HAL Id: hal-02830942
https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-02830942
Submitted on 7 Jun 2020HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-entific research documents, whether they are pub-lished or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.
L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.
Multifunctionality of activities, plurality of identities
and new institutional arrangements. State of the art in
France.
Catherine Laurent
To cite this version:
Catherine Laurent. Multifunctionality of activities, plurality of identities and new institutional ar-rangements. State of the art in France.. [Contract] Multagri. CT 505297. Deliverable D.4.1., 2005. �hal-02830942�
Multagri Project : WP4, Multifunctionality of activities, plurality of identities and new institutional Sixth Framework Research Programme Global Change and Ecosystems Multagri Project
Capitalisation of research results on the multifunctionality of agriculture and rural areas
Multifunctionality of activities, plurality
of identities and new institutional
arrangements
Work package: WP4 Multifunctionality of activities, plurality of identities
and new institutional arrangements
Deliverable: D4.1 Summary report for France
Author :
Catherine Laurent
INRA SAD-APT
16 rue Claude Bernard
75 231 Paris cedex 5
France
Multagri Project : WP4, Multifunctionality of activities, plurality of identities and new institutional
The Multagri Project
Multagri : an overview on the multifunctionality of agriculture and rural areas
Multagri is a Specific Support Action undertaken within the 6th Framework Research Programme of the European Commission. With a partnership of 26 research organisations from 15 countries this project will provide a comprehensive overview of existing research, particularly in Europe, on different aspects of the multifunctionality of agriculture and rural areas. The approach adopted in this initiative is based on the premise that the multifunctional character of agriculture must be acknowledged and promoted so that agriculture can fulfill its potential as a central pillar of sustainable development.
From a state-of-the-art to recommendations for future research
Although the notion of multifunctionality only recently appeared on international political agendas, numerous social, cultural, technical and research practices already refer to it, either explicitly or implicitly. It is important to structure, assess and interpret these works to enable the identification of revelant questions for future research. This will be the role of Multagri, in six stages :
1. Evaluating the state-of-the-art of current research.
2. Further analysis and understanding of ongoing research work.
3. Identifying the main institutions and networks involved in this type of research, both inside and outside Europe, and paying special attention to new EU member countries.
4. Identifying the different disciplines and scientific approaches that are generating knowledge and conceptual backgrounds in this area.
5. Providing a conceptual and analytical framework that allows for the identification of approaches and topics for further research.
6. Formulating recommendations for a future research agenda concerning the multifunctionality of agriculture and rural areas.
Six research issues
Six thematic axes of research have been identified in order to structure the analysis and guide the development of recommendations for promising lines of future research:
1. Definitions and interpretations of the concept of multifunctionality, and its contribution to sustainable development.
2. Consumer and societal demands.
3. Models, techniques, tools and indicators that are of value in examining the multifunctionality of agriculture.
4. Multifunctionality of activities, plurality of identities, and new institutional arrangements.
5. Establishment and management of public policies aimed at promoting multifunctionality : connecting agriculture with new markets and services and rural SMEs.
6. Evaluation of the effects of policies on the multifunctionality of agriculture: observation tools and support for policy formulation and evaluation.
For further information, please contact : Dominique Cairol, Multagri co-ordinator, Cemagref dominique.cairol@cemagref.fr T: 33 01 40 96 60 50 F: 33 01 40 96 61 34 http://www.multagri.net
Multagri Project : WP4, Multifunctionality of activities, plurality of identities and new institutional
Executive Summary
In France, the debate on the multifunctionality (MF) of activities concerns a wide range of situations. The issue extends way beyond the field of agriculture, and is part of a wider debate on the transformation of labour forms and the associated lifestyles /159/164/166/. In these circumstances, debate on the recognition of MFA has been fed by broader reflection which, in turn, it has helped to structure. This reflection concerns agriculture but also other activity sectors such as forestry, postal services, etc. Furthermore, when the focus is put on agriculture, the debate is conducted in France in such a way that it concerns all forms of agricultural activities, including those closest to what is sometimes conventionally known as the productivist model. This situation differs from most other European Union (EU) countries where the concept of “multifunctionality” is mainly used to study forms of agricultural activities considered to be “heterodox” (pluriactivity, agro-tourism, diversification, etc.).
We show in this report (Part 1) that the concerns that gave rise to the debate on multifunctionality of agricultural activities are nothing new. Since the late 1980s several research programmes have contributed towards the debate on the different functions of agriculture (1.1) and helped to clarify the terms of this issue (1.2). A state of the art on this topic may thus refer to material published in a significant number of journals (1.3). One major characteristic of these research programmes is that they have often initiated interdisciplinary reflection (1.4), thereby contributing to the exploration of avenues that would help to bridge the gaps between fragmented knowledge, in order to better analyse and master the transformations of agricultures.
The political reassertion of the need to take the multifunctionality of agricultural activities into account has encouraged further revision of the frameworks used in analysing activities (Part 2). Some of these have focused on analyses of agricultural activities on the farm (2.1). They have studied the relevance of available farm models in dealing with the links between different farm functions, and have examined ways of improving these models. They have also questioned the effects of this changed perspective in tackling farm diversity (2.2). The determination to recognise the different functions of agriculture has lent new importance to systems of activity that diverge from the specialist models (diversification, pluriactivity, etc.) and are considered to carry promising perspectives for some agricultural households, in particular those with the smallest farms. Although these systems have long been investigated, recognition of MFA has promoted a new generation of researches on this topic (2.3.).
But the new importance given to these strategies (diversification, pluriactivity, etc.) extends the boundaries of agricultural activity. Therefore, MF recognition consequently entails a reorganisation of skills and occupational identities within the farming community, which must be analysed (Part 3). Declaring that new diversification strategies are to be implemented does not mean that they are acceptable to the people concerned. Some may view them as promotion, others as a step backwards (3.1.). This may result in specific difficulties when designing, implementing and assessing the support measures aiming to promote MFA (3.2.).
Multagri Project : WP4, Multifunctionality of activities, plurality of identities and new institutional The MF of activities cannot be analysed at the farm and household levels only, for practising an activity embeds people in social relations that need to be considered (Part 4). Several studies have highlighted the consequences of MFA recognition for a matter that is central in French society, i.e. occupational status, since a series of rights (social protection, right to certain agricultural subsidies, etc.) are attached to that status (4.1.). Logically, MFA recognition should bring about changes in the way several forms of agricultural activity are taken into account within economic and technical support systems and within the regulatory frameworks. A series of studies has therefore focused on analysing on-going changes (content of measures, beneficiaries, new institutional arrangements, changes in evaluation procedures) (4.2.).
Quite often, the various disciplinary approaches mobilised to study MFA have needed to revise their research programmes in order to examine, in a concerted way, the different aspects of the transformations of types of activity, so as to avoid a degree of economic reductionism that has sometimes prevailed in debates on MFA, and to contribute towards building relevant scientific objects for dealing with these new issues (Part 5). These concerns have led to theoretical reflection on the way to address the question of the MF of activities, which is distinct from the debate on the concept of MFA in public policies. These reflections aim to either reconsider approaches within the scientific disciplines (5.1.), or to develop new collaboration between disciplinary approaches (5.2.), or else to explore the possibility of defining new integrative concepts that help to develop an overall vision of human activities, thus re-establishing the connections with the anthropological roots of the debate on multifunctionality of activities (5.3.).
The matter of the data available to analyse the multifunctionality of activities poses a crucial problem (Part 6). Such analyses require data that allow the description and linking of the different functions fulfilled by agriculture. Inventories of available data at the national and European levels (administrative and statistical data) enable us to specify both the advantages and the limitations of existing arrangements, as well as the adjustments which could be introduced (6.1.). They also show the need for a more general reflection at the European level since, as exemplified by the French situation, procedures of statistical harmonisation may sometimes obscure the national specificity of each Member State in the way they deal with changes in activities (6.2.).
This issue of the possible discrepancy between harmonised statistical data and national specificity extends way beyond the agricultural sector and concerns all forms of activity and occupational status (Part 7). Without a shared European approach to what “employment”, an “active person” or a farmer are, it seems difficult to address rigorously the possible effects of an extended recognition of MFA on changes in the forms of employment and competition involving farms as well as SME and other larger enterprises.
Table of contents
Introduction...1
1 Background ...3
1.1 History of approaches to MFA in France ...3
1.2 Definitions regarding farm-related activities in the French context...4
1.3 Main sources of French scientific literature on multifunctionality of agriculture...7
1.4. Some specificities of French approaches...7
2 Multifunctionality of farm activities ...7
2.1 MFA and models of the farm ...8
2.2 MFA and Farm diversity ...9
2.3. MFA, farm diversification, pluriactivity and agricultural household systems of activities and income...10
2.2.1 Diversification ...10
2.2.2 Pluriactivity, complex systems of occupational activities and income ...11
3 Pluralities of identities...11
3.1 Changes in occupational identities ...11
3.2 Consequences for MFA policies...13
4 Occupational status, support systems and new institutional arrangements ...13
4.1 Occupational status ...13
4.2. Support system and new institutional arrangements...14
5 MFA, towards a different way of analysing activities? ...14
5.1 Revising disciplinary approaches and building new disciplinary collaborations ...15
5.2 A global approach to activity...15
6 Available data for MFA analyses ...16
6.1 Existing data: statistics, administrative and survey data ...16
6.1.1 Statistics ...16 6.1.2 Administrative data ...17 6.1.3 Surveys...17 6.2. National specificities...17 7 Conclusion...18 Annex 1 Bibliography ...19
Multagri Project : WP4, Multifunctionality of activities, plurality of identities and new institutional
Introduction
In the on-going debate on the transformation of agriculture, the multifunctionality of agriculture (MFA) may be defined as:
“the full range of contributions of agriculture to an economic and social development considered as a whole; the official recognition of multifunctionality expressing the determination that these different contributions may be sustainably and coherently associated according to modalities deemed satisfactory by citizens. These contributions may be partly listed in a positive listing” (Laurent 1999).
In France the list of contributions may include, in particular, production, food safety (quality of the products), food security (maintenance of productive capacity), environmental conservation, landscape management, source of amenities for urban populations, maintenance of a social and economic fabric in rural areas through job creation and diversification of activities, and so on.
Drawing up a universally acceptable list of these contributions is however impossible, as appreciation of what is satisfactory differs with national contexts and may evolve over time. For instance, views on the issue of agricultural landscape maintenance differ widely across European regions, depending on their rural population density.
Recognition of the multifunctionality of agriculture implies adopting new ways of analysing existing forms of practising agricultural activity. Acknowledging that a single activity may simultaneously fulfil several functions is trivial. However, if this property of activities is seriously investigated in the analyses, it profoundly challenges the way activities are observed and analysed, and their effects assessed. New scientific objects must be built to overcome the disciplinary barriers that hinder understanding different functions of an activity and their links. That is why the debate on MFA does not only result in a discussion on alternative policy models but is also a new element in the social sciences theoretical debate on how to analyse, describe and model activities (and behaviours).
Therefore, the debate on the multifunctionality (MF) of activities extends way beyond the field of agriculture. In France, it concerns a wide range of situations. First, it is part of a wider debate on the transformation of labour forms and the associated lifestyles (Méda 1995, Supiot 1999, Boissonat 1995). In these circumstances the debate on MFA recognition has been fed by a wider reflection which, in turn, it has helped structure. It concerns agriculture but also other activity sectors such as forestry, the postal services, etc. Second, when the focus is put on agricultural activities, the debate is conducted in France in such a way that it concerns all forms of agricultural activities, including those closest to what is sometimes conventionally known as the productivist model. This situation differs from most other European Union (EU) countries where the concept of “multifunctionality” is mainly used to study forms of agricultural activities considered to be “heterodox” (pluriactivity, agro-tourism, diversification, etc.).
We show in this report (Part 1) that the concerns that gave rise to the debate on multifunctionality of agricultural activities are nothing new. Since the late 1980s several research programmes have contributed towards the debate on the different functions of agriculture (1.1) and have helped to clarify the terms of this issue (1.2). A state of the art on this topic may thus refer to material published in a significant number of journals (1.3). One major characteristic of these research programmes is that they have often initiated interdisciplinary reflection (1.4), thereby contributing to the exploration of avenues that would help to bridge the gaps between fragmented knowledge, in order to better analyse and master the transformations of agricultures.
Multagri Project : WP4, Multifunctionality of activities, plurality of identities and new institutional The political reassertion of the need to take the multifunctionality of agricultural activities into account has encouraged further revision of the frameworks used in analysing activities (Part 2). Some of these have focused on analyses of agricultural activities on the farm (2.1). They have studied the relevance of available farm models in dealing with the links between different farm functions, and have examined ways of improving these models. They have also questioned the effects of this changed perspective in tackling farm diversity (2.2). The determination to recognise the different functions of agriculture has lent new importance to systems of activity that diverge from the specialist models (diversification, pluriactivity, etc.) and are considered to carry promising perspectives for some agricultural households, in particular those with the smallest farms. Although these systems have long been investigated, recognition of MFA has promoted a new generation of researches on this topic (2.3.).
But the new importance given to these strategies (diversification, pluriactivity, etc.) extends the boundaries of agricultural activity. MF recognition consequently entails a reorganisation of skills and occupational identities within the farming community, which must be analysed (Part 3). Declaring that new diversification strategies are to be implemented does not mean that they are acceptable to the people concerned. Some may view them as promotion, others as a step backwards (3.1.). This may result in specific difficulties when designing, implementing and assessing the support measures aiming to promote MFA (3.2.).
The MF of activities cannot be analysed at the farm and household levels only, for practising an activity embeds people in social relations that need to be considered (Part 4). Several studies have highlighted the consequences of MFA recognition for a matter that is central in French society, i.e. occupational status, since a series of rights (social protection, right to certain agricultural subsidies, etc.) are attached to that status (4.1.). Logically, MFA recognition should bring about changes in the way several forms of agricultural activity are taken into account within economic and technical support systems and within the regulatory frameworks. A series of studies has therefore focused on analysing on-going changes (content of measures, beneficiaries, new institutional arrangements, changes in evaluation procedures) (4.2.).
Quite often, the various disciplinary approaches mobilised to deal with MFA have needed to revise their research programmes in order to deal in a concerted way with the different aspects of the transformations of forms of activities, so as to avoid a degree of economic reductionism that has sometimes prevailed in debates on MFA, and to contribute to building relevant scientific objects to deal with these new issues (Part 5). These concerns have led to theoretical reflection on the way to address the question of the MF of activities which is distinct from the debate on the concept of MFA in public policies. These reflections aim to either reconsider approaches within the scientific disciplines (5.1.), or to develop new collaborations between disciplinary approaches (5.2.), or else to explore the possibility of defining new integrative concepts that help to develop an overall vision of human activities, thus re-establishing the connections with the anthropological roots of the debate on multifunctionality of activities (5.3.).
The matter of the data available to analyse the multifunctionality of activities poses a crucial problem (Part 6). Such analyses require data that allow the description and linking of the different functions fulfilled by agriculture. Inventories of available data at the national and European levels (administrative and statistical data) enable us to specify both the advantages and the limitations of existing arrangements, as well as the adjustments which could be introduced (6.1.). They also show the need for a more general reflection at the European level since, as exemplified by the French situation, procedures of statistical harmonisation may sometimes obscure the national specificity of each Member State in the way they deal with changes in activities (6.2.).
Multagri Project : WP4, Multifunctionality of activities, plurality of identities and new institutional This issue of the possible discrepancy between harmonised statistical data and national specificity extends way beyond the agricultural sector and concerns all forms of activity and occupational status (Part 7). Without a shared European approach to what “employment”, an “active person” or a farmer are, it seems difficult to address rigorously the possible effects of an extended recognition of MFA on changes in the forms of employment and competition involving farms as well as SME and other larger enterprises.
1) Background
Research into the different functions of farming activity was initiated some twenty years ago in France. While the specific issue of MFA-recognition became a debated topic in agricultural policies in the late 1990s only, the concerns at the origin of this debate go further back. The decision to recognise the diverse functions of agriculture was explicitly expressed as early as the 1980s and fostered research in this direction at that early stage.
1.1 History of approaches to MFA in France
A large-scale programme was initiated by INRA (1989-1993) in connection with the 1992 CAP reform, to better link the problematics of production with rural development and environmental issues.
1994. INRA. Symposium Agrotech (INRA 1994)2
Another programme (1994-1996) involving several research departments succeeded this. The programme dealt with the different “functions” of agriculture (economic, environmental and social functions) that had been mentioned in several EC documents.
1996. INRA Symposium on the “New Functions of Agriculture”. Les nouvelles fonctions de l’agriculture et de l’espace rural. Enjeux identifiés par la recherche”. December 1996. Toulouse.(Allaire et al. 1996)
From then on research into the different functions of agriculture included several sets of questions regarding the multifunctionality of activities, changes in occupational identities and ensuing changes in the agricultural support system. These issues may be grouped under five major headings:
1) The concept of multifunctionality questions the relevance of the conventional categories used in analysing human activities (“agricultural holding”, “activity / work”, etc.).
2) Recognition of MFA calls into question the occupational status of individuals carrying out an agricultural activity and the rights attached to that status (e.g. social benefits).
3) Transformations in the ways of practising agricultural activities (farm practices, household work organisation, etc.) when simultaneously taking into account different objectives.
4) Changes in the support systems (Which integration of “heterodox” farms, e.g. pluriactivity, small farms in the economic and technical support systems? Which change in the content of the support? etc.) resulting from the transformation of agriculture’s role in society (agriculture as a new provider of rural services:– landscape, agro-tourism, etc.) but also from the recognition of its various contributions to local employment systems (part time jobs, pluriactivity) and to social and economic cohesion (what is actually being lost when farms disappear?).
Multagri Project : WP4, Multifunctionality of activities, plurality of identities and new institutional 5) Methodological issues
Which tools (databases, networks, etc.) are needed to conduct research on these topics? These research topics were moved to the foreground when the French Ministry of Agriculture announced its plan to draft a new blueprint law to better prepare on-going negotiations on Agenda 2000 in Brussels.
1998-1999. The Ministry of Agriculture created nine Expert Committees to help prepare the implementation of the forthcoming new agricultural blueprint law (in particular to design the tool “Contrat Territorial d’Exploitation”, including one on employment, one on diversification, and one to clarify the conceptual links between “Activity, MFA and pluriactivity”.(Laurent Dir 1999)
Scientists were involved alongside farmer organisations, administrative bodies, etc. in the general debate that took place during the preparation of the blueprint law. The debate concerned various aspects of the policy change at international, national, local and farm levels. Particular emphasis was placed on setting up a new tool, the Contrat Territorial d’Exploitation or CTE. The aim was to link economic support to new objectives related to the multifunctional character of agriculture. Potential consequences of such changes were investigated from various disciplinary standpoints (social and biotechnical sciences) for various functions of agriculture.
2000. Symposium on the “Contrat Territorial d’Exploitation” (Ingenierie 2001)
Concurrently an international debate on MFA was being on-going in many places. The role of agriculture in rural employment as well as in maintaining socio-economic cohesion was also addressed at that level.
2001. Symposium on Multifunctionality and CAP Transformation "Nouvelles questions sur la PAC et rôle de la multifonctionnalité". 17-18 May 2001 Paris (Delorme Dir 2004)/ 2001. OECD Meeting on Multifunctionality (Vermersch 2001).
Given the large amount of research work carried out in various places, a broad scientific discussion on this issue needed to be organised.
2002. Symposium of the Société Française d’Economie et de Sociologie Rurale (SFER) on the topic of Multifunctionality
2002. Start of the Integrated Research Programme on Multifunctionality of Agriculture (MFA, INRA – CIRAD – CEMAGREF 2003). Final symposium December 2004 Paris. Part of the discussion focussed more particularly on the multifunctionality of activities and the plurality of identities
2001.- 2005 Research Seminar « Multifonctionnalité des activités, pluralité des identités » C. Laurent, J. Rémy co-ordination. Since 2001.
1.2 Definitions regarding farm-related activities in the French
context
During the preparation work for the French agricultural blueprint law of 1999, the resolution to set up accompanying measures for promoting the recognition of the multifunctionality of agriculture demanded that the relations between “farming activity”, “multifunctionality”, “pluriactivity” and “diversification” be clarified. An ad-hoc expert committee was set up for that purpose (Laurent Dir 1999).
Multagri Project : WP4, Multifunctionality of activities, plurality of identities and new institutional The 1999 law on agriculture affirms the political decision to recognise the multifunctionality of agriculture (economic, social and territorial functions) and to subject the allocation of a growing share of public transfers to compliance with environmental and employment objectives.
The use of the concept of multifunctionality in the social debate refers to these different points. At present, the different available definitions of multifunctionality in existing literature are accompanied by positive lists of fairly disparate elements which correspond to the functions each society expects from its agriculture (similar to the French list presented in the first part of the introduction of this report). Although comparisons at European level, according to a study of the European Committee for Agricultural Law (1999), show a “truly disconcerting analogy” among the lists of several EU countries, no list has imposed itself as the “universal” one.
This new orientation leads to an analysis of agriculture from a radically different angle that simultaneously entails:
- interpreting agricultural production in a new perspective subsequent to changes in the rules governing public transfers (e.g. subsidies for the environmental aspects of production), as most existing agricultural activities become in part service activities;
- giving greater importance to forms of occupational activities which depart from the model of the “commercial family farm” (“l’exploitation familiale professionnelle”) advocated in the sixties, but play a significant role in the territorial rooting of a productive system (pluriactivity, diversification into farm-linked service activities), and
- viewing differently forms of agricultural activity that contribute to the conservation of agricultural landscapes or to maintaining a social fabric in rural areas, but which produce little or no goods for the market (subsistence farming, leisure farms, etc.).
The pluriactivity issue is thus seen to be intricately linked to that of multifunctionality. When one considers the production of goods other than primary goods, the question arises about the nature of agricultural activity and the status it confers upon those who practice it. That is why it seemed necessary to be more specific about the links between three categories: “multifunctionality”, “activity”, and pluriactivity”.
Activity may be defined as “a human behaviour which makes sense to the person
practising it.3” Occupational activities are activities that are exercised on a regular basis and that generate income for people practising them.
Pluriactivity may be defined as “the simultaneous or successive practice of several
different occupational activities” over a specific period of time (Cornu 1987), i.e., the exercise of several activities having chiefly a gainful purpose and acknowledged as being “different”.
Agricultural activity may assume a diversity of meanings for the people practising it. Its sole purpose may be the generation of income, or it may be an activity designed primarily for family consumption, or a leisure activity. Thus, certain forms of agricultural activity are occupational while others are not (e.g. leisure farms, subsistence farms). Some small farms in France generate income (even those under two economic size units), others not. This is why, if we consider the example of a salaried person (for instance a teacher) with a small farm, he or she will be considered as a pluriactive person if his or her agricultural activity is an occupational activity (source of income) but not if it is a leisure farm or a subsistence farm.
Multagri Project : WP4, Multifunctionality of activities, plurality of identities and new institutional
Diversification of agricultural and rural activities also lies at the core of MFA concerns.
In France the term “farm diversification” only refers to activities called “diversification activities linked to the farm” which designates the activities that are a direct extension of the productive act (such as on-farm processing and direct sale of farm products) or are farm-based (e.g. agro-tourism). This applies only if the turnover of these activities is lower than a specific threshold (about 20% of the total farm turnover. Under French regulations, these kinds of activity (“diversification activities linked to the farm”) are considered to be agricultural: the farmer is not classified as a pluriactive person, neither in statistical data, nor in fiscal and social laws, nor in professional organisations (unions, etc.). When their turnover is above this threshold, these activities must be separated from the farm and become independent activities (in a separate legal entity). They are no longer considered as an agricultural activity, and the term “farm diversification” no longer applies. If the new legal entity is owned by the farmer, he or she will be considered as a pluriactive person.
It follows that pluriactivity, diversification and multifunctionality are related in two ways.
- Farmers who practice a productive agricultural activity and carry out other activities as well are deemed to be pluriactive when these other activities are considered to be “different” occupational activities. By encouraging the development of diversification activities linked to the farm, recognition of multifunctional agriculture may lead to overstepping the threshold beyond which such activities must be considered “different” and therefore distinguished from the farmers concerned and put into the pluriactivity category.
- Where the focus is on the role of agriculture in maintaining an economic and social fabric in rural areas, pluriactive jobs that combine farming activity with other activities assume a new kind of importance. They help to lessen the negative effects of the growing precariousness of employment by offering opportunities for combining two (or several) part-time jobs. In particular, they contribute to agriculture’s fulfilling of specific social functions in rural areas (Laurent, Mouriaux 1999).
These issues have assumed significance insofar as they contribute to defining the
occupational status of the people exercising an agricultural activity.
Occupational status denotes the position that society recognises a person to have, according to their work. Any status rests on a community of representations and a reciprocity of expectations within a given space of legitimisation. It defines the individuals’ rights and duties, dictates the required behaviour and grants a social identity. In some countries, particular social rights are attached to the practice of a given occupational activity. Occupational status then refers to a legal category in social law, used to define the rights and obligations of those concerned /98/.
In France, the system of social protection may roughly be said to have been structured around occupational status, i.e. recognition of the exercise of an occupation . This concept is therefore central to the way French society is organised, and any changes in status will have major implications. Moreover, eligibility for various aids in agriculture (including CAP measures) depends on the possibility for an individual to claim the occupational status of “farmer” (a status tied to affiliation to the social protection scheme for the agricultural sector).
Multagri Project : WP4, Multifunctionality of activities, plurality of identities and new institutional
1.3 Main sources of French scientific literature on
multifunctionality of agriculture
In addition to the books and reports resulting from these debates the following peer reviews are the major source of French scientific literature on this topic:
- Cahiers Agricultures (John Libbey)
- Cahiers d’Economie et de Sociologie Rurale (INRA) - Economie Rurale (Société française d’Economie Rurale)
- Etudes Rurales (Journal of the Association des Ruralistes français) - Ingénierie (Cemagref)
- Natures Sciences Sociétés - Ruralia
Working papers on MFA can be found in:
- Les cahiers de la multifonctionnalité (INRA-Cirad-Cemagref)
Descriptions of the major changes in French agriculture through statistical data are gathered in:
- Cahiers Agreste (review from the statistical office of the ministry in charge of agriculture)
1.4. Some specificities of French approaches
Certain specificities of the research approaches developed in France are directly tied to the structuring of the French research system in agriculture.
Most research on agriculture in France is conducted not in the universities but in specific research institutes (Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique [INRA], CEMAGREF, Centre International pour la Recherche Agronomique et le Développement [CIRAD]). These three institutes are multidisciplinary bodies in which research in the bio-technical and the social sciences is associated. Most of the above-mentioned programmes (AGROTECH, Nouvelles fonctions de l’Agriculture, MFA INRA-CIRAD-CEMAGREF, etc.) have therefore encouraged scientists to work within multidisciplinary teams. Specific methodological and conceptual results involving both the social and the biotechnical sciences have been produced. (Landais 1999)
Research in the social sciences has been guided by three main paradigms:
a) - standard economic approaches (strict or “enlarged”, in particular with neo-institutionalist approaches) (Vermersch 2001),
b) - historical institutionalism theories (in particular regulation theories, continuation of a French tradition in rural economics and sociology), (Allaire, Dupeuple 2003, Losch 2003, Delorme Dir 2004),
c) - theories of business enterprise management (mainly for approaches at the farm level).
2) Multifunctionality of farm activities
In analysing farming activities from a multifunctional standpoint, several complementary problematics are addressed. They deal with:
- The multifunctional impact of any farm activity on different scales and the different ways of assessing farm diversity in that context;
- The new opportunities offered to agricultural households for basing their economic strategies on the multifunctional character of farming activities (diversification, environmental services,...) (Steyaert 2002).
Multagri Project : WP4, Multifunctionality of activities, plurality of identities and new institutional - The contradictions / complementarities resulting from the need to meet several kinds of objective at the farm level (competitiveness, environment, etc.) and the ability to design farm models, taking into account these different objectives and their consequences for different aspects of the farm operation (spatial organisation, work organisation, skills, etc.).
2.1 MFA and models of the farm
The recent debates on the multifunctionality of agriculture question the existing theoretical models needed to analyse agricultural activity and the functioning of farms. A literature review was carried out to find out whether current methods of representing and modelling agricultural households were able to meet the requirements of MFA analyses (Laurent et al. 2003). This article provides insights into several alternative approaches to the farm holding that have structured recent research on agriculture and rural studies. Four theoretical trends have been identified in relation to the way the farm is considered. Each of these trends has experienced recent developments:
1) The farm as a “micro-economic entity”, where the farm is considered as an enterprise maximising a utility function (generally the farm profit). These types of models have recently been improved in three directions: i) along the lines of North American research on household economics (based on Becker’s work) to better understand the labour offer of pluriactive households (Benjamin 1996); ii) by developing multi-criteria models (multi-goal programming, multi-objective programming, compromise programming) that simultaneously consider different objectives (e.g. related to production and environment) and that integrate risk and uncertainty into analyses of farmers’ decisions (Jacquet, Pluvinage 1997); and iii) with the help of bio-economic models often used to help in predicting the environmental impact of technical changes (Flichman, Jacquet 2000).
2) The farm as part of a social system, where the farm is analysed as part of an overall socio-economic system, and where the individuals’ behaviours are considered to be linked to their social position. These approaches often couple statistical analyses with case studies, and often associate economists and sociologists. Several recent studies have linked the institutional changes faced by various groups of farmers with transformations in farm practice, observed at the farm level (on CTEs, etc.) (Laurent, Rémy 2000, Laurent et al. 1998).
3) The farm as a managed system, based on systems theory, considers the farm as a set of inter-related sub-systems. Farmers’ decisions are modelled to obtain a global approach to the farm (in all its dimensions), and the focus set on the farmer’s actual aims (which may be other than profit maximisation). Such models were recently used to better understand the role of environmental and production constraints in farmers’ decisions, and improvements were made using expert systems (Girard, Hubert 1999, Fiorelli, Dedieu 2004).
4) The farm as “a complex organisation”, where the farm is considered as an organisation (Williamson) whose efficiency depends upon lowering transaction costs. The few researches developed along this line in France seek to formalise information constraints and better understand how specific skills are built and selected in these organisations (Mazé et al. 2000).
From this literature review it appears that these models propose a range of interesting approaches to study the transformation of production systems and of agricultural household systems of income and activities, in the context of the multifunctionality of agriculture. However, evidence is also provided that these models need adaptations. In fact, observation of several research programmes has shown that taking into account different functions of agriculture profoundly transforms the requirements of farm analyses:
Multagri Project : WP4, Multifunctionality of activities, plurality of identities and new institutional 1) There is a need for better visibility of production processes (for consumers, for the agro-industry, etc.). This means that information systems which are relevant to this objective need to be designed and implemented at the farm level;
2) Since farm activities and consequently farmers’ skills are changing, new kinds of constraint (work organisation, etc.) need to be investigated when analysing practices;
3) New ways of evaluating performances are needed (environmental performances of production systems.);
4) The diversity of farms and the relations between their production systems must be analysed in a new way to understand their respective roles in the fulfilment of various functions (cohesion, environment) on the regional scale.
2.2. MFA and Farm diversity
In spite of the specialisation trend that has prevailed since the 1960s, French farms still remain extremely diverse. This diversity can be described according to size, productive orientation, purpose of the farm (income, leisure, subsistence, etc.), structures of the systems of activity and income of the farm households, agricultural practices, and spatial location (peri-urban, rural, “deep rural”, etc.). For much research dealing with MFA, the first step is to describe and assess this diversity in a way which will be adequate for their purpose and, when investigations are based on case studies, to link their sample to a wider description of agriculture.
In fact, the perception of this diversity has changed a great deal over the course of time. At the beginning of the 1960s farm heterogeneity was considered to be an obstacle to the rapid modernisation of French agriculture, before it was considered to be proof of its capacity to adapt. With the debate on MFA, the importance of the various types described above has differed, depending on whether the focus was on agricultural commodity, social and economic contribution to maintaining the rural fabric, or landscape conservation, environmental issues, supply of amenities for urban households, and so on. The shift from an agricultural commodity production objective towards MFA implies the description of diversity with new patterns and, sometimes, the taking into account of agricultural holdings, which were previously ignored (Laurent, Rémy 2000, 106), as well as a different way of describing the spatial organisation of agriculture (Lardon et al. 2004, Pluvinage, Moulin 2004).
If the focus is on the productive functions of agriculture, an “agricultural commodity viewpoint” allowing for the assessment of amounts of agricultural commodities produced, competitiveness, relationship with the agro-industry, etc. may still be relevant. The larger farms should then be prioritised because they generate most of the agricultural commodities that reach the market; for most analyses the other types can just be ignored.
But if the main focus is on land development and environmental issues, the situation is different. Another viewpoint is relevant, which allows for the assessment of the impact of various agricultural activities on land use and natural resource management. It is then necessary to account for each plot of agricultural land. It can be estimated that the larger holdings (> 8 economic size units) cover more than 80% of agricultural land. However, the smaller farms are not randomly distributed throughout the rural areas. In some areas with more scattered housing, these holdings use the lower quality land, which has been abandoned by the large holdings and might otherwise be left idle. In other areas, the agricultural holdings are concentrated in urban peripheries, and may occupy significant land areas, considered on the small regional scale. Therefore, assessing the situation from the “land development” viewpoint, these areas are not to be ignored (Baudry et al. 2000).
Multagri Project : WP4, Multifunctionality of activities, plurality of identities and new institutional If the focus is on the contribution of agricultural activity to all the activity of a rural society, then each household, even those producing few farm commodities, deserves attention (Chatellier et al. 2004). One must therefore adopt a “household viewpoint” which takes account of all the people practising an agricultural activity. This facilitates the understanding of the varied mechanisms through which agricultural activity contributes to the wider rural economy (e.g. specialised occupational activities, maintenance of an economic activity as part of the development of complex activity systems [households that combine various activities to generate income], income supplementation by producing food for home consumption; social welfare coverage (Fabre, Laurent 1998), recreational activities contributing to maintain households in rural areas, etc.) (Laurent et al. 1998, Ponchelet, Mundler 1999).
If the focus is on amenities that agriculture can provide to urban populations, and on the various functions which are expected from agriculture in relation to its spatial location (peri-urban areas (Fleury 2004, Fleury Aubry 2003, Fleury, Moustier 1999, Fleury et al. 2004, Fleury Donnadieu 2004, Bertrand et al. 2004 , Perron 2004), remote rural areas, mountains, etc.) the geographic criteria will take on a new importance in the segmentation of farm populations, as each area will correspond to specific demands regarding the MFA (Havet 2004, Soulard 2004, Baudry et al 2000).
2.3. MFA, farm diversification, pluriactivity and agricultural
household systems of activities and income
Once multifunctionality of agricultural activity is recognised, it may be viewed as a source of renewal for economic strategies in agriculture, via remuneration of services connected to agriculture (agro-tourism, on-farm sale, environmental services, etc.), which place the farmer outside the narrow sphere of primary agricultural production. A large section of literature on the multifunctionality of agriculture deals with this issue. The questions addressed partially converge with a large portion of economic and sociological literature on services (Gadrey 1992) whose heuristic value is tested to analyse agriculture (Aznar, Perriet Cornet 2003, Capt 1999, Laurent 1994).
In addition, specific attention is devoted to complex systems of activities (pluriactivity of individuals, combination of pluriactivity and diversification, etc.) which help to maintain employment in low-density rural areas and are a major issue for gender (Giraud 2001). These studies are linked with other researches dealing with pluriactivity in other sectors of activity (Cautres et al. 1993, Biche et al. 1996, Corriatt-Attia 1999, Mouriaux 1998, Casaux 1993).
The novelty, however, is not that such systems exist – pluriactivity (Lacombe 1984, ARF 1984, Gorecki-Leroy 1980, Garrier, Hubscher 1997) and diversification (Capt 1993, Beteille 1996) have long been described – but that they no longer appear as residual systems doomed to rapid extinction and, as a result, that they can no longer legitimately be excluded from analyses of agriculture. With different theoretical approaches, the problematics of multifunctionality have given rise to a new generation of studies on diversification, pluriactivity and other systems of activities linked to agriculture, following tracks which have been open since the sixties.
Extensive collaboration with researchers working in other national situations – French overseas departments (Sabourin, Djama, 2002), Greece (Vounouki 2003), Brazil (Leite 2004, carneiro 2004), the Netherlands, etc. – and who have shared their results on this specific issue, have considerably enriched reflection on the subject in France.
Multagri Project : WP4, Multifunctionality of activities, plurality of identities and new institutional 2.3.1. Diversification
Some of the authors back the idea that diversification of farm activities is an ideal way of overcoming the limitations of specialised model that suffer from a disadvantageous price relationship with other activity sectors (Bonnafous et al. 2004, Daniel 1995, Gramond et al 1998).
Some studies aim at measuring the quantitative importance of farm diversification and are based on agricultural census data (Agreste 2001, Capt, Dussol 2003). They show little increase in farm diversification in France (as defined paragraph 1.2.) Many other studies afford specific insights into local diversification dynamics through numerous case studies described in the scientific and technical literature.
Developing such systems is not, however, free of difficulty even for highly motivated farmers. There is a need for institutional frameworks to evolve in order to promote diversified agriculture. Agricultural policies still set up too many hurdles for the development of these forms of multifunctionality. The many adaptations needed to establish a new occupational status for diversified holdings are recurrently spotlighted, whether for the farm status or the organisation of new forms of competition with other activity sectors. A set of studies has examined with legal questions related to farm diversification (Couturier 1994, 2003, Blanchemanche et al 2000, Varennes 1999, Sevinon 1999).
One may nevertheless question whether farm diversification is truly a way into the future. If diversification is to prevail, then how are the relationships between diversified and specialised farms to be designed and organised? Will the diversified model replace the specialised model? Will the two models coexist? If so, then how? Would there be a regional separation of increased specialisation and diversification of farm-linked activities? A pattern such as this could both lead to excess offer of these services in some areas, and in the long run pose land use and planning problems. This fits into the wider debate on the appropriate scale for reasoning on the combination of primary production and services – farm holding, larger areas? (Mahé 2001, Perraud 2003) –, and leads to reflection on a new economic geography of agriculture (Perrier-Cornet, Capt 1995).
2.3.2. Pluriactivity, complex systems of occupational activities and income In focussing on farm diversification one is prompted to link the problematics of “multifunctionality’ with those of “pluriactivity”, as MFA recognition may result in an increase of pluriactivity (Cf. paragraph 1.2.).
Regarding pluriactivity,
- Some researches aim at measuring the quantitative importance of pluriactivity within the total population of farms; this has been a permanent concern in rural economics and sociology (Lacombe P. 1975, 1984, Brun et al. 1982, Laurent et al. 1994). Most of these studies are based on agricultural census and structural survey data (Agreste 2001, Rattin 2002, Laurent 2005), while some rely on FADN. They are considered to be a basic framework for any case study on this issue.
- Other researches have been carried out to measure the relative proportion of agricultural and non-agricultural sources of income in the total household income, at national level, by joining agricultural census data and income tax data (Butault et al. 1999, Butault, Krebs 2001, Butault et al. 2004), or for smaller samples of farms through case studies (for ex. Chiffoleau 1999).
Multagri Project : WP4, Multifunctionality of activities, plurality of identities and new institutional - Following another line of research, some authors have tried to highlight the reasons why people choose or reject pluriactivity, exploring different ranges of explanations (income and allocation of time (Benjamin, Guyomard 1994, Benjamin 1996), social and cultural capital (Blanchemanche 2000) etc.
- At farm level, studies involving both social and bio-technical sciences have built new methodologies to describe and assess the functioning of pluriactive farms, and have shown the specificities of their organisation (technical systems (Fiorelli 2002), budget, work organisation (Dedieu et al. 1999), etc.).
3) Pluralities of identities
By extending the field of agricultural activity (for instance by assigning environmental functions to it), the recognition of multifunctionality calls for a redefinition of occupations and occupational identities within the agricultural sector.
3.1. Changes in occupational identities
Sociologists have stressed that the MFA issue does not correspond solely to new economic strategies which farms may develop. Activity is a form of human behaviour that makes sense to the individual practising it , and which is linked to the functions of the activity for that person. These functions concern economic issues (monetary income, domestic security through self-consumption, insertion into networks ensuring greater mutualisation of risk [social security, food exchange, etc.], savings, etc.), social issues (to be part of a specific occupational activity, specific social position associated with farming,) or other (hedonistic functions, etc.) (Laurent et al. 1998). An activity also has a social meaning as it incorporates people exercising it into social relations, more or less intentionally. Thus, the meaning given to activities contributes towards building social and occupational identities.
Agricultural activity may sometimes take on a social meaning that diverges from – and even conflicts with – the meaning primarily assigned to it by the farmer. An example of such discrepancy is provided in France with the notion of “landscape gardener” which repels a great number of French farmers facing environmental demands, as this designation corresponds neither to the idea they have of their occupation, nor to the representation they have of their role in the society (Candau, Chabert, 2003; Candau, Deuffic, 2004).
By suggesting that the social recognition of farmers could be based on functions other than primary production, policies supporting MFA were (and still are) a source of many discrepancies of this kind. That is why the issue of identity emerges – to a greater or lesser extent – from many papers dealing with MFA.
The phenomenon may be studied per se, to describe and analyse changes of professional identities which occur in French agriculture. For many years now, farmers have been instructed to ensure that their farming activity satisfactorily conforms to the various functions society expects of them. Several researches show that farmers can give very different meanings to the change of their occupation resulting from these prescriptions. For instance, it can be observed (Candau, deuffic 2004) that landscape maintenance may be considered as part of the normal exercise of their farming activity, for some, as a specific service to be handled, requiring new skills, for others, or may even as an entry into a new occupation, for others still. These authors also draw attention to the apprehension, the disarray even, caused by the imposition (even with remuneration) of aesthetic standards foreign to the agricultural world, and by the importance which other social groups assign to the landscape issue while the sustainability of farms is threatened.
Multagri Project : WP4, Multifunctionality of activities, plurality of identities and new institutional Another set of researches aims at specifying the sources of these discrepancies in occupational identities and the reasons why, in many situations, farmers’ behaviour seems irrational from a strictly economic standpoint (rejection of farm diversification and possibilities of pluriactivity, reluctance to carry out environmental tasks or, by contrast, adoption of diversification strategies which seem very risky by economic standards). These researches are carried out from different theoretical angles: socio-cognitive analysis (Candau, Deuffic 2004), habitus (Blanchemanche 2000), socio-occupational patterns of families and gender issues (Giraud, Rémy 2004), etc.
They allow for a better understanding of why changes in identity linked to recognition of MFA are sometimes perceived as a social depreciation or advancement. A key point is linked to the specificity of services. Recognition of MFA rests on the capacity of the agricultural sector to demonstrate that it supplies a range of services (to households, to local communities, to firms) (Aznar, Perrier Cornet 2003; Capt, Dussol 2004). As service activities must be co-produced they imply the development of many interactions between providers and beneficiaries of these services (Gadrey 1992). A farmer providing services must agree to have many interactions with the beneficiaries (with individuals for agro-tourism, with communities for landscape management, etc.). But some farmers experience these new productive relations as an entry into new relations of subordination, contrary to what may be observed in other branches (health, computing) where co-production of services is part of the occupational ethos. The resulting feeling of social depreciation leads some farmers to refuse to develop such activities (Guillaumin et al. 2004).
3.2. Consequences for MFA policies
Disregarding these mechanisms may result in underrating hindrances to the development of activities that many institutions wish to promote. For instance, the report on the national assessment of CTEs in France shows that such questions related to identity explain to some extent the reluctance to adopt measures designed to accompany the recognition of MFA (Léger et al. 2004). The issue of occupational identity – that of farmers and more generally of all those who exercise an agricultural activity – thus appears central in understanding the mechanisms underpinning changes in the forms of exercise of agricultural activity, and increases the difficulty of carrying out evaluation processes (Allaire, Dupeuple, 2003).
That is why a number of authors insist on the fact that, besides the need to shed light on the changing meanings of agricultural activity for those exercising it, there is also a need to link the standpoint of actors with an analysis of the social relations in which they are embedded. To progress in this direction, it has been proposed to articulate a sociology of knowledge with a sociology of social movements and a sociology of occupational fields, so as to inform, and thus facilitate, the public debate on the orientations of agriculture (Lémery 2004).
4) Occupational status, support systems and new
institutional arrangements
In France, the occupational status of “farmer” is based both on belonging to an occupational field, structured by specific institutions (farmers unions, farmers-state commissions, etc.), and on membership of the farmers’ social protection scheme, which can be joined by people having an agricultural holding of a certain size. About one third of the holders of French farms do not have the legal occupational status of “farmer” in terms of the social laws. This occupational status, a legal category in social law, is also a tool for the management of
Multagri Project : WP4, Multifunctionality of activities, plurality of identities and new institutional various farm support systems (subsidies, extension, specific regulations, etc.). But recognition of the multifunctionality of activities questions this definition of occupational status and, as a consequence, also questions the limits of the traditional population of beneficiaries of the support systems to agriculture.
4.1. Occupational status
Recognition of the multifunctionality of activities causes the representations underlying the definition of the occupational status of “farmer” to splinter, at least in the early stages. This may result from a crisis of occupational identity as seen above, but also from a difficulty in outlining precisely the occupation and the criteria for its evaluation. For instance, under which conditions should a salaried person who is also a farm holder be considered as a farmer? Should a person whose income consists of environmental subsidies be given the occupational status of farmer? What is the nature of such a job? Are we observing the emergence of new occupations as suggested several years ago (Muller 1987, Muller et al. 1989)? Several researches involving lawyers, economists and sociologists have dealt with these questions (Blanchemanche et al. 2000, Couturier 2003).
Actually, these questions are linked with a more general problem, common to the whole EU and to different sectors of activity: the absence of a shared vision of the notions of “labour”, “activity”, employment” and “occupational status” (Supiot 1999). That is why it is interesting to link the scientific discussion on this topic, in agriculture, to those conducted in other sectors of activity.
A case study on postmen’s activities in French rural areas (Sahuc 1994) allows us to draw a parallel between the “versatility” of rural postmen (who deliver mail but also medication and other things that people ask them to carry, who circulate information, etc.) and the “multifunctionality” expected from agricultural activity. The observation of this versatility, which contributes towards maintaining social links, calls for reflection on what a postman in the role of “rural counselor” could be. On the other hand, this study shows that, as with agriculture, it would be very difficult to formalise the limits of such an occupational activity which differs from the usual patterns of codification of occupational activities, even if the demand from the rural population for such services is very high.
In another context, a sociologist (Carneiro 2004) also takes up the matter of occupational status, but deals with a different form of discrepancy between status and the occupation actually exercised. She describes how systems of work involving the family, relatives and neighbours in clothes-making workshops may hold on to the farmer status and the attendant social protection even when agricultural activity is almost nil. Thus, in the region investigated, social identity continues to rest upon references to the farm (and to place). She observes that family farming also serves as a practical model, as an ethos, in building work relationships within domestic workshops as well as relationships with other people, with the surrounding world and with nature.
Such bridges between different sectors and different countries provide relevant questions for analysing a new way for French agriculture, where an increasing discrepancy can be observed between formal occupational statuses and actual situations of activities. The implications of these changes are not to be ignored as certain advantages may accrue from the social recognition of individuals and of occupational groups, such as access to the agricultural support system, a situation which other groups may in turn dispute (Rémy 1987, Butault et al. 2002, Laurent et al. 2002).
Multagri Project : WP4, Multifunctionality of activities, plurality of identities and new institutional
4.2. Support system and new institutional arrangements
The support systems to agriculture (subsidies, technical support, taxation and regulation incentives) were formerly structured towards the support of a specific group of modernist farmers. But the recognition of MFA changes the stakes of agriculture support. Some systems of activity contributing to rural employment, social cohesion, bio-diversity conservation, etc. (part-time farming, pluriactivity, farm diversification, small-scale farms), which were little recognised before the nineties, are granted new importance with the will to support the multifunctionality of agriculture (Coutureau 1997, Ponchelet, Mundler 1999). The performance of the support systems can no longer be addressed by taking care of only a small proportion of the larger farms and of the sole productivity of primary production.
Therefore, a wide range of researches has been conducted to analyse these changes. They deal with the recognition of MFA as an end of the hegemony of a farming model and of a group of modernist farmers (Bazin 2003), the debate on the target and content of support policy and the role given to occupational statuses in managing the support systems (Laurent
et al. 2002), the debate on equity of economic support (Butault et al. 2002, Dupraz et al.
2001), especially in the implementation of the CTE scheme (Kroll 2002, Lacombe et al. 2004, Cochet, Devienne 2002) and new patterns (content, target clients) of extension services (Laurent et al 2002 Vallée 2003).
Recognition of the multifunctionality of agricultural activities also implies that links between agriculture and other stakeholders are changing. In particular, new stakeholders (consumers, nature conservation associations, etc.) can join the different institutions where new
regulations are designed and implemented. Several researches based on different methodologies (sociological observation of meetings, policy networks, conflict-solving
approaches, etc.) have been carried out to examine the confrontation of different conceptions of farm activity in new institutional arrangements (between farmers and other stakeholders) and to assess the actual contribution of other stakeholders to agriculture regulation (Perraud 2003, Rémy 2000, 2001, 2002, Aznar et al. 2002, Andriot 2003, Pivot et al. 2003).
5) MFA, towards a different way of analysing activities?
The debate on multifunctionality implies to reconsider the concepts of “activity”, work” and “employment”, to discuss the relevance of various approaches used in the social sciences (anthropology, sociology, economics, law, etc.) and philosophy, and to analyse human activities and behaviours.
The wealth of observations dealing with the transformation of activities stresses the need to link different disciplines in order to deal in a concerted way with the different aspects of changes in forms of activity, and to avoid a certain economic reductionism, which has at times prevailed in debates on MFA. However, revising former approaches is not easy.
By definition, all scientific approaches proceed by following a simplification process. Scientific knowledge is only able to build simplified and always incomplete approaches to the complexity of reality. In this situation, the concept of “activity” poses specific difficulties to interdisciplinary practice (Laurent 2003). This is a central concept which, however, profoundly divides the social sciences as each branch approaches activity through particular reduction procedures. As a result, only one aspect of activity is considered, so that the complexity of the initial object is disregarded. Several courses to revise ongoing research
