

Damien Ferrand Dauphinoise

(Cooperative) -

Ingoing feasibility

study in 2015

Project to be

followed

Region Bretagne,

department of

Ille-et-Vilaine Stephane Douabin (person in charge of

purchasing the products)

Bleu-Blanc-Cœur

(Valorex) +

(Closed

environment,

difficult to

exchange

information)

To be furthermore

analysed

Chartres Region Centre-

Val de Loire,

department of

Eure-et-Loir

? Valbiom Centre

(Association) ?

1st processing step

of hemp and

linseed in the

region Centre

To be furthermore

analysed

Region Bretagne,

department of

Finistère

? Lin and Hemp

(Association) ++

Process Linseed

and Hemp To be furthermore

analysed

Flax for fibber



Size of the


Project to be

furthermore

investigated

Villons-les-

buissons

Region Haute-

Normandie,

Department of

Seine-Maritime

/

Flax field from the

north of Caen

(Cooperative)

?

The coop is

part of the

Federation of

Cooperative

Festal

/

Cagny Region Haute-

Normandie,

Department of

Seine-Maritime

/

Flax field from

Cagny

(Cooperative)

?

The coop is

part of the

Federation of

Cooperative

Festal

/

91

Plateau du

Neubourg

Region Haute-

Normandie,

Department of

Seine-Maritime

Pierre de

Francqueville (Responsible member

relationship and Quality

of Teillage from Plateau

du Neubourg)

Cooperative of

Teillage from

Plateau du

Neubourg

(Cooperative)

?

The coop is

part of the

Federation of

Cooperative

Festal

/

Bourbourg Region Haute-

Normandie,

Department of

Seine-Maritime

/ L.A. Flax field

(Cooperative) ?

The coop is

part of the

Federation of

Cooperative

Festal

/

Martainneville Region Haute-

Normandie,

Department of

Seine-Maritime

/ Calira

(Cooperative) ?

The coop is

part of the

Federation of

Cooperative

Festal

/

(Grandvilliers) Region Haute-

Normandie,

Department of

Seine-Maritime

/ Lin 2000

(Cooperative) ?

The coop is

part of the

Federation of

Cooperative

Festal

/

Saint-Pierre-Le-

Viger

Region Haute-

Normandie,

Department of

Seine-Maritime /

Terre de Lin

(Cooperative) ?

The coop is

part of the

Federation of

Cooperative

Festal

/

Yvetot Region Haute-

Normandie,

Department of

Seine-Maritime /

AGY Lin

(Cooperative) ?

The coop is

part of the

Federation of

Cooperative

Festal

/

92

Saint-Andre-Sur-

Cailly

Region Haute-

Normandie,

Department of

Seine-Maritime

/

Cooperative

Teillage of Vert

Galant

(Cooperative)

?

The coop is

part of the

Federation of

Cooperative

Festal

/

Soybean



Size of the


Project to be

furthermore

investigated

Saint Lys

Region Midi-

Pyrénées,

department of

Haute-Garonne

? Agricert

(Cooperative) + /

To be furthermore

analysed

Region Rhône-

Alpes, department

of Isère

Grégory Pinçon (Responsible livestock

market, Group

Dauphinoise)

Dauphinoise

(Cooperative) -

Feasibility study

in 2011 + new

feasibility study

and sector

development in

2015.

Desire to create a

label

« LocAlpes »

Follow project

development

Region

d'Auvergne,

department of

Loire and Haute-

Loire

Jean-François

Paris

Eurea

(Cooperative) ++ In progress

Follow project

development

93

Bassin Gimont

Region Midi-

Pyrénées,

department of

Gers

? The company

« Badoit » ?

Soya and Maize

association on

water catchment

areas, Project « La

bulle verte »

To be furthermore

analysed

Region Provence-

Alpes-Côte

d'Azur,

department of

Vaucluse

Marie Bazet Euralis

(Cooperative) ++

Launch of the

sector since 2014

Follow project

development

Centre d’élevage

de Poisy

Region Rhône-

Alpes, department

of Haute-Savoie

Emily Vernay Jura Mont Blanc

(Cooperative) /

Experimental

trials started in

2015

Newsletter Coop

Jura Mont Blanc

N°21

Soybean (organic)



Size of the


Project to be

furthermore

investigated

Region Centre-

Val de Loire,

department of

Loiret

Adrien Saint-

Ellier (Technical sales

engineer - responsible

for development of

oilseed)

Axéréal Bio ++ Organic crops /

Region Île-de-

France,

department of

Seine-Saint-Denis ?

Nutrition et

Nature ?

SOY is the

trademark of

products

manufactured by

Nutrition &

Nature

To be furthermore

analysed

94

Quinoa



Size of the


Project to be

furthermore

investigated

Longué-Jumelles Region Pays de la

Loire, department

of Maine-et-Loire

Frédéric Truffaux (Field technician to

agricultural Coop from

Pays de la Loire)

Cooperative from

Pays de la Loire

(Cooperative) +

Only 1 seed

producer in

France

To be furthermore

analysed

Lentil



Size of the


Project to be

furthermore

investigated

Region Midi-

Pyrénées,

department of

Tarn-et-Garonne

? Qualisol

(Cooperative) + ? /

To be furthermore

analysed

Peas



Size of the


Project to be

furthermore

investigated

Region Midi-

Pyrénées,

department of

Tarn-et-Garonne

? Qualisol

(Cooperative) + ? /

To be furthermore

analysed

95

Malt barley



Size of the


Project to be

furthermore

investigated

Saint-Savin Region Rhône-

Alpes, department

of Isère

? Farmer + Organic niche

market /

Region

Bourgogne,

department of

Côte d’or

? ? ? Niche market? /

Sunflower



Size of the


Project to be

furthermore

investigated

Cologne Region Midi-

Pyrénées,

department of

Gers

? Gascogne Valley

Press Group

+

Organic market /

Aromatic plant



Size of the


Project to be

furthermore

investigated

Romans sur Isère Region Rhône-

Alpes, department

of Drôme

Caroline

Baconnier (person in

charge of purchasing the

experimetation)

Horticultural

college ‘Terre

d’horizon’

+ Experimental

trials /

96

Lupine



Size of the


Project to be

furthermore

investigated

Region Pays de la

Loire, department

of Maine-et-Loire

Terrana http://www.terrena.fr/

index.php?page=filier

e-proteines-vegetales

Region Bretagne,

department of

Ille-et-Vilaine

? Bleu-Blanc-Coeur + /

Legend

Size of the project

- Project has not yet been implemented yet or is in stand-by

+ Direct selling/ short supply chain

++ Medium-scale supply chain regarding their ability level of production and valorisation of the product

+++ Large-scale supply chain with an important level of production and valorisation of the product

/ Supply chain that was not sustainable in time and that were stopped

? Lack of information

… Failure of the project / supply chain

… Project in stand-by

* The size of the project and its development impotency on the territory was estimated regarding a personal point of view and based on the

definition of the French ministry of agriculture regarding direct selling and small scale production: “Small-scale selling is a way marketing

agriculture product by either direct selling from producers to consumers or through indirect sales if there is only one intermediary” (Ministère

de l’agriculture, de l’agroalimentaire et de la forêt 2014)

97

Appendix 3: Synthetic sheet draft for the selected project examples

Title Localisation: (French region and department) …………

Project leader: ………… Crop : …………

Project starting date: …………

Project description

History/motivation

Organisation/ project structuration

Valorisation/commercialisation

Project partners:

Key figures

N° of farmer : …………

N° ha : …………

Collected crop volume: …………

Purchas price: …………

98

Constraints Opportunities E

con

om

ies

Tec

hn

iqu

e &

reg

ula

tio

n

En

vir

on

men

tal

Future perspectives

Ed

iting d

ate: ……

……

99

Appendix 4: creation value, production and supply chain characteristics for quinoa, soybean, linseed and alfalfa crops

Major crop production sector in France

100

Main production, processing and product valorisation constraints

Crop Production Processing and product valorisation

Quinoa ? ?

Soya Irrigation constraints

Research is needed:

→ improve yields

→ improving lodging resistance

Improved transformation process

→ increase the nutritional value of foods and eliminate anti-

nutritional factors

Obsolescence of processing capacity tools for soybeans for animal

feed

Dependent market quotations on the world market

Alfalfa The harvest schedule should allow sufficient replenishment of

root reserves of the plant for each harvest→ allows the plant to

grow properly

Main qualitative nutritional criterion → protein rate

Cost of dehydration → energy costs

Organization of harvesting sites → master supply and factory

management

Continue to improve the processes to optimize energy consumption

and increase the share of biomass in the energy mix.

Develop new products for animal and human nutrition.

Linseed Requires a specific mechanization for harvesting.

Research is needed:

→ improve yields

Insufficient production → limit the supply and demand

Requires a local processing unit

Straw valuation is challenging (except if there is the presence of

industrialists nearby)

Single use of the French seed (treatment and valorisation of the

whole seed)

Dependent market quotations on the world market

101

Product value creation & targeted market

Crop Humane nutrition Animal nutrition Other

Quinoa Seeds

Leaves

Raw or roasted flour

Flakes

Semolina and instant powder

Forage (whole plant)

Crop Residues

Medicine (leaves, stems and seeds)

Cosmetology

Soya Soya milk (tonyu)

Tofu ("curdled" soy)

Seeds

Oil cake

Alfalfa Diet slimming

Dietary supplement

Silage (dehydrated alfalfa)

Food additive

Pet food

Alfalfa protein concentrate (pressed

before drying)

Nitrogen fertilizer

Cosmetology

Linseed Omega 3 oil

Flour

Seeds

Oil cake

→ rich in nitrogen and amino acids

Straw → biomaterials

Solvent → soap, paint or varnish

basis

102

Appendix 5: Example of successful and failure development of a supply chain at National scale

Sections Questions Cooperative Dauphinoise

(Being implemented - Soybean)

Community of commune of Ammertzwiller

(Success- Miscanthus)

Pro

ject

his

tory


Started: 2014.

Started: Political decision in 2007.

Identify the actors implicated in

the project Project leader: Cooperative Dauphinoise

Other stakeholders: members of the cooperative,

some food manufacturer in the region, Rhône-Alpes

region (financial help).

Project leader: Community of commune

Other stakeholders: Local farmers, Water

syndicate, Water Agency Rhin-Meuse (Diagnosis

agricultural practices + technical assistance), Alsace

region (combustion emissions testing and analysis).


Help farmers to be self sufficient in food and energy.

Insure the quality and tractability of the product by

producing it locally (non-GMO product).

Ameliorate the water quality on the priority water

catchment area located in the surroundings of the

city.

In parallel, the town had as project to change its

boiler system in municipal buildings and use

biomass as heating system instead of wood.

How was the development

potential of the supply chain

assessed before its creation?

A technical and economical feasibility analysis is

being conducted.


conducted.

103

Upst

ream

(pro

duct

ion s

teps)

Difficulties faced

Economic /


The introduction and production of a new crop

requires new techniques and knowledge that the

farmers may not be acquainted to. Technical support

needs to be set into place to help the farmers during

the transition period.

Economic \







The appropriate harvesting equipment was not

accessible on the territory. Farmers had to create or

modify their machineries to be able to harvest the

fibber and have good quality product.

Convince farmers that are located on the water

catchment area to be part of the project.

Key of success Economic Reducing external input can be a cost saving

measure.


Technical and advisory support by the cooperative to

the farmers.

Economic \



Actions implemented

Experimental trials


No. ha produced: 24 Ha out off 1130 Ha priority

water catchment area.

Average volumes collected: 300 T/ year


104


and product quality

Farmers need to follow a set of specifications to

produce the crop and the cooperative needs to follow

a set of specifications for harvesting, collecting and

processing the crop.


produce the crop D

ow

nst

ream

(tr

ansf

orm

atio

n a

nd m

arket

ing s

teps)

Difficulties faced

Economic /


/

Economic /


Adapt the boiler system to miscanthus instead of

wood.

Key of success Economic Added value: non-GMO product with a guarantied

tractability


/

Economic The implementation cost of 3,000 €/ ha is taken care

in its entirety by the syndicate of water and the water

agency Rhine Meuse.

Reduced transportation costs by setting up a

harvesting plan.

Local valorisation and near the production site →

help local economy



farmers. Engagement for at least 15 years.

The transport of the crop to the storage place is a

mutualized service between 4 farmers.

Actions implemented


farmers.

Multi-annual contract between farmers and the

community of commune.

Share their agronomic and technical experience by

creating visiting days all year long and access to the

production site.

105

Targeted markets Part of the production is distributed to members as

self-consumption. The rest of the production is

traded by the cooperative and sold to farmers in the

region who are not members or traders and food

manufacturers.

Eco-fuel and made available for collective boiler

room of the city as miscanthus wafer.

Miscanthus can also be valued as horticultural

mulch. Experimental trials were set up at the CARA

in 2011 and 2014 by a landscaping company

Ettwiller.

Per

spec

tives


system?

/ Invest in specific harvesting equipment.

What are you future

perspectives?

Implemented a processing unit.

Create awareness among their members to encourage

them to diversify their production with soybean.

Adapt the stocking facility that is reaching its

maximum capacities since the number of producers

is constantly increasing.

Sections Questions Cooperative Euralis

(Failure - Hemp)

Cooperative Euralis

(Being implemented - Soybean)

Pro

ject

his

tory


Started: 2011.

Started: 2014 due to favourable climatic conditions

of the region.


the project Project leader: Cooperative Euralis


Water Agency Adour-Garonne, water syndicate of

the region.

Project leader: Cooperative Euralis



the region.

106


A three-year agreement was signed between the

cooperative and the Water Agency with a common

goal to favour the development of low-input crops

like hemp, organic farming and forage crop allowing

a better preservation of the water quality of the

Adour-Garonne basin. During three years the

potential development of hemp was analysed.







potential development of soybean was analysed.





conducted.

A technical and economical feasibility analysis is

being conducted.

Up

stre

am (

pro

duct

ion

ste

ps)

Difficulties faced

Economic /







Economic /








measure.




the farmers.

Economic Farmers can aske for financial support fro the CAP

and have supplementary since they insert in their

rotation a high protein content crop.



Actions implemented

Experimental trials

No. ha produced: 2 000 to 3 000 Ha


107



and product quality





/ D

ow

nst

ream

(tr

ansf

orm

atio

n a

nd m

arket

ing s

teps)

Difficulties faced

Economic In 2014 the factory was shut down due to economic

concerns. The added value of the product and the

selling price was not profitable anymore for farmers

due to a wrong initial assessment of costs


/

Economic /


/

Key of success Economic Reduced transportation costs by setting up a

harvesting plan.


A processing unit was already present in the region.

This industrial unit was already processing hemp for

the textile industry and material for building

constructions on the territory

Economic Produce non-GMO crops can be an added value to

the product


/

Actions implemented


farmers.

Targeted markets Textiles market and insulation for construction in the

building sector.

Animal nutrition.

108

Per

spec

tives


system?


during the time of the year were the hemp is not

harvested. This will enable the processing unit to be

economically profitable.

What are you future

perspectives?

/ Create awareness among their members to encourage

them to diversify their rotation systems. Increase the

number of hectare produced.

Implement multi-annual contracts between farmers

and the cooperative.

Identify and target market opportunities.

Sections Questions Cooperative Euralis

(Failure - Alfalfa)

Community of commune Provence Verdon

(Being implemented- Hemp)

Pro

ject

his

tory


Started: 2011.

The aim of producing alfalfa was to create a

partnership between local cereals farmers that would

produce the crop and would deliver it to local animal

husbandry farmers.

Started: Initiated from a political decision in 2012.


the project Project leader: Cooperative Euralis



the region.

Project leader: Community of commune Provence

Verdon

Other stakeholders: Local farmers, Chamber of

Agriculture, SAFER and the Joint Union of Provence

Verdon and the PACA region.

109








potential development of alfalfa was analysed.





conducted.

Up

stre

am (

pro

duct

ion s

teps)

Difficulties faced

Economic /







The harvesting machineries were not adapted to the

crop.

Economic /



accessible on the territory and was rented from

Germany. Difficulties to access the specific

equipment during the harvesting period.






The number of hectares cultivated is for the moment

insufficient for a processing unit to function all year

long.

110


measure.



the farmers.

Economic Financial support from the CAP



Technical support provided by the Chamber of

Agriculture.

Actions implemented

Experimental trials Experimental trials.




and product quality






produce the crop.

111

Dow

nst

ream

(tr

ansf

orm

atio

n a

nd m

arket

ing s

teps)

Difficulties faced

Economic Its price was not competitive compared to the alfalfa

produced in Spain boarder.

Breeders were not ready to sign long-term contracts

since the alfalfa was cheaper and had a better quality

in Spain.


No processing unit was already present on the

territory

Investment in movable processing units. This

machinery would be brought directly on the farmer’s

field for the harvested product to be processed.

Logistic and climatic problem occurred since the

alfalfa bales needed to be homogeneous by having

the same size, density and humidity for the

machinery to function and produce quality product.

The quality of the final product did not meet the

requirements of local breeders

Economic High market competition.

Crop not well known by regional industrials.


/

112

Key of success Economic Producing and processing locally could have been an

important added value to the product.


/

Economic Financial support from the PACA region.

If the hemp is good quality and sold at an attractive

price, the production can be profitable for all the

actors of the supply chain.


A expertise is being conducted to estimate the

financial investment needed to create a processing

unit on the territory and its size to be able to process

approximately 300 to 500 ha of hemp production.

Actions implemented

Implementation of a mobile processing unit.

Expertise to estimate the possibility to implement a

processing unit.

Targeted markets Part of the production is distributed to breeders that

are members of the cooperative. The rest of the

production is traded by the cooperative and sold to

farmers in the region who are not members.


Per

spec

tiv

es


system?

Production techniques need to be standardized to

allow mobile processing unit to be installed in the

region. This could lead to the amelioration of the

product quality.


during the time of the year were the hemp is not

harvested. This will enable the processing unit to be

economically profitable.

Create awareness among regional industrials

regarding the benefits this crop can offer.

113

What are you future

perspectives?

/ Implement a local processing unit.

Find or create agricultural machines adapted for

harvesting hemp.

Identify the most promising sector for the

enhancement of the product.

Sections Questions Community of communes Canton de Beaumesnil

(Success- Hemp)

Chamber of Agriculture, Loire & Cher

department

(Being implemented- Hemp)

Pro

ject

his

tory


Started: Initiated by Farmers in 1977.

In 2011 the Federation of cooperative Festal buy the

processing unit used to produce the hemp. To

optimise the industrial unit all year long, Flax for

fibber is also produced and processed in the same

unit.

Started: 2015.

The crop was produced before during 20 to 30 years

but the supply chain failed because it was no longer

economically profitable for the farmers. Some years

later, an increasing demand by farmers to produce

this crop restarted its production in the region.


the project Project leader: Farmers

Other stakeholders: Chamber of agriculture

Project leader: Local farmers

Other stakeholders: Local communities, Chamber

of agriculture, regional council for financial help.


Diversify farmers rotation system. Diversify farmers rotation system and create

employment.

114





conducted

/

Up

stre

am (

pro

duct

ion s

teps)

Difficulties faced

Economic /


/

Economic \


The appropriate harvesting equipment is not

accessible for every farmer.

The number of hectares cultivated is insufficient for

a processing unit to function all year long.

No processing unit is located in the region.


measure.


Farmers use equipment from a farm equipment

cooperative. Internal organisation between the

farmers is created so each of them can harvest their

production in time.

Economic \



Actions implemented

/ No. ha produced: 50 Ha



and product quality


produce the crop to answer industrial quality

requirements.

115

Do

wn

stre

am (

tran

sform

atio

n a

nd m

arket

ing s

teps)

Difficulties faced

Economic Important transportation costs that need to be

improved between the geographical localisation of

the production plots and the processing unit.

High market competition. Hemp products are not

well differentiated on the market. Industrials can find

hemp at lower price on the market compared to the

one produced locally.


Producers and industrial join forces to facilitate the

transport, sorting and processing hemp seed to

society “Huile des Terres Normande”.

Plot dispersal far away from the processing unit.

The volume collected and sold is to small to be

competitive on the market.

Economic Upstream-downstream actors need to invest in a

processing unit.

High market competition. Hemp products are not




Important transportation costs that need to be

improved for the all supply chain.



The volume collected and sold is too small to be

competitive on the market for the moment.

Key of success Economic The choice to diversify production by the

cooperative allowed the processing unit to be

profitable throughout the year. In addition to the

production of hemp, Flax for fibber is produced,

which is also dried in the processing unit.


/

Economic If the hemp is good quality and sold at an attractive

price, the production can be profitable for all the

actors of the supply chain.


/

Actions implemented

/ /

116

Targeted markets Paper and textile industry.

Human nutrition: oil.


Per

spec

tives


system?

Ameliorate the transportation issue: Distance

between the production plot and the processing unit.

Invest in specific harvesting and processing

equipment.

Improve the quality tractability.

Integrate economical actors to insure the economical

sustainability of the project. (e.g. agricultural

cooperatives).

What are you future

perspectives?

Increase the number of producers and quantity

produced to be competitive on the market.

Identify market opportunities.

Increase the number of producer and produced

quantity.

A technical and economical feasibility analysis needs

to be conducted.

Sections Questions Cooperative Sun Deshy

(Success - Alfalfa)

Chamber trades and artisans form Loir et Cher

(Success- Hemp)

Pro

ject

his

tory


Started: Initiated by the cooperative in 2006.

Alfalfa has been produced since 1960’s in the region.

Started: Initiative from a farmer group in 2008.

In parallel an entrepreneur from the building site

sector was looking to use ecological materials for his

constructions.

117


the project Project leader: Cooperative Sun Deshy


Wood National Federation.

Project leader: Local farmers

Other stakeholders: Chamber trades and artisans

form Loir et Cher, public and especially private

investors and Chamber of agriculture


Due to an increasing demand of farmers to produce

alfalfa and consumers request, processing units need

to increase in size since they are reaching their

maximum production capacities. 80% of alfalfa

produced in France comes from Sun Deshy

production.

Diversify their rotation systems with alternative

crops.





conducted to estimate the quantity of alfalfa needed

for the farmers of the cooperative to be self sufficient

in animal feed. This determined the size of the

processing unit and the financial investment.

Up

stre

am (

pro

duct

ion

ste

ps)

Difficulties faced

Economic /


Stabilize yields and production volumes with

varieties adapted to the climate and topography of

the region

The production areas are spread over 4 sites

Need appropriate equipment for harvesting

Economic During one year, farmers were the only financial

investors in the project.



accessible on the territory and is rented to an external

company. Difficulties to access the specific

equipment during the harvesting period.

The number of hectares cultivated was insufficient

for a processing unit to function all year long.

118

Key of success Economic Solidarity of members helped maintain the industry

during crisis times in the 1980s after the oil crisis.



the farmers.

Economic /



Technical support by the different Chambers of the

region.

Actions implemented

Experimental trials

No. ha produced: 11 000 Ha

Average volumes collected: 4 x 2500 Ha/ year

Final production volume (pellets and balls): 160 000

T/ year




and product quality





/

119

Dow

nst

ream

(tr

ansf

orm

atio

n a

nd m

arket

ing

step

s)

Difficulties faced

Economic High market competition for the production of

pellets.


The maximum production capacities of the

processing units are almost reached.

Economic High market competition. Hemp products are not




For now, no industrials in the region are interested in

this material. Only private individual are interested

but only at small scale.



The volume collected and sold is small.

Industrials have high quality standards for their eco-

materials.

120

Key of success Economic 3 cooperatives merged to help each other during the

crisis and increase their production and position on

the market.

Added value in producing alfalfa balls instead of

pellets


4 processing units on the territory for the production

of significant volumes of alfalfa

Production of balls help maintain the fibers of the

culture that is not retained for pelletizing

Production plots are located in a maximum 30 km

round near the processing units.

Economic At the beginning the community of commune bought

farmers entire production in support for their project

and built several buildings with the produced

material.


Publicity and awareness among the regional

stakeholders is created and supported by the regional

Chambers and the farmers.

Actions implemented



farmers.

The majority of the production is carried out by

manufacturing alfalfa bales. The rest is processed in

pellets.

/

Targeted markets Half of the production is sold in France and the

remainder in Germany, Switzerland, Belgium,

Netherlands and Arab Emirate and may be in years

to come to China.

Animal food markets.


121

Per

spec

tives


system?

/ Invest in specific harvesting and processing

equipment.

Secure the financial revenue with identified targeted

market opportunities.

What are you future

perspectives?

Increase the number of famers and the production

quantity of balls.

Create awareness regarding hemp benefits in

production and utilisation in eco-material sector

among the regional industrials.

Creating a company "Chanvrier Blésois." Each

farmer is a shareholder and brings hemp. Their

outlook is to find funding and engage multi-annual

contract with local industrial

Sections Questions Cooperative Axéréal Bio

(Success - Soybean)

Pro

ject

his

tory


Started: Initiated by the cooperative in 2013.

Identify the actors implicated in the project Project leader: Cooperative Axéréal Bio

Other stakeholders: members of the cooperative, research institute (Cetium, work

on seed development)


Search for autonomy and traceability in supply factories that make organic food,

especially the cooperative processing units. Relocate in the region soybean

production.

122

How was the development potential of the supply

chain assessed before its creation?

A technical and economical feasibility analysis was conducted by a intern and in

partnership with Bio Centre (organic interprofession of the Central region). U

pst

ream

(pro

duct

ion s

teps)

Difficulties faced

Economic /


The introduction and production of a new crop requires new techniques and

knowledge that the farmers may not be acquainted to. Technical support needs to

be set into place to help the farmers during the transition period.

Lack of technical knowledge regarding the crop production.

Key of success Economic

Reducing external input can be a cost saving measure.


Sufficient storage infrastructure and adapted harvesting material are already

present at the cooperative.

Technical and advisory support by the cooperative to the farmers.

Actions implemented

Experimental trials

No. ha produced: 10 Ha in 2013 and up to 400 to 450 Ha in 2015

Average volumes collected: 23 quintals/ year/ farmer

Assess the evolution of practices Monitoring

Elements to guaranty traceability and product

quality

Farmers need to follow a set of specifications to produce the crop and the

cooperative needs to follow a set of specifications for harvesting, collecting and


123

Do

wnst

ream

(tr

ansf

orm

atio

n a

nd m

arket

ing s

teps)

Difficulties faced

Economic /


Plot dispersal.

Key of success Economic Financial help by the region.

Economical benefits by ameliorating the tractability and product quality. Less

control measures are needed.

Cooperative buys farmers production each year at a fixed price (650 to 700 €/ T).

The selling price is higher than conventional soybean products.



Multi-annual production and collecting contract between the cooperative and

farmers.

Multi-annual climatic safety contract between the cooperative and farmers.

Actions implemented


Targeted markets Part of the production is distributed to food industrials or organic shops.

Per

spec

tiv

es

What is needed to improve the system?

The number of hectares involved need to be increase in order to obtain 3000 T of

soybean, which is the maximum capacity of the processing units.

What are you future perspectives?

Increase the number of farmers willing to diversify their rotation system with

soybean. Continue to create awareness among their members.

Find a new market opportunity in human nutrition.

Confidential: No

Author: HUCTIN GWLADYS Year: 2015 Topic category:

Prospects for value chains of alternative crops to support sustainable agriculture and

preserve water resources in the Rhône-Alpes region, France

Key-words: Low input crops, crop rotation diversification, sustainable supply chain, change and

innovation

Mots clés: Cultures à bas niveau d’intrants, diversification des cultures, filières durables, innovation et

changement

Résumé: Dans le prolongement de la signature de l’accord cadre en début d’année 2015 entre les

fédérations de coopératives de la région et l’Agence de l’Eau Rhône-Méditerranée Corse, Coop de

France Rhône-Alpes Auvergne a lancé une étude sur le potentiel de développement des filières

alternatives dans les systèmes de production des grandes cultures. Une première phase de l’étude a été

réalisée et a permis de lister une quinzaine de cultures dites « alternatives», c'est-à-dire des cultures

qui nécessites de par leurs propriétés agronomique un apport d’intrants moins important que certaines

cultures majeure et/ ou qui par leurs insertion vont modifier l’ensemble des besoins de la rotation. Des

enquêtes réalisées à l’échelle nationale ont ensuite permis de recenser plus de soixante-dix d’exemples

de mise en place ou de développement de filière suite à l’introduction de cultures alternatives. Les

enjeux socio-économiques et environnementaux liés au développement de ces filières ont été recensés.

Des échanges avec les acteurs de la région ont été réalisés, permettant une meilleure compréhension

du potentiel de développement de ces filières sur le territoire. Suite à ces recherches, quatre cultures

ont été identifié comme aillant dans les années à venir un potentiel de développement dans la région :

le soja, la luzerne, le quinoa et le lin oléagineux.

Abstract: In the beginning of the year 2015, an agreement between the French Water Agency and

Coop de France Rhône-Alpes Auvergne (CDF RAA) was sign with a common goal to design an

action plan in favour of ameliorating the water quality management in the region. CDF RAA decided

to purchase a research study regarding the potential development of supply chain linked to the

production of alternative crops on the territory. Fifteen crops were identified and listed as alternative

crops. Their agronomic characteristics were selected according to crops ability to be produced with

less input than commonly produced crops and on the medium and long term modify the inputs needs

of the entire rotation system. Surveys were conducted at national level to identify more than seventy

experiences of supply chain implementation after the introduction of crops with low inputs needs.

Essential key of success and failure were identified regarding the development of alternative crop

supply chains. Exchanges with regional stakeholders have been conducted, allowing a better

understanding of the development potential of alternative crops in the territory. Further to this

research, four cultures were identified as having a development potential in the region in the coming

years: soybeans, alfalfa, quinoa and linseed.

Total number of volumes: 2

Number of pages of the main document: 130

Host institution: Coop de France Rhône-Alpes Auvergne