Soumission AUBERT DEBRUNE HUAT PARROT

The institutional environment T 11èmes 11èmes Journées de recherches en sciences sociales (JRSS) he case of Comment citer cedocument: 2 place Viala, 34060 Montpellier the formal market gardeners in M gardeners market formal the Lyon

– F INRA 97600, FranceMamoudzou, UPR HORTSYS, BP 1304,

34398 Montpellier, France 14 et 15 décembre 63370 Lempdes [email protected] [email protected] 89 avenur de l [email protected] UMR UMR 1110 MOISA, Orane Debrune Magali Aubert Laurent [email protected] UPR HORTSYS, - Montpellier Supagro, as an essential support to agro ecology: Joël Huat VetAgro CIRAD, CIRAD,

Parrot ’ Europe ,

France

Cedex 2,

2017 France

ayotte

The institutional environment

requirement Sanitary season, which can destroy all or some parts of the harvest. We demonstrate that more that demonstrate We harvest. the of parts some or all destroy can which season,

are directly concerned by the dynamic the by concerned directly are

regulations

Mayotte, tomato, agro T he case of Magali Aubert vironmental friendly practices. “mad cow” “mad

Comment citer cedocument: n piae actor’s private and not already achieved. In order to answer this inadequacy in a context a in inadequacy this answer to order In achieved. already not the formal market gardeners in M gardeners market formal the s

r srnteig n re in strengthening are

; Orane Debrune crisis - ecology, formal agriculture, logit model

studies .

Mayotte is Mayotte as an essential support to agro ecology: ihih ta te erft ewe patcs and practices between retrofit the that highlight requirements

ent could be a be could ent which has emerged for the last twenty years, twenty last the for emerged has which

; Joël Huat a . It . French overseas department since 2011 since department overseas French pne to sponse

is supposed to supposed is ,

th ; Laurent r ough brake consumer

ealr, n particular in retailers, as well as well as Parrot

comply to comply ayotte tomatoes

ed s’ help

expectations a 7 tomatoes 47

leverage to leverage understand fly during fly European 2 . ,

Version postprint 11. Journées deRecherches enSciences Sociales (JRSS), Lyon, FRA (2017-12-14 -2017-12-15) . essential supporttoagro ecology:the caseoftheformal marketgardeners inMayotte. Presented at Aubert, M.,Debrune,O., Huat,J.,Parrot, L.(2017). Theinstitutional environment asan 1 eiine n, niety rdcn hat rss ae h mi ojcie tree b agro by targeted objectives main the are risks, health reducing indirectly, and, resilience opti services, ecosystem maximizing quality, soil Improving processes. natural the possible, Wherever resources. natural of use rational 2015) offered byagrosystems" pr agrosystems" sustainable as Defined th 2012 in producers to adopt environmental re at aims plan second 2014) (Potier, pesticides of use the quantitatively reduce to was aim whose 2025 Ecophyto the implemented France pesticides, of use the reduce to 2008) Commission, h excessively to consumers of exposure the reduce to No order in (EC) Regulation 2005, In food in pesticides. substances active authorized for (MRLs) to Limits Residue Maximum defines 396/2005 exposure of risks the reducing to committed in financial to for addition In imputed respected. are rules subsidies public the these to since access environment, the through development economic agricultural Agri pesticides. intensify and more produce to pressure the reducing measures, development rural and policies aid direct into evolved supports production and price Progressively, guidelines. landscapes implement the Progressively, dimension phytosanitary requirements to guarantee products’ safety. 2013) inserm, util such 1. ecology

https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/envir/cap_en

cie fvrn booia itrcin amn at aiming interactions biological favoring actices define t While Introduction .

I It is through the development of agro of development the through is It France This

n (De Schutter, 2010 ; Altieri et Nicholls, 2012; Silici, 2014) ization is the negative impact on impact negative the is ization

a national action plan aimed at reducing mainly pesticides. the useof 1992

to o environmental of ation , climate change climate , he use of pesticide increase pesticide of use he t nw oe appear model new a at o vi har avoid to te plcto o eooia sine o h suy dsg ad aaeet of management and design study, the to science ecological of application "the approach . Hence, .

. is the first european country consuming country european first the is

, a reform a , , eas o tee negative these of Because - launched and co and launched

niomna maue o gen payments green or measures environmental European policy European . In 2 In .

a is o obn te rdciiy f h arclua sco ad the and sector agricultural the of productivity the combine to aims ducing Comment citer cedocument:

fl giutrl ciiy y providing by activity agricultural mful second plan adopt plan second

009, (Direction de l'information légale et administrative de la République, la de administrative et légale l'information de (Direction

of the Common Agricultural Policy Agricultural Common the of y h Fec government, French the by , air and water quality bec quality water and air Europe adopt Europe

f possible if - - piloted by the Ministry of Agriculture. The Agriculture. of Ministry the by piloted friendly practices and involving all the actors sector of

takes into account into takes - ed redy practices friendly

s s gieie f rnh giutrl development. agricultural French of guideline a as

yield and yield both ed y 0 % 50 by ed

- both

effects, effects, ecology supported by supported ecology the "pesticide package" "pesticide the health and health

quantitative and qualitative objectives. This objectives. qualitative and quantitative the income of farmers, t farmers, of income the

y 20 by a national action national

ulc uhrte define authorities public me an integral part of European policy European of part integral an me piiig h use the optimizing an agricultural model agricultural an agro pesticides 1

the pesticides . 2 - te s o pesticides of use the 5 ecology environment osdrto o biodiversity, of Consideration did not achieve not did considered igh product doses doses product igh mainly

are (Aubertot et al., 2005) al., et (Aubertot

. used must be replaced by replaced be must used

the Agricultural Ministry Agricultural the

plan Ecophyto 2018 and 2018 Ecophyto plan : e : s a is upsd o promote to supposed ach Member State Member ach iaca incentives financial

(Aktar et al., 2009 ; 2009 al., et (Aktar "set of agricultural of "set centives, Europe is Europe centives, f h possibilities the of the he counterpart of of counterpart he dedicated

first first environmental its mizing farm farm mizing n impose and

(European 2018 objectives the use of of use the incitating to the to .

plan . To . has 3 - .

aot i a 375 a is Mayotte Background evolution aot i a is Mayotte national and European of evolution The The aim of this study is to analyze to is study this of aim The t Mayotte, In used

(the French (the formal inadequacy between wh consisted in interviews among the among interviews in consisted res

The last part put part last The

T armonization of these practices with European and national regulations is recent is regulations national and European with practices these of armonization and bosrp apig vn f these if even sampling bootstrap a his production isa of phytosanitary requirements phytosanitary of ults from theults survey. from first - friendly practices. friendly farmers.

0 k East km 500 survey identified survey he main he Computer System for for System Computer eeat ae td bcue f t rcn itgain t h Fec and French the at integration recent its of because study case relevant

The first part of this study is the explanation of the Mahorais’ context. Mahorais’ the of explanation the is study this of part first The ru o island of group km² Comment citer cedocument:

. hl te is sre aim survey first the While 8 identifying,

The compliance of the agricultural practices of of practices agricultural the of compliance The 000 km 000 s (Grande

crop into perspective into rmn ol sne 01 n an and 2011 since only artment of of seasonal and at ispracticed and what shouldbe

S using pesticides is the tomato. Hence, our study focuses on focuses study our Hence, tomato. the is pesticides using ince Africa Africa

away from from away - opportunities and constraints and opportunities Terre hog a through

agricultural fourty

et o h Mzmiu cnl Te archipelago, The canal. Mozambique the to next the and oae i te nin Ocean Indian the in located to what to and to what exten what to and main actors main perishable one the - seven Business Directory on the Territory the on Directory Business France.

Pet are formal ones formal are literature results issued from this model, at the farmer the at model, this from issued results

ite

farmers farmers production. eurmns n em o phytosanitary of terms in requirements extent

ed farmers were surveyed, the econometric the surveyed, were farmers - Terre), is Terre),

Mayotte is a relevant case study, since study, case relevant a is Mayotte support at T

of the sector the of i pr dcie te two the declines part his

describing Mahorais’ farmers are affected by affected are farmers Mahorais’ review . ersn almos represent

t , our study focuses focuses study our ,

they will be incline be will they island situated : farmers who have who farmers : overseas fcos ht odto the condition that factors , p environmental opt

- (Daaf, 2 (Daaf, for formal

h ognzto o the of organization the

it is it is a privileged field of of field privileged a is and the second the and the implementation of of implementation the 300 , between the equator the between ein ic 2014. since region on 016) the more sensible more the t Mahorais

e km . l te formal the all

. and there still there and Farmers who who Farmers

away from from away ) d on - . existe

a SIRET a - Because to friendly surveys surveys

formal survey all to adopt

The nce the the 4

Version postprint 11. Journées deRecherches enSciences Sociales (JRSS), Lyon, FRA (2017-12-14 -2017-12-15) . essential supporttoagro ecology:the caseoftheformal marketgardeners inMayotte. Presented at Aubert, M.,Debrune,O., Huat,J.,Parrot, L.(2017). Theinstitutional environment asan 3 2 injuried 2013) tomato. mainly crops, Solanaceae to damage major by impacted highly the are conditions climatic 2010) in is 93% and tomatoes produce m the production, tomatoes for case the particularly is It year. the during price of variation high of origin the at production, strateg guide winter) southern and summer (southern seasonality climate However, importation reduce to life” expensive “against horticultural consumption, local for Produced producer of number increasing an crops cash representing island, the on dynamic of heart reducing PDR as programs structuration, chain value innovation Food farms, means. national upgrading and European technical and financial by allocated is product phytosanitary to methods innovating alternative and practices ecological prac production in change drastic a Mayotte, Member requirements European directive framework meet must Mayotte sector, agricultural the For fishing. and agriculture for policy fiscal and trade concerning particularly status National and European new the European by recognized are climate) tropical wet a under season distinct (two climate achieve to 2008) order al., et in (Sourisseau retrofit social and legislative industrialization, difficult evolving. makes Europe, of It Region countries. others in from services island the on competitiveness and diversification or product to natura to vulnerability as

Programmes of o Rural Development Program 01 h Fec Oesa Dprmn sau floe b te tts f Ultraperipherial of status the by followed status Department Overseas French the 2011 n aot, e Mayotte, In depa a Therefore, . The fly p fly The . produce exclusively is It . ies D Lvrn e a. 2012) al., et Lavergne (De local preoccupation local fruit, rottingfruit, the which fruit, isthen no longer consumable

its

State. of farmers farmers of , because , pesticide consumption. ptions r hog the Through i c xclusively 2 k

s or they provide they n 2014 in

(Daaf, 2017) (Daaf, specifically relating to r 2009/128/CE ecrtts cyanescens Neoceratitis the fruit to fruit the

tetlzto poes a be eggd ih lgl economic, legal, a with engaged been has process rtmentalization POSEI Comment citer cedocument: ls and economic exogenous chocks, high transport cost, dependency cost, transport high chocks, exogenous economic and ls Is slto, o ae, ml eooy hly adcp ad hard and landscape hilly economy, small area, low isolation, Its .

most favor most

and territories and sd n horticultu on used January

French 3 . n tase poet r crid y uoen n national and European by carried are project transfer and d

hy i a ehnig aot arclua sco ad at and sector agricultural Mayotte enhancing at aim They lay its egg its lay

s rpeetd o represented ost fast financial flow due to their short production cycle production short their to due flow financial fast during the dry season (from June to September), when agro when September), to June (from season dry the during . Heavy rainfalls during southern summer limit the full the limit summer southern during rainfalls Heavy . s , aiming at sustainably use phytosanitary product in every in product phytosanitary use sustainably at aiming , open . :

around 1 t gives It , % f total of 9% 1, able natio st te oiia, iaca ad cnmc rmwr is framework economic and financial political, the , - ie (r 8 a f h ttl giutrl area) agricultural total the of ha 58 (or filed emoteness emoteness and insularity . However, during this season this during However, . a pa Eoht, ny prtn sne 03 in 2013 since operating only Ecophyto, plan nal s. Larvae as well as other pathogen other as well as Larvae s. challenges 40 ha in 2003 and 130 and 2003 in ha 40 tices has emerged. The transition towards agro towards transition The emerged. has tices o Mayotte to crops s Dpea Tephritidae) (Diptera:

a crops ral and enhancing island enhancing and (Rivière, 2010) (Rivière, te sad : island the n

Yield losses can reach can losses Yield keep growing to respond to the 2011 riot 2011 the to respond to growing keep cultivated area and 8% of farms. farms. of 8% and area cultivated . T . wt, n atclr te European the particular, in with, , he vegetable sector is sector vegetable he

Da, 2016) (Daaf, ces o iaca maue, and measures, financial to access

. Because . 44% of horticultural farm farm horticultural of 44% (Bre ha . food secur food hs net l causes fly insect This vault, 1999) , in 2010 in ,

pesticide tomato production is production tomato

Mayotte acquire Mayotte 80% one of the most the of one penetrate the

(Daaf, 2010) (Daaf, requirements

ity s (Huat et al., et (Huat

. productive

r a the at are potential. ,

(Daaf, (Daaf, attract These in the in - field 5 d - - .

Version postprint 11. Journées deRecherches enSciences Sociales (JRSS), Lyon, FRA (2017-12-14 -2017-12-15) . essential supporttoagro ecology:the caseoftheformal marketgardeners inMayotte. Presented at Aubert, M.,Debrune,O., Huat,J.,Parrot, L.(2017). Theinstitutional environment asan certificate tha terminology a is practices” friendly consider 2. personal, structural, institutional determinants deciding farmers of their produc vegetables and fruit fresh to access have to supermarket from achieve answer yield 2015) al., et reduction, Vidogbéna ; 2015 al., et Martin number ; 2006 (pest productivity agronomic of terms increase) in Benin, and Kenya in in practices innovative of integration are Nets by systems. production pass consequence in should evolution practices Agricultural controlled. be to has that stake another is imports reduce and habits consumption ess is production This fly. the fight effectively to farmers by known and for The standards encounter destabilized. is the offer, the economy of seasonality local the and atomization the island, the of market limited the With sector. tomatoes the in competitiveness low a creating logic, of opportunist an follow consumers quality the or nor origin limit, residues on maximal traceability the respecting nor networks, trade informal through done is selling the of 90% since structured not is chain value Tomatoes product. the selling before product highlight This networks. legal are them of 20% only However, distributed certai pre application, t of number use, of island the on producer every by respected not are protection) physical dose (maximal use phytosanitary for pest the partially only island the on used mainly products selective, ; Sharma et al., 2015) Fernandez ; 1998 al., 2011) al., et Zhou ; 2011 reatment frequency index, 4 to 8 times higher than in mainland France mainland in than higher times 8 to 4 index, frequency reatment

In this section, we consider the definition of more environ more of definition the consider we section, this In Theoretical available are technics few Mayotte, in pesticides of use important an is there though Even realiz are control few mainland, France in system control solid a to Contrary Chemical case. n

s the mahorais’food habit, development of new market, increasing population and demand and population increasing market, new of development habit, mahorais’food ing

from borderingfrom island

Mri e a. 20 ; uee t l, 2014) al., et Muleke ; 2006 al., et (Martin (Chemnitz, 2007 ; Dörr et Grote, 2009 ; Asfaw et al., 2010 ; Kersting et Wollni, et Kersting ; 2010 al., et Asfaw ; 2009 Grote, et Dörr ; 2007 (Chemnitz,

throu requirement h dtriat o te mlmnain f uh practices. such of implementation the of determinants the responses rdcs s, hc ae not are which use, Products

framework h fiil etr ih Cert a with center official gh s

- difficulty to

Cornejo et Ferraioli, 1999 ; Pereira de Herrera et Sain, 1999 ; Galt, 2008 Galt, ; 1999 Sain, et Herrera de Pereira ; 1999 Ferraioli, et Cornejo such asthe use (Ryckewaert et Fabre, 2002) Fabre, et (Ryckewaert

Comment citer cedocument: s are essentially used essentially are s

to the implementation of a specific prac specific a of implementation the to of European rules could however be difficult to reach. to difficult be however could rules European of the importan the

an s

allow to easily farms have access to example expand

of nets of the ce of an informal supply system supply informal an of ce t and can and embraces .

a sco wih eurs uniy n quality and quantity requires which sector mal where their where product. against always to protect production insects. from (lambda

buy chemical products in official distr official in products chemical buy i phyto, are still present in numerous farms. farms. numerous in present still are phyto,

different behaviour different

. . Neoceratitis cyanescens

ahr t Rather loe i France, in allowed Rules defined by the European directive European the by defined Rules Adoption of agro of Adoption

benefit n eooi viability economic and - cyhalothrine et deltaméthrine) et cyhalothrine a ta, rdcr a wl as well as producers that, han s mental

, have already been highlight been already have

it is important to understand to important is it tice

- them (Okoye, 1998 ; Traoré et Traoré ; 1998 (Okoye, friendly practices before before practices friendly s (Didelot et al., 2017) al., et (Didelot : illegal import illegal : -

from the adoption of a of adoption the from ecological practices to practices ecological ,

has been observed in observed been has and .

ential in mahorais’ in ential

. Nor specific, nor specific, Nor “Environmental upsd being supposed tive strategy. -

harv Mri e al., et (Martin ed in Mayotte in ed In order to order In s delay, est ations

ibution master .

ed of of A 6 -

Hypothes h m The - Figure 1.Determinantsoftheimplementation ofenvironmental u To

Hypothesis Hypothesis

nderstand to what extend farmers are more or less likely to implement environmental implement to likely less or more are farmers extend what to nderstand and be more likely able to estimate to able likely more be and is 6 i caatrsi o te amr cniee is considered farmers the of characteristic ain others determinants less studies in the literature: on one hand theliterature:hand the onein determinantsstudieson others less . Almost all studies under studies all Almost ). - (Hypothesis 2) (Hypothesis friendl

These hypotheses are more likelyare more to implement environmental h dtriat rltd o h ipeetto o mr e more of implementation the to related determinants The 1: y practice Farmers’ characteristics s 5 is ) Comment citer cedocument: .

ic tee hrceitc ae nnmul cniee, u study our considered, unanimously are characteristics these Since ad h isiuinl niomn o wih amr’ evolve farmers’ which on environment institutional the and ) , their financial their , . Hence,

are

summarized line the fact that younger farmers are more aware with aware more are farmers younger that fact the line

we Younger farmers Younger Te ae upsd o e more be to supposed are They . hypothesi dimension (Hypothesis 3) (Hypothesis dimension the

positive impact of the implementation of of implementation the of impact positive in Figure 1.

ze From developing countries to developed to countries developing From

that

: their -

friendly practices.

age (Hypothesis 1), (Hypothesis

(Fernandez

- and their geo their and friendly practices dctd o these to educated hazard nvironmental

onj et Cornejo per their farm theirfarm graphical ception

an 7 - -

Hypothesis 3 Hypothesis 2:FarmHypothesis second needs to be to needs - that friendly practices friendly

characteristic considered is the degree of of degree the is considered characteristic

are more likelyare more to implement environmental likelyare more to implement environmental are more likelyare more to implement environmental The impact of such activi such of impact The

This poi This ra is area Mahorais . :

only unanimous only Financial dimension ess to land is quite difficult, we consider the physical dimension of the of dimension physical the consider we difficult, quite is land to ess h are Comment citer cedocument: m bnft rm cnm o sae n ae ec mr lkl to likely more hence are and scale of economy from benefit rms ighlighted

crop (Feder et al., 1985 ; Fernandez ; 1985 al., et (Feder redy rcie. oe hn hs caatrsis te financial the characteristics, these than More practices. friendly Ca e a. 19 ; uet t nors 2014) Enjolras, et Aubert ; 1998 al., et (Clay an nt is reinforced by the fact that being that fact the by reinforced is nt . In such a case, they are more likely to implement environmental implement to likely more are they case, a such In .

s’ characteristicss’ (Mc Laughlin et Mineau, 1995 ; Altieri, 2000 ; Roschewitz et al., et Roschewitz ; 2000 Altieri, ; 1995 Mineau, et Laughlin (Mc ’ farmers to the adoption of alternative strategies is the price, we price, the is strategies alternative of adoption the to farmers ’ Farms, whichFarms, employ workf more essential Farmers who Farmers diversified

(Clay et al., 1998 ; Knowler et Bradshaw, 2007 Bradshaw, et Knowler ; 1998 al., et (Clay

(Nowak, 1992 ; Clay et al., 1998 ; Okoye, 1998 ; Knowler ; 1998 Okoye, ; 1998 al., et Clay ; 1992 (Nowak,

. Others considerOthers .

actor considered. actor Diversified farms nomto t tk it acut is mat n the on impact its account, into take to information - redy rcie i controversial. is practices friendly

ty has a has ty on one on

have

we assume that: aatrsis f hi fr ae h to main two the are farm their of haracteristics off n production

ambivalent impact since on one hand this hand one on since impact ambivalent - farm that smaller farms arethatsmaller farms

(Gould et al., 1989) al., et (Gould Therefore, while there is unanimity is there while Therefore,

crop -

activity Cornejo et al., 1994 ; Galt, 2008 ; 2008 Galt, ; 1994 al., et Cornejo - - - , friendly practices. friendly practices. friendly practices.

the orce diversification. diversified

less

that farmers have, or not, or have, farmers that

they . sue ta the that assumes

n h Mahorais’ the In are economically are

moreincline . translate

Since the main the Since As a matter of of matter a As Some

; Galt, 2008) Galt, ; s authors

into d

to 8 a -

Version postprint 11. Journées deRecherches enSciences Sociales (JRSS), Lyon, FRA (2017-12-14 -2017-12-15) . essential supporttoagro ecology:the caseoftheformal marketgardeners inMayotte. Presented at Aubert, M.,Debrune,O., Huat,J.,Parrot, L.(2017). Theinstitutional environment asan 2011) the to aware pesticide more are products contaminated of consumption the from suffered Farmers health. on pesticides of use the to related risk the consider to is and measure to difficult quite appreciate is perception this fact, 2014) al., of et Lefebvre matter ; 1998 al., et Traoré ; 1994 Glynn, et McDonald ; 1982 Ervin, uncertainty of degree some into translates newness or innovation geographical environment. environmental of on Farming access the precisely more and characteristics to refers strategy production alternative an of adoption the for opportunity water to access the is strategy alternative an of adoption the for constraint first A missing. are they once constraints become opportunities all that notice to have We practices. o as appear variables. these of one is location them modify cannot answer phytosanitary requirements. Policy Agricultural Common 2007) Bradshaw, et practices. can evolve they which in environment oe hn hrceitc rltd o h fres n ter am te institutional the farm, their and farmers the to related characteristics than More - the account into take authors few literature, the In - va controlled as considered are some variables, active than More -

. We assume that: Farmers whoseentourage suffertheFarmers has from consumption of contaminated products Hypothesis 6 Hypothesis Hypot 4 Hypothesis

use o te oao production, tomato the For this subjective information. subjective this to these plots is hence more complicated and does not facilitate the implementation the facilitate not does and complicated more hence is plots these pruiis r osrit fr h ipeetto o environmental of implementation the for constraints or pportunities d plots. Some farmers have plots with a with plots have farmers Some plots. hesis 5 hesis

than others than are more likelyare more to implement environmental are mo - redy rcie. e sue ht f that assume We practices. friendly A a atr f fact, of matter a As .

: : : Huy 19 ; oezeg t l, 01 Klv e a. 2009) al., et Koleva ; 2001 al., et Rosenzweig ; 1994 (Houmy, Institutional environment Institutional Hazard Location

Comment citer cedocument: re likely to implement environmental Farmers’ behaviourFarmers’ inof terms is conditioned by their geographical location

(Traoré et al., 1998 ; Li, 2002 ; Deng et al., 2003 ; Zhou et al., et Zhou ; 2003 al., et Deng ; 2002 Li, ; 1998 al., et (Traoré

Farmers whobenefitFarmers any from support or who benefit from credit acces credit from benefit who or perception

The location incorporates several characteristics that can that characteristics several incorporates location The

the access to access the A way to quantify the risk perceived by perceived risk the quantify to way A favour wy o prcae h spot f institutional of support the appreciate to way a

farmers who benefit from financial support of of support financial from benefit who farmers

the implementation of environm of implementation the

paved

slope of more than 15 % 15 than more of slope use of pesticides

roads. The last leverage identified is identified leverage last The roads. hazard res ae o adapt to have armers - - friendly practices. friendly practices. s are more likely to invest to invest to likely more are s

perception of farmers. farmers. of perception

Rgr, 92 Evn et Ervin ; 1962 (Rogers, ainl survey national

riables since farmers farmers since riables whose entourage has entourage whose

the

infrastructural

the (Daaf, 2010) (Daaf, ental . A second A . impact producers s - - to

friendly friendly e not let . The . As a As their Any Any

of of 9 .

oad Two survey Two Material method and All variables considered are presented in Table 1.

ify farmers producing tomatoes and to appropriate the organisation of this sector. this of organisation the appropriate to and tomatoes producing farmers ify

Variable

pps

r have or Farmers who Farmers

are more likelyare more to implement environmental were performed were a et Sain, 1999 ; Adsadpur, 2011) Adsadpur, ; 1999 Sain, et a Comment citer cedocument:

n noml r formal a or informal an

(1) weast (1) Table 1.Description ofvariables (0) Informal; (1) (1) Informal; (0) (0) bad (1) good good (1) bad (0) have access to information . The first one is a qualitative survey qualitative a is one first The . Formal yes/no yes/no yes/no yes/no yes/no yes/no yes/no so

Unit

; (2) east ; (2)

uth - - -

efre a te amr’ ee t udrtn t what to understand to level farmers’ the at performed

Far

Institutional environment (H4) environment Institutional

Financial dimension (H3) Farm's characteristics (H2)

mer's characteristics (H1)

Hazards perception

; (3) ; (3) Interest variable Interest

(McDonald et Glynn, 1994 ; Traoré et al., 1998 al., et Traoré ; 1994 Glynn, et (McDonald

Location (H4)

Number of workforce supporting the farm work The farmer has an off Age of the farmer Use of phytosanitary product Technical referent H More than Quality of road to go to the farm Water is easily accessible and available for Location of the farm E The farmers has/had financial support from France or The farmer already asked Number of hortic

urope ealth damaged enounced ealth afterenounced damaged tomato consumption access

. More precisely, More

. throu

oml ces s eie b any by defined is access Formal 50% of50% the farm is -

friendly practices.

(H5) gh aformalway

ulture product

farm activity farm farmers can declare can farmers whose aim is both to both is aim whose Definition for

a loan to the bank on a s

slop

farming The 10 to

1 hectare = 2.47 acres entified 3.2. collected information All struct institutional these than More ------To 3.1. ucers transforming their production through a collective a through production their transforming ucers sample s wheres visited and each seller w understand the organization of the tomatothe organization theof understand producers, tomatoes’ identify To produ farms all identified Mayotte in 2010 in performed census agricultural The 3.2.1. The which hasan CIRAD, expertise in term market of gardeners. epidemiology an mainly The syndicate ‘Jeunesagriculteurs’ their helps producers for in over takes which monitoring and follow school, secondary agricultural The implement to want who producers support alternatives practices to is aim whose network DEPHY The gardeners and poultry. (Agri AEM The The cooperative CO s implement environmental survey Quantitative Qualitative survey

de Mayotte”. This organization of of organization This Mayotte”. de with re precisely .

From Sampling methodology Sampling manufacturers six snowball a

institutional

4 this

or more than 0.2 than more or

Comment citer cedocument: the - vlto Mhri) s a is Mahorais) Evolution one OPAC isthe mainOPAC cooperative tomatoes’ for producers. farmers environment.farmers

to to reduce their pesticides. useof sampling al rdcr wr survey were producers all ,

and their suppliers. was

ap formal farmers producing tomatoes. producing farmers formal the evolution parasite market of pressurefor gardeners. structures o nesad o ht xed amr ae iey to likely are farmers extend what to understand to propriate theorganization sector ofthetomato’s

put into perspective to understand the organization of the of organization the understand to perspective into put manufacturers -

friendly practices o truh vle hi more chain value a through ion

hectare of specialized production. specialized of hectare methodology as ures, the qualitative survey qualitative the

and one non asked to tell one ahorais’s landscape has evolved has landscape ahorais’s manufacturers ’

s sector, s

association f rs fruit fresh of rdcr gop neetd n h market the in interested group producers .

- To institutional us theus name their of suppliers.

almost opee our complete ed

manufacturing coordinates was te tmt producers tomato other let us identify us let s all structures were survey were structuresall

n vgtbe. h main The vegetables. and

surveyed: structure These information’s let us us let information’s These stallation. structured

sample g to this last census, last this to g Since we can make can we Since network a were surveyed

center or to help to or center

h “Saveur the the base of our of base the and since we since and

, .

agricultural ec, we Hence,

o help to

were cing s ed

: 11

et .

! ! lmost

∗

is the coefficients associated to financial characteristics, denoted is the coefficients associated to hazard perception, denoted is the coefficients associated to structural characteristics, denoted is the coefficient associated to the to associated coefficient the is is the coefficients associated to location, denoted is the coefficients associated to is the error term

is the choice done bythe farmer to :

all

The aim of our study is to understand to what extend tomatoes’ producers are inclined are producers tomatoes’ extend what to understand to is study our of aim The T vn huh rdcr sree ae xasie ter ubr s o sfiin to sufficient not is number their exhaustive, are surveyed producers though Even 3.2.3. 3.2.2. �� isr te aiiy f u sml ad nue that insure and sample our of validity the insure o

the !

an �

∗ formal The Bootstrap The Bootstrap Econometric model cnmti model econometric = . T �

he +

population new

� Formally, this model can be written asfollow: Comment citer cedocument: ��

with the tomato area identified area tomato the with ! aaae let database + re

� �

s �� (farmers (farmers sampl y hi isiuinl environment institutional their by

= individual (Davidson et Mac Kinnon,1993; Vial et al., 2015) -

! friendly practices friendly

ht ed t rbs results. robust to leads that 1 e u tik ht lot all almost that think us let +

�� institutional use, ornot, pesticides

ing � im

� �� who have a SIRET identification SIRET a have who ! hs oe lt s ifrnit fres h use who farmers differentiate us let model This ∗

lmn statistical plement method ! > c + haracteristics, denoted 0 � ; ��

environment in which the farmer evolves, farmer the which in environment

��

ℎ depending the individual and structural and individual the depending � �� through !

+ �� !

inference. �

�� producers !

To compensate this lack of of lack this compensate To h am f such of aim The

the agricultural census agricultural the oml fi formal �� ! To . �� + ��

! !

�

�� hs ehdlg is methodology This nesad hs dual this understand surveyed ) ! , we compared we , eld +

� amr were farmers !

, thanks , ehd is method . represent

. The the 12 to

workforce age horticulture_diversification

Since e Since P 50 then and replications 100 by constituted samples 50 first consider we study, our In c that x vector a Considering

estimate olicy implications .

can be performed where one new vector is vector new one where performed be can conometric results conometric s

the number of B optimal to g to optimal B of number the Table 2 Comment citer cedocument:

. Quantitative characterisation offormal farmers

the yes N Y N Y N depending depending o es o es o results obtained to validate sis.

confirm statistics elements statistics confirm

Farmers' characteristics (H1)

Farms' charac

n be an they

uarantee the quality of results: from 25 estimations 25 from results: of quality the uarantee

Mean use denoted , or not, teristics (H2) teristics 6,04 5,75 2,89 1,91 46,3

s follow: as

Equality of denoted il aaae From database. tial

p the

mean esticides *** (Table 2 and Table 3) Table and 2 (Table ns * results robust

�

� ∗

= = Deviation ( ( � � ! ∗ ! Std

… (Efron et Tibshirani, et (Efron … ness. 13,45 12,95 � 2,82 2,62 1,08 1,05 � ! ∗ !

the )

)

. ,

A , our reading our , B Equality of n empirical n simulations variance

bootstrap ns ns ns

Table 3 farmers’ the influencing factors all almost that appreciate us let implemented model The . Qualita

R P S R W L support financial L off_farm_activity

erception lope ocation oan eferent oad ater

tive characterisation offormal farmers th depending

Comment citer cedocument:

institutional informal yes no yes no Paved Not paved yes no South East West yes no no yes yes no

Farmers characteristics (H1)

Institutional environment (H6) environment Institutional

Financial dimension (H3) Hazards perception

pesticides Location (H4)

no Use of pesticide

Reparti 38% 16% 38% 46% 50% 50% 38% 62% 21% 79% 25% 75% 62% 38% 29% 71% 58% 42% 62%

f ourmodelf equals 82.16%(Table 4).

(H5) tion

yes

40% 29% 35% 35% 4 56% 35% 65% 22% 78% 35% 65% 47% 53% 21% 79% 65% 35% 60% 4%

distribution Equality of ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ey or use, not,

horticultural diversification

S pecialization farm, the of dimension physical the Considering individual context, Mayotte the in that, highlight model econometric the from Results thank level farmer the at leverages, and brakes identify that results Econometric F O Concordant Rate inancial inancial ff underlines that farms farms that underlines B W E Constant L ackground farm activity farm R xpansion orkforce South ocation eferent L East A potential off potential oan ge support -

redy practices friendly

in in

tomato

Comment citer cedocument: -

farm farm

Hypothesis 6: Institutional environment Hypothesis 1: Individual characteristics Hypoth Hypothesis 1.702858* 2.145506* 1.3909*** - - - .0059019 .0148257 1.177423 1.116221 .1249624 .0359451 6.843223 .5927116 .7086424 .150235 activity has activity Coef. Hypothesis 5: Hazard perception that employ more workforce workforce more employ that Table -

friendly practices. Hptei 2 validated) 2 (Hypothesis esis 2: Structural characteristics Hypothesis 4: Location

4 and a higher economic pot economic higher a and 3: Financial characteristics . Econometric model

an impact on the use of pesticides. This pesticides. of use the on impact an 1.275832 1.044913 1.132234 1.047991 1.019156 .1721143 .0260401 .9634848 .0349473 1.032916 .488455 2.69473 .903114 Std. Err.

(Reference : West) (Reference

(Hypothesis 1 non 1 (Hypothesis estimated 82.61% - - -

1.68 0.01 1.04 1.10 0.73 1.38 2.85 0.17 1.65 0.17 0.57 0.74 2.54 . z

r mr lkl t implement to likely more are

s eut rnlts ht bigger that translates result is

y h tota the by

ential rmt ter productive their promote

- P>|z| 0.093 0.989 0.298 0.572 0.273 0.468 0.167 0.004 0.462 0.866 0.011 0.099 0.868 validated) that let them let that

l workforce, workforce, l

. Neither . Odds Ratio information 8.546362 1.014936 3.245999 .5528262 3.053295 .4923121 5.489615 1.162107 s to s

reduce

our the the 15

Version postprint 11. Journées deRecherches enSciences Sociales (JRSS), Lyon, FRA (2017-12-14 -2017-12-15) . essential supporttoagro ecology:the caseoftheformal marketgardeners inMayotte. Presented at Aubert, M.,Debrune,O., Huat,J.,Parrot, L.(2017). Theinstitutional environment asan etcds sd te at o e l atr osmto o cnaiae fut ses o be to seems fruits contaminated of consumption after ill be to fact the used, pesticides non envi of terms in behaviour farmers’ the understand s roads. since more once disadvantaged are South the in located Farmers these to access the the farmer, the in of location located the are Depending island. trainings farming every given are where Coconi in school agricultur the as such centres training fact, of matter a As access. trainings hence and condit major a is Water north. the a to training to access hence and road to access water, to access of terms in May problem stolen. was it installed, being before cistern a buy to support point, this understand environmental implement to likely und significance r The to theirsufficient modify consumption’s - non be to appears study our in considered farmers of perception hazard The Source: t of importance the confirm also Results T otte is a small island, there are there island, small a is otte aiae) Even validated). water he financial dimension of the farm is considered through the access to European to access the through considered is farm the of dimension financial he esults highlight the specificity of the Mahorais’ context. As a matter of fact, the non the fact, of matter a As context. Mahorais’ the of specificity the highlight esults

( Agreste, 2011 gradient Météo France, 2017 erline (F

s igure 2). Southern farmer benefit from less water than those located in located those than water less from benefit farmer Southern 2). igure let

f amr ae osiu aot h evrnetl mat f the of impact environmental the about conscious are farmers if Comment citer cedocument: ). that . Even if this material was bought, the farmer could not use it since it use not could farmer the bought, was material this if Even .

highlight even if farme if even Figure 2.Mayotte location specificities

Geoportail ion to tomatoes' productivity. tomatoes' to ion

geographical specificities between the three main region main three the between specificities geographical

- the experienc the redy practice friendly h rsl cnim ta i Myte tet s a is theft Mayotte, in that confirms result The

behaviour but not their rs can benefit from these from benefit can rs

e location he ronmental e of a farmer surveyed who who surveyed farmer a of e

Hptei 3 non 3 (Hypothesis

Hptei 4 validated) 4 (Hypothesis - friendly practices (Hypothesis 5 (Hypothesis practices friendly farming Location also reflects roads reflects also Location centres supports asl sre by served parsely

. practices. Mayotte is subject is Mayotte

appears as a brake. a as appears , they , - validated) benefit centre are no more no are

- relevant to relevant . Even if if Even . support. ed

al high al

f the of paved major

To . fr om 16 ed s -

avoid pests avoid laborat ae o to uvy, u suy is oh at both aims study our surveys, two on Based is Mayotte Concl The A model, econometric the by highlighted results Beyond information to access to importance the is model our in tested hypothesis last The t a financial level, farmers have to be supported at the very first stage since some of of some since stage first very the at supported be to have farmers level, financial a t integration of Mayotte of integration As a matter of fact, Mayotte has to has Mayotte fact, of matter a As - . second formal producers. While the first ones first the While producers. formal the quality of their of quality the

usion the tomatoe’s sector since i ory u suy oue hne n hs is population. first this on hence focuses study Our , . Supervision and monitoring would help farme help would monitoring and Supervision . -

redy practice friendly some information through their official or non or official their through information some a Fre a

vn f rdcr implemen producers if even rk ta i te main the is that brake , nor write and write nor , s

. to

a uig u investigations, our During

nch department since 2011 and an and 2011 since department nch technician No collectiveNo action can be undertaken at this stage. habites and since the agricultural legal population considers both formal both considers population legal agricultural the since and habites eei fo Erpa fnnil suppor financial European from benefit for instance for Comment citer cedocument: . We observe We . divide - friendly practices friendly

production -

frien to France and hence to European to hence and France to .

for knowledge and skills acquisition and transfer and acquisition skills and knowledge for s. speak French. speak

dly practices. hl te is sre cnies lot l atr f the of actor all almost considers survey first the While to treatto using

t represents the one main of crop usingpesticides. of

. that farmers who benefit from benefit who farmers that

Mayotte is also a relevant case study since legal and legal since study case relevant a also is Mayotte - Hence, ehiin n hi ln. lot all Almost land. their on technician friendly practices friendly factor answer phytosanitary requirem phytosanitary answer but environmental t

During our investigation alongside producers, alongside investigation our During lot all almost n benefit from a SIRET number and hence can hence and number SIRET a from benefit they for for ou either farmers nor cooperatives can promote can cooperatives nor farmers either rouva

h aoto o environmental of adoption the do not know the way to do to way the know not do hs at uvy e u ipeet an implement us let survey last This

since prcaig h ognsto o the of organisation the appreciating overseas department overseas , which is a toxica plantis which ,

the investigation of the first survey first the of investigation the amr udrie te ed o be to need the underlined farmers rather than those who benefit from from benefit who those than rather

b - etween redy practic friendly - t wees hy r eiil to, eligible are they whereas , official networks, their wish is wish their networks, official rs to improve their productive their improve to rs makes Mayotte a relevant case relevant a Mayotte makes

oe precisely, More

Since custom and belief, some belief, and custom

formal information are information formal

ents and harmonize and ents i n Mayotte n es, to since 2014. Its 2014. since ol lk to like would , or to use fire fire use to or , . . Even if they if Even . help farmers farmers help A long A hy cannot they u study our -

friendly there is there

- t erm 17

Version postprint 11. Journées deRecherches enSciences Sociales (JRSS), Lyon, FRA (2017-12-14 -2017-12-15) . essential supporttoagro ecology:the caseoftheformal marketgardeners inMayotte. Presented at Aubert, M.,Debrune,O., Huat,J.,Parrot, L.(2017). Theinstitutional environment asan farmers havefarmers to obtain a SIRET number t study population this on concentrate identify to also but behaviour production farmers’ the understand to only lev not is study our of aim that notice to have we but farmers formal specifi the to due is practices. study productive their improve farmers Mahorais’ let will time and performed are efforts numerous department, French a as Mayotte of adhesion recent the f suffer farmers brakes, individual than More effective their control can none since implementation. relevant be to appears practices these implement implement to practices that confirm can None environmental production. their of quality the lab the since training. from benefit and go to farmers need infrastructure only the beyond go lack some While defined. be can because the language of divide. Mahorais donot all speak and read French. from benefit can farmers if even Moreover, installed. being before stolen are they since support such of use the from farmers fac of matter have to be identified at a supports. environment through the access to formal orinformal network. institutional of impact the farmers, and specificity location the considers of also study our factors, characteristics these individual extend financial what and to structural understand to model econometric

e promote organisation or farmers let to Mayotte in laboratory no indeed is There oratory. The implementation of environmental of implementation The regions main Three infrastructure. the is identified brake first the level, aggregated an At f level, producer the At results main The r a e th ges o what extend they extend what o More precisely, while some support have to be defined at the producer level, others level, producer the at defined be to have support some while precisely, More . at could help the whole mahorais’ agriculture to improve the quality of of quality the improve to agriculture mahorais’ whole the help could at ic ol fra fres a benefi can farmers formal only Since t, because of theft farmers can farmers theft of because t, - friendly and answer phytosanitary’ requirement. In such context, no context, such In requirement. phytosanitary’ answer and friendly

confirm Comment citer cedocument:

hrceitc o ter am mat hi psiie s. oe than More use. pesticide their impact farm their of characteristics more aggregated level. will be incitated to become formal become to incitated be will cnet f aot. s mte o fc, u suy oue on focuses study our fact, of matter a As Mayotte. of context c

benefit from access to water and road, others are penalized.Theseare others road, and water to access from benefit nnil upr de nt a not does support inancial s

Oe esetv i hne o follow to hence is perspective One . t he need for need he

financial support they are not necessarily able to ask them ask to able necessarily not are they support financial

proving they are The infrastructure dimension appears also in terms of of terms in also appears dimension infrastructure The - 80 % of the farmers are illegal or non or illegal are farmers the of % 80 friendly practices in Mayotte is still is Mayotte in practices friendly

not farmers to walk hand by hand with institutional with hand by hand walk to farmers rom institutional environment brake environment institutional rom

benefit from from benefit fo erpa spot w had we support, european from t

pa t b te is lvrg. s a As leverage. first the be to ppear mahorais and pay non , knowing that knowing , these -

accessibility

supports

non

h mi lmt o our to limit main The - formal farmers farmers formal

ing

to become formal, become to . f tracks of

Robberies

21€. in its in s ed - . Because of of Because . formal. The formal.

r more are incitation

i prevent nfancy.

divert and

18 its to

Version postprint 11. Journées deRecherches enSciences Sociales (JRSS), Lyon, FRA (2017-12-14 -2017-12-15) . essential supporttoagro ecology:the caseoftheformal marketgardeners inMayotte. Presented at Aubert, M.,Debrune,O., Huat,J.,Parrot, L.(2017). Theinstitutional environment asan en faveur des régions Ultrapériphériques. Daaf. (2017). Programme portant mesures spécifiques dans le domane de l'agriculture Daaf. (2016). Analyse des pratiques en maraîchage Daaf. (2010). Synthèse illustrée du recensement agricole 2010. 23 development and cultural change highland the in tr intensification Sustainable (1998). J. Kangasniemi T., Reardon D., Clay Berlin. producer level. A case study of the EUREPGAP Standard in the Moroccan tomato sector. C. Chemnitz neoceratitis cyanescens (bezzi) (diptera : tephritidae). limi en Brevault T. (1999). Mécanismes de localisation de l'hôte chez la mouche de la tomate, et (2005). pesticides A. des Alaphilippe l'utilisation environnementaux. In: Réduire J.M., : Barbier environnement J.M., Aubertot 75 dynamic of the wine grape Aubert M., Enjolras G. (2014). The determinants of chemical input us Evidence products? horticultural from Kenya. value high of export countries developing on having (2010) H. Weibel D., Mithöfer S., Asfaw agroecology : spread. interface of hunger , agriculture , environment and social prepared by The scaling up of food sovereignty and resiliency A contribution to discussions at Rio + 20 on issues at the Altieri M.a., Nicholls C. (2012). The scaling up of agroecology : spreading the hope for truly sustainable farming. Altieri M.A. (2000). Ecological impacts of industrial agriculture and the possibilities for their benefits and hazar Aktar M.W., Sengupta D., Chowdhury A. (2009). Impact of pesticides use in agriculture: Mazandaran. of Development fields rice in pest borer stem technologies Socio (2011). H. Adsadpur Bibliography Davidson R., Mac Kinnon J. (1993). Estimation and Inference in Econometrics. opics: Rwandan farmers' investments in land conservation and soil fertility. - 99.

Food agribusiness marketing

20) Te opine eiin ih od ult sadrs n primary on standards quality food with decision compliance The (2007).

19 (76): 231 Socla Comment citer cedocument: Rapport d'expertise scientifique collective INRA et Cemagref ds.

- 252. : 20 Interdisciplinary toxicology - - growing sector in France. cnmc atr afcig t affecting factors economic -

20.

46 (2): 351

Wa ipc ae U uemre standards supermarket EU are impact What . 22 (3

- 377. - 4): 262

. 1 - 4.

2 (1): 1 - Journal of Wine Economics

276. e eeomn o biological of development he

etcds arclue et agriculture Pesticides, giutrl cnmc and Economic Agricultural - 12.

- 23.

e in agriculture : A e ls impacts les ter Oxford. Economic .

9 (1):

Version postprint 11. Journées deRecherches enSciences Sociales (JRSS), Lyon, FRA (2017-12-14 -2017-12-15) . essential supporttoagro ecology:the caseoftheformal marketgardeners inMayotte. Presented at Aubert, M.,Debrune,O., Huat,J.,Parrot, L.(2017). Theinstitutional environment asan Huat J., Doré T., Aubry C. (2013). Limiting factors for yields of field tomatoes grown by phytosanita Houmy K. (1994). Importance des conditions climatiques dans l'applictaion des produits 182. operator characteristics and the perception of soil erosion. Gould B.W., Saupe W.E., Rican vegetable farming. Galt R.E. (2008). Toward an Integrated understanding of pesticide use Intensity in Costa 31: 551 techniques Fernandez economics by vegetable growers in Florida, Michigan and Texas. Fernandez in innovations agricultural of Adoption 255 (1985). survey. D. A : Zilberman countries developping R.E., Just G., Feder producteurs du secteur des f European Commission. (2008). Evaluation des mesures concernant les organisations de Hypotheses, evidence and policy implications. C.E Ervin C.A., Ervin Efron B., Tibshirani R. (1993). An Introduction to Bootstrap. (2015). Valley in Brazil. F. République Dörr A.C., Grote U. (2009). Impact of certification on fruit producers in the Sao Francisco la de administrative et légale Vocabulaire de l'agriculture et de la pêche. l'information de Direction du maraîchage. 39 Didelot 10 (5): 766 by organophosphorus pesticide at the employee refectory. Deng J.A., Qu H., Huang R., Yang Y., Zhen X., Wang H. (2003). Survey of food poisonning De Schutter O. (2010). Agroécologie inserm. (2013). Pesticides smallholders in tropical regions. -

298. - D., Meule 564.

- - 26 (1): 158 : The case of peach producers. - onj J, eril J (99. h evrnetl fet o aotn IPM adopting of effects environmental The (1999). J. Ferraioli J., Cornejo Cornejo J., Beach E.D., Huang W ires. 767.

Economics and applied informatics

Revue ANAFIDE - aldebert A., Hoarau D. (2017). - 41. (92. atr afcig h ue f ol osrain rcie : practices conservation soil of use the affecting Factors (1982). . -

Comment citer cedocument: 172.

Klemme R.M. (1989). Conservation tillage: The role of farm and Human Ecology -

Effets sur la santé. Paris, France. ruits et légumes.

96 (6): 34 Crop Protection

cnmc eeomn ad utrl change cultural and development Economic et droit à l'alimentation. 17850 (Habitat II): 1

36: 655 - Journal officiel de la Républi Journal of agricultural and applied economics 40. . - Y. (1994). The adoption of IPM techniques C. Européenne (Ed.). Land economics

- 44: 120 677. Le plan Ecophyto à Mayotte : 5 - 16.

Journal of agricultural and applied -

127. Practical Preventive Medecine

Land economics

58: 277

- que Française 292.

65 (2): 167 -

exemple

3 (2): 33 - 4.

(1).

20 -

Version postprint 11. Journées deRecherches enSciences Sociales (JRSS), Lyon, FRA (2017-12-14 -2017-12-15) . essential supporttoagro ecology:the caseoftheformal marketgardeners inMayotte. Presented at Aubert, M.,Debrune,O., Huat,J.,Parrot, L.(2017). Theinstitutional environment asan oir . 21) Psiie e agro et Pesticides (2014). D. Potier Panama. Pereira de Herrera A., Sain G. (1999). Adoption of maize conservation tillage in Azuero, 263. recommended soil reosion control practices in Nigeria. ( C.U. Okoye conservation Nowak P. (1992). Why farmers adopt production technology. and Physiological Improvement Using Agronet Covers. 3 (2): 24 Brassica oleraceae Var c Muleke E.M., Saidi M., Itulya F.M., Martin T., Ngouajio M. (2014). Enhancing Cabbage ( study. McDo Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment Mc Laughlin A., Mineau P. (1995). The impact of agricultural practices on biodiversity. 221 Eco Martin T., Simon S., Parrot L., Komlan F.A., Vidogbena F., Adegbidi A., Ba Small Holders ’ Cabbage Production in Africa. 450 Martin T., Houndete T., Hougard J.M. (2006). Efficacy of Mosquito Netting for Sustainable with contaminated vegetable taking to due poisoning organophosphorus pestici food of Analysis (2002). X. Li integrated pest management in Europe : a review. Lefebv p. 33. and variablibity weather of impact The climate change on pesticide applications in the US : An empirical investigation. (2009). R.S.J. Tol U.A., Schneider N.G., Koleva A agriculture: conservation of adoption Farmers' review and synthesis of recent research. (2007). B. Bradshaw D., Knowler congress small from evidence adoption: Public (2011). M. Wollni S., Kersting EcoPhyto Réduire et améliorer l'utilisation des phytos - -

redy es o mrv vgtbe rdcin n qaiy n sub in quality and production vegetable improve to nets friendly 228.

nald D.G., Glynn C.J. (1994). Difficulties in measuring adoption of apple IPM : A case Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment e . Lnrl SRH, Gomez S.R.H., Langrell M., re .

In: Economics (Ed.).

98. oprtv aayi o fcos n h aoto o taiinl and traditional of adoption the in factors of analysis Comparative 1998). 47 (1): 14 Comment citer cedocument: - 16. apitata ) Yields and Quality Through Microclimate Modification de.

China Tropical Medecine - cl fut n vgtbe amr i Thailand. in farmers vegetable and fruit scale

- - - y clge Ls hms u osbe In: possible. du champs Les : écologie rvt prnrhp ad LBLA standard GLOBALGAP and partnerships private - aoa . (2014). S. Paloma

Food policy 55: 201

48: 219 - - 212. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 454.

. Paris. 32: 25 - 230.

2 (4).

Soil & Tillage Research

48.

netvs n plce for policies and Incentives

Journal of soil and water - 34.

- aaa Africa. Saharan ird V. (2015). FNU 171,

45: 251 Rapport EAAE 21 -

Version postprint 11. Journées deRecherches enSciences Sociales (JRSS), Lyon, FRA (2017-12-14 -2017-12-15) . essential supporttoagro ecology:the caseoftheformal marketgardeners inMayotte. Presented at Aubert, M.,Debrune,O., Huat,J.,Parrot, L.(2017). Theinstitutional environment asan 48: 543 case study of vegetable processing industry in Zhejiang, China. Zhou J., Elen J.H., Liang J. (2011). Implementation of food safety and quality standards: A conditions among smallholder farmers in (2015). L. Parrot Vidogbéna F., Adégbidi A., Assogba diffuses. équestres 289 activités des cas Le : territoires Perrier M., Aubert C., Vial role of farm and farmer characteristics. Traoré N., Landry R., Amara N. (1998). On sur l ’ activité agricole des ménages. agriculture à Mayotte Les impacts d ’ une intégration renforcée à la République française J. Sourisseau for Environment and Development, London Silici L. (2014). Agroecology. What It Is And What It Has To Offer. of Jammu and Kashmir, India. of an Integrated Pest Management program in vegetable c Sharma R., Peshin R., Shankar U., Kaul V., Sharma S. (2015). Impact evaluation indicators models. farmer cereal UK among cultures des Sharma A., Bailey A., Fraser I. (2011). Technology adoption and pest control: strategies ravageurs les contre integrée Lutte (2002). maraîchères a la reunion. F. Fabre P., Ryckewaert pests. and diseases plant production, Global Change and Human food for Implications : events weather extreme Rosenzweig C., Iglesias A., Yang X.B., Epstein P.R., Chivian E. (2001). Climate change and farm and complexity landscape and Environment Are (2005). T. Tscharntke specialization related to land C., Thies I., Roschewitz Rogers E. (1962). Diffusion of innovations. New York. veille la à mahoraise l’économie de départementalisation. évolutions et Mutations (2010). F. Rivière

- 314. - Journal of agricultural economics 552.

- . B m.,

105: 87 ot Bnft nlss f net e ue n abg i ra farming real in cabbage in use net insect of analysis Benefit Cost: na P, s . Scéé E (08. hneet ntttonl et institutionnel Changement (2008). E. Sociétés C., Es P., onnal

Comment citer cedocument: - : vdne rm aaerc n nnaaerc on data count nonparametric and parametric from Evidence s: 99. (July 2014). - Health ont . 21) Liis e lie aue t tlsto des utilisation et nature pleine de Loisirs (2015). P. Cornet

- use intensity of annual crop fiels Crop Protection

2 (2): 90

- 303 Komlan, F. M., T., Ngouajio M., Simon S., Tossou R.,

Land economics -

304.

62: 73 Benin.

- - (June): 1 104. farm adop

67: 191

- 92. Crop Protection -

27. - tion of conservation practices: The (Free Press of Glencoe) 199. G

74 (1): 114 orpi, cnme société économie, éographie, rops in the subtropical region

? The social science journal

78: 164 Agricultural Ecosystems International Institute - 127.

- 171. .

e la de

17: 22