Public Policies and farming practices in Guadeloupe (FWI) - French Overseas Department

Eduardo Chia, INRA-SAD, CIRAD-TERA, BP 5032, TA 60/15, F34398 Montpellier Cedex 5, [email protected] Michel Dulcire, CIRAD-TERA, BP 5032, TA 60/15, F34398 Montpellier Cedex 5, [email protected]

Abstract

The 1999 Agricultural framework Law (LOA) recognizes the multifunctional nature of agriculture through Territorial Farming contracts (CTE). Its implementation in Guadeloupe (FWI) is impeded by development models upheld by institutions and based on export-led intensive agriculture. Our survey carried out with farmers who signed such contracts well as with agricultural development, research and training institutions revealed that CTEs were used to support existing situations and dynamics, and not to design new development projects or practices. The “old-fashioned” management of this “new type” of tools has changed the new social contract into a shaky one. Paradoxically, such diversion may allow for the reconciliation of the productivist model and the multifunctional model fostered by the law. Analysis of the inconsistency between the objectives of the law and the ways in which the CTEs were developed highlights the know-how acquired during the process, which augurs more efficient management by the profession and by institutions responsible for developing the future CTEs.

Key terms: Contract – Guadeloupe (FWI) – Agricultural Framework Law (LOA) – Multifunctional nature – Farming practices – Defensive patterns

Résumé

La Loi d’Orientation Agricole (LOA) de 1999 reconnaît la multifonctionnalité de l’agriculture, par les Contrats Territoriaux d’Exploitation. Sa mise en place en Guadeloupe (FWI) achoppe sur les modèles de développement défendus par les institutions, basés sur la production agricole intensive pour l’exportation. Nos enquêtes auprès des agriculteurs signataires des contrats et les institutions de développement, de recherche et d’encadrement agricoles ont montré que les CTE ont été utilisés pour consolider les situations et les dynamiques existantes, mais pas pour développer de nouveaux projets ou de nouvelles pratiques de développement. La gestion « à l’ancienne » de ces aides de « nouveau type » a transformé le nouveau contrat social en un contrat bancal. Ce détournement pourrait permettre, paradoxalement, de réconcilier le modèle productiviste avec le modèle multifonctionnel promu par la Loi. L’analyse des incohérences entre les objectifs de la Loi, et les modes sur lesquels les CTE ont été développés, permet de mettre en relief les savoir faire acquis au cours du processus, qui augurent d’une gestion plus satisfaisante par la profession et les institutions de développement des Contrats d’Agriculture Durable (CAD), qui ont pris la suite des CTE.

Mots Clés : Contrat - Guadeloupe – Loi d’Orientation Agricole (LOA) - multifonctionnalité – pratiques des agriculteurs – routine défensive

1 New societal expectations towards agriculture concern the economic, social and environmental functions it performs in addition to production. One of the objectives of the French Agricultural Framework Law (1999 LOA, box 1) is to satisfy such aspirations: The law recognizes the multifunctional nature of agriculture, “a multifaceted activity which the market alone – open or regulated - cannot completely manage” (Hervieu, 2002). The law also stems from the determination of Public authorities to redefine intervention instruments as well as agricultural guidance and support mechanisms that better mainstream “social needs”. The Territorial Farming Contract (CTE, box 2) was its instrument of implementation, and was supposed to facilitate the transition to a more people-centered and environment-friendly agriculture: individual projects designed within a collective framework were supposed to reflect new production methods.

According to Delorme (2002), the multifunctional nature of agriculture may “serve to renew agricultural development models” or to consolidate them. “There is thus a real risk of diversion to consolidate what already exists, especially as “professional” farmers, more than the others, better master the economic, institutional and intellectual resources needed for the implementation of new regulations” (id.). Accepting the multifunctional nature of agriculture requires that farmers and other development stakeholders mainstream aspects hitherto not taken into account. These include management of landscapes and natural resources, the territorialization of activities, coordination with other users, all on a contractual basis. The contractual dimension of this “new1” mode of intervention by the State (Lascoumes and Valluy, 1996) calls for a change of technical, organizational and relational practices by farmers, as well as management and support institutions. The outsourcing procedure individualizes commitments, a situation which favors and may lead to inequalities between signatories (Supiot, 2001) depending on their individual situations.

The implementation of a CTE2, which is a tool designed under French Metropolitan conditions and for the Metropolitan centre, directly calls for development models that operate in the French West Indies based on export-led productivist agriculture. Our analysis here aims to determine, on the basis of the perception of the tool by farmers, their organizations and institutions involved in agricultural and rural development such as project promoters, how CTEs were designed (utilization practices) and the changes that such CTEs brought about on farms3. To this end, comprehensive discussions were held with these stakeholders (Chia and Dulcire, 2005; Gimenez, 2003): Such discussions enabled us to confront agricultural functions with practices promoted by the LOA in order to support non marketing functions. Then a workshop (Piraux et al., 2004) enabled us to confront and validate our results with stakeholders investigated. More particularly, we are giving an account here of the ways in which farmers4 appropriated this tool and the attendant changes in their socio-technical and organizational practices.

Implementation of CTEs in Guadeloupe: the agro- exporting and multifunctional model « Apart from sugar cane or banana, no salvation »

1 Compared to so-called “standard” ones 2 The CTE procedure was stopped in July 2002, but CTEs were approved until mid-2003 (tab. 3) 3 The results used stem from a project falling within the INRA-CEMAGREF-CIRAD research framework, the multifunctional nature of agriculture and rural areas. Carried out from 2001 to 2004, it sought to determine how the implementation of CTEs contributed or not to challenge development models in French Overseas Departments (Guadeloupe and La Reunion). 4 50% of signatories, geographical representativeness and the measures solicited, a minimum of 2 discussion sessions per farmer.

2 There are several differences between the “action context”5 in Guadeloupe – and French Overseas Departments in general – and in metropolitan France: insularity and remoteness of metropolitan France, land structures (size of farms – over 80% are less than 5 hectares, or still colonat6 (Cnasea, 2003), high pluriactivity, lack of training and low level of organization (Delcombel, 2005). In this rich and fragile tropical island, the enunciation of the three objectives of the law in the form of territorial farming contracts (economic: creation of wealth and jobs ; environmental: conservation and creation of quality parks cerentry ; social: contribution to the enhancement of territories and of the living conditions of people) is likely to offer a solution different from agro-export “productivism” to farmer households, less than half of whom do farming as a main activity (Agreste, 2000), in order to contribute to sustainable local development.

Besides, the “action context” is marked by the agro-export model inherited from the colonial period: sugar cane and, not long ago, banana have taken over from “exotic” products such as indigo, cotton, perfume plants, vanilla, coffee or cocoa that Guadeloupe supplied to metropolitan France. All indicators give them a prominent place (tab. 1): future scenarios cannot ignore them.

Agro-export activities are characteristic of the Island: jobs, landscape, sectors and added value. These are the best structured sectors either under the direct impetus of stakeholders or the constant encouragement of State representatives. They benefit from production subsidies which are unrelated to their spatial and economic weight (tab. 1). They contribute to social and identity cohesion and to trade balance, but the support of the community (EU and State) is still key to maintaining them (Frémeaux, 2003). The two sectors are however not comparable both in representation and in practice. Sugar cane is historically and socially more “indigenous” to Guadeloupe than banana for better (identity, landscape) and for worse (slavery, colonialism). It has a “local market” as opposed to banana which is a raw export product, and sugar corresponds to the only organized sector; it is also the “only transparent sector” about which clear and precise figures are available. By contrast, “cropping management” of banana (Dulcire and Cattan, 2002) a recent speculation, rests on a very high level of inputs, which exclude environment protection and agricultural diversification. Furthermore, farmers have few control over the banana sector, and are excluded from post- harvest management (Rouget, 1997). Sugar cane and banana remain standard products. They are subject to export quotas (a product volume with a price guaranteed by the community) which the island is unable to supply.

Table 1: place of export crops in Guadeloupe agricultural economy (2000) % Useful % Final % Public Agricultural Agricultural subsidies to Surface area Production production Banana 12 24 70 Sugar cane 34 17 27 Total 46 41 97 (Source: Insee, 2001; CES, 2003)

The other major production group corresponds to “diversification activities”. These activities

5 Defined as all the variables (economic, organizational, social and environmental) that characterise the environment in which act stakeholders. 6 Form of sharecropping inherited from the post-slavery period.

3 remain discreet and unorganized, and account for 17% of the local market needs. Their historical and cultural legitimacy (Zébus, 1999) makes them culturally acceptable in discourse and as the reference for priority satisfaction of local needs: in practice, farmers’ stranglehold on support (tab. 1) and the representations of the two models discourage any significant motivation to produce for the domestic market (tables 1 and 2). The maintenance of these activities presupposes ambitious action both by institutions and farmers, given the level of production costs.

These two major classes of speculation correspond to two major farming types: the first, “agro-export agriculture”, is a showcase as opposed to “domestic” agriculture which is devalued and more discreet (Dulcire and Cattan, 2002, table 2). Such representations lead to clearly defined support conditions in Guadeloupe: Official subsidies only finance development of the first type (table 1), the second falling within the province of “social treatment7”. The visions of specialized and diversified landscapes diverge8, but future strategies stated by stakeholders are similar and difficult to dissociate from existing mechanisms. Whether diversification is promoted or not, compliance with export quotas and the regulatory role of the State remain the pillars of the scenarios proposed by farmers and institutions.

Table 2: the farmer and the peasant, clear-cut representations The farmer The peasant - Exports - Domestic market - Territorial value - Socio-economic moderator Adminis- - Professional - Non professional (multifunctional) tration (monofunctional) - Marginal, social treatment - Job creating - “Peasant” agriculture - Modern agriculture - Social recognition - Food self-sufficiency - Economic security (support - Professional, activity or not Farmers to production, markets) - Identity Value and social link = farms for want of anything = non guaranteed markets better (Adapted from Chia and Dulcire, 2005; Dulcire and Cattan, 2002)

Such position thwarted the thought of elaborating agro-environmental measures (MAE box 2) that encourage new ways of production or “diversification”. “Interesting prospects of social experimentation and innovation” (Rémy, 2000) in Guadeloupe for instance, the satisfaction of domestic demand, or the process of (re)construction of powerful identity products (Kpokpogbé, 2000) such as pineapple (bottle), yam or coffee (Dulcire 2005), initially did not fit into this model. Priority was given to sector-based interests with the aim of ensuring maximal production.

Contract design practices: preservation or break with productivist models?

The different ways in which institutions and farmers prepared and locally implemented CTEs are revealing and depended on the working environment of the island: as a product of the past,

7 Though we consider the 110 million € support granted in 2005 by the EU to banana producers in the French West Indies (le Monde, 21/04/05) as social treatment. 8 Deverre (1997) already pointed out in the 1980s that: « debate is heated between advocates of the “social” and “economic” methods of (land) reform.

4 it conditioned the productivist development model backed by the community (Soret, 2001).

The first obstacle to the implementation of the Law arises from the individualization of outsourced projects (Supiot, 2001). The explanation of socio-technical and organizational practices, that is the transition from a passive situation (counter approach) to an active situation (project approach) strengthens this exogenous perception. In this situation where “each person, including the most humble and the most fragile, must assume the responsibility of choosing everything and deciding everything” (Ehrenberg, 1995), the disparity in access to information, level of organization, but also and especially the disparity of support to production from the community has in fact given rise to inequalities between farmers.

Besides, the preliminary reflection proposed by the LOA on the future of agriculture, from local practices to development models on, the links between agriculture and employment, between agriculture and the domestic market or between intensive agriculture and the environment (CES, 2003), is primarily perceived in opposition to that on export crops and, by extension, the interest of the banana or sugar cane lobby. While the multifunctional nature of agriculture is unreservedly recognized by our partners because an island is related to a fragile territory, the concept of “multifunctionality” remains “exotic” and even the “preserve of the State”. It is ill-adapted to their working environment because it gives priority to unproductive functions of agriculture, whereas this is not able to meet its quotas. The management of natural resources required by the law must not put the productivist development model to question. Consequently, a majority of local stakeholders have only assigned a social regulation role to the new mechanism, a role which is complementary to the traditional support to “real” agriculture. Very significant is the fact that the recent report of the CES 9 on agriculture in French Overseas Departments (2003) cites neither the LOA nor the CTE among the agricultural or rural development support mechanisms.

Under such conditions, farmers and institutions were hesitant about appropriating the tool. Faced to the slow take-off, and in order to “make a big turnover” - comply with government instructions - and also the need from time to time to enhance the financial situation of farmers in crisis, the Government pushed EIG-AS10 to draft and have CTEs signed. Preparation of such CTEs by “order” was based on a “complex” measurement of the perennial mountain banana plantation, which according to experts, was more or less a renewal of what already existed (Chia and Dulcire, 2005). No collective territorial project was prepared, and the agro- environmental assessment pre-condition (box 2) remained a mere administrative formality (id.). Half of them only consist of this “banana” measurement (Gimenez, 2003) which alone reaches a ceiling of 900 €/ha. This value and the non involvement of farmers greatly hampered the incorporation of environmental concerns and eventuated in MAE-poor CTEs (tab. 3). The function of these contracts which we described as “crutch” was to strengthen their financial situation undermined by the banana crisis.

Away from the banana sector and much later too, guidance and training institutions also undertook the initiative (Chia Dulcire, 2005): The territorial assessment (box 2) here was done collectively by institutions and farmers belonging to cane farmers’ associations, though the making of contracts remained individual. Farmers signed such contracts “for want of anything better” in order to accede to investment assistance, which was not granted by the way. The resultant CTEs signed were quite uniform: they included more MAEs than in the

9 Economic and social council: this advisory body made up of 35 members representing the « vital forces » of the nation, studies the economic and social problems at the behest of the Government or on its own initiative. 10 Agro Services Economic Interest Group, set up to provide guidance and training to banana producers.

5 previous group (tab. 3). Such MAEs tackled environmental concerns, though their integration in the contracts was not out of conviction but out of the need to improve output per hectare. Besides, they were little concerned with the technical system per se: they were interested with out-of-plot maintenance and embellishment: hedges, rehabilitation of furrows, etc. Investment made it possible to carry out pre-projects. The last group consists of a small number of better trained, young and diversified farmers who carried out the experience independently. As in the cane farmers’ association, the CTEs signed included several desirable MAEs and investments backed already existing projects (Gimenez, 2003).

These characteristics explain why the remuneration per hectare of MAEs of the « banana » group is twice that of other groups with two times less measurements (tab. 3), whereas the signatories are not aware of their content (Gimenez, 2003). The number of MAEs increased as the interest of the signatories grew. The CTE, which was supposed to be another development model, instead strengthened the existing model by backing agro-export activities in the same portions.

Table 3: characteristics of CTEs signed Group Banana Sugar cane others CTEs signed (investigated) 37 (16) 37 (16) 12 (6) CTE Initiative Institutions Institutions Farmers Institutions and Design of CTE Institutions Farmers farmers Number of MAEs 1.8 3.3 3.6 Technical MAEs + + +++ Environmental MAEs + +++ + MAE remuneration, €/ha 670 343 446 % total MAE funding 71 21 8 Investments Non yes Yes Financial Financial motivation Investment Investment situation Knowledge of content (+) ++ +++ Adapted from Cnasea, 2003; Chia Dulcire; Gimenez (2003) (+) = marginally, + to +++ = from small to great

In a nutshell, the limited mobilization of farmers and institutions impeded the realization of an agro-environmental assessment (box 2) of candidate farms and the contracts signed consequently remained poor. A great majority of the 28 MAEs proposed at regional level were taken over at national level: only two (2) measures were designed for the local context (Cnasea, 2003). Six (6) measures were significantly mobilized in the contracts: planting and maintenance of a hedge; perennial banana plantation; planting and maintenance of a tree alignment; rehabilitation of furrows; development and maintenance of cultural crops; maintenance of ponds. They brought little or no change to the technical systems. They did not contradict the dominant productivist model intentionally or unintentionally, but circumvented it: they did not challenge their current technical and organizational practices.

What innovations for production units? « I accept money, but I should not be paid for something that I was

6 supposed to do » (A signatory)

The issue of changes relates to the ownership of results and the effective impact of CTEs, the repositioning of the territory, the goals of farming, the numerous activities, diversifications, the link between agriculture and other activities. The changes observed derive from the characteristics of CTEs signed and the conditions under which they were designed. They may be tackled from three angles: technical and production systems; organizational systems; environmental systems.

There has been no significant change in technical practices: the MAE impacts of CTEs in the “sugar cane” and “other” sectors, very often external to the technical system (hedges, furrows, etc.), were very weak. Those of the “banana” sector are not yet appreciable because they reproduce part of what already existed and also because of the lack of measure assessment indicators (Gimenez, 2003).

With regard to production systems, the remuneration of CTEs has improved the financial situation of farmers (banana group) and eased investments. Management practices have been partly improved upon though CTEs signed remained sector-based: they backed dormant or existing projects, and rarely facilitated new projects (tab. 4) or diversification. They promoted the monofunctional nature (the production function) of agriculture instead of its multifunctional nature encouraged by the LOA.

Table 4: impacts on farms Group Banana Sugar cane others Technical (+) + + New activities No + + Financial situation +++ + + Farm management No + ++ Socio-technical network +++ ++ +11 New project No (+) (+) Modification of on-going No + ++ project (Adapted from Gimenez, 2003)

There are however significant changes in organizational practices (tab. 4). There was clear strengthening (qualitative, quantitative) of relations between farmers and support and monitoring services. Particularly, implementation and monitoring of banana-sector signatories made it possible to establish dialogue between farmers and management, as well as with research which has been present for 50 years (Gimenez, 2003), in spite of the top-down approach adopted for the design of contracts. For their part, sugar cane sector groups conducted collective territorial assessments which helped to strengthen relations between them and support services, and between members themselves. This gave rise to original territorial projects that did not materialize but that at least augured new forms of coordination. The Cnasea [2003] confirms this significant improvement in relational practices, which encouraged organizational learning by stakeholders and helped to revalorize the profession of advisor.

11 These farmers were already included in such networks

7 Owing to the absence of technical system-related measures, environmental changes largely derive from measures that are external to the plot, and that meet environmental concerns, but that are often integrated when necessary. Their impact is in principle certain, but can they induce sustainable changes in natural resource management methods?

Is such diversion necessary to facilitate learning 12 ?

CTEs were designed as a juxtaposition of partial alternatives: they did not correspond to the incentive intended by the law, which is to make agriculture contribute to active territorial development (Gafsi, 2003). Application of the LOA caused recognition of the multifunctional approach, a veneer which did not change representations. The MAEs mobilized in the signed CTEs did not challenge the current model and did not contradict production methods: under such conditions, farming practices could not evolve. The new incentives did not bring about new projects, and consequently fostered productivist agriculture (Piraux et al., 2004). The CTE was used as the “other” tool and sometimes was paradoxically perceived as simpler and less restrictive, and promoting monofunctional agriculture instead of a multifunctional one.

Diversion of the CTE farmer projects within the framework of a general policy was caused not only by the lack of experimentation of new tools and methods, but primarily by the absence of any collective project in Guadeloupe. The farmers alone are not responsible for this situation: “such changes (…) involve the entire society and not only agriculture” (Rémy, 2000). The opposition between a sector-based vision and a territorial vision, between the desire to produce more and the fear of environmental hazards connected with intensive agriculture, impeded the emergence of a global vision which Neuschwander (1997) pointed out as important for the French West Indies as a means of avoiding conflicts between farmers and other land users.

However, the “cognitive functions of the approach” (Rémy, 2001), even when perverted, strengthened adaptation capacities. There was dialogue between farmers, within institutions, and between the former and the latter, in the new “areas of co-institution” (id.). The perversion of LOA provisions to the benefit of objectives contrary to its spirit may also be interpreted positively as a form of ownership. A “defensive pattern” which would constitute a step towards the design of an original model, a reflex that will make it possible to circumvent “schizophrenic” management (Watzlawick, 1984) of the double constraint of the productivist model and the inhibitions of the LOA and the CDOA13, is already being considered as a new agora (Nowotny et al., 2001) between agriculture and society, a collective action mechanism : the function of an unchanging discourse of convenience would precisely be to maintain a coherent system of action14, by facilitating learning for stakeholders whose practices have started evolving. This is what Glissant (2004) refers to as « creolization » of patterns. Collective assessments for some stakeholders, individual dynamics for others, and the co- design of appropriate measures at the end of the process, all illustrate these processes of learning geared towards effective appropriation by the profession and its integration of another vision and “method of agriculture”. The emergence of these new situations augurs a more satisfactory appropriation of the future CTEs by providing preferential support to environmental functions – through the agricultural profession and support institutions:

12 learning as translation of the french word “apprentissage”, wich is defined as gaining new abilities for action 13 Departmental Commission for Agricultural Orientation, multi-institutional body responsible, among other tasks, for contract validation since 1999 14 Defined as a « structured human whole that coordinates the actions of its participants through game mechanisms » and regulates « the stability of its games and the relationships between the latter” (Crozier and Friedberg, 1992)

8 research partnership must contribute to such appropriation.

Box 1: The French Agricultural Framework Law (LOA) Two key principles:

1. Remuneration of functions not taken into account by the market: Agricultural policy shall incorporate the economic, social and environmental functions of agriculture and shall participate in the sustainable development of the territory, with a view to achieving sustainable development. CTEs (enc. 2) shall be the major implementation tool. 2. Involvement of non agricultural stakeholders. The law enlarges the membership of Departmental Commissions which, at the level of each department, determines production and farm development policy priorities. Initially composed only of rural stakeholders, they now include civil society stakeholders: associations of consumers, environmental protection, architects, fishermen and hunters. The presence of non agricultural regional stakeholders in an agricultural policy regulation body constitutes an innovative break with the past. The Commission gives its opinion on draft model contract likely to be proposed to farmers.

Box 2: The Territorial Farming Contract (CTE) and the agri-environmental measures (MAE)

The CTE was designed to support those involved in new production methods, performing functions not remunerated by the market but required by society: management of natural resources, product quality, etc. Signatory farmers must make a five-year commitment and on the basis of an overall farm project “designed pursuant to the stakes”. The CTE is a contract between the State and the farmer which fosters better interaction: - Between an agriculture organized into sectors and local development: management of territorial peculiarities; - Between environmental, social and economic functions of agriculture: overall farm project. Its content must be coherent with departmental and local policies (enc. 1), the “model contract”. The latter “is composed of a set of coherent model measures and actions prepared within the context of a project in order to meet the needs identified in a study prior to the implementation of the territorial farming contract”. The 9 priorities outline the measures and the actions – agro-environmental measures (MAE) – which lay down the framework of the agricultural model to be implemented at local level. The CTE ensures the overall coherence of the project. In order to do this, it is based on farm assessment which itself falls in line with a local development strategy coherent with the environmental concerns of the territory identified during a prior collective territorial assessment. The CTE thus consists, in general, of an economic component related to employment, involving for instance diversification actions, production valorization, or landscape tourism; an environmental and territorial component involving for instance actions towards biodiversity management, landscape maintenance, or the rational use of fertilizers and pesticides. These two components are divided into investments and agro-environmental measures, remunerated annually per hectare. Bibliography

Agreste, 2000. Recensement Général Agricole des DOM. 1 CD-ROM Callon M., Lascousmes P., Barthe Y., 2001. Agir dans un monde incertain. Essai sur la démocratie technique. Seuil, Paris, 357 p. Cattan P. Dulcire M., 2004. Quelle prise en compte de l’environnement par l’activité agricole ? Gestion de la qualité des sols et des eaux par l’agriculture en zone bananière, dans le cadre d’une politique incitative. Dulcire M. (Ed.) : La multifonctionnalité de l’agriculture et la mise en place des CTE dans les DOM, «Regards sur les agricultures familiales et la multifonctionnalité : les Départements français d’Outre Mer », Bouillante, Guadeloupe, déc. 2000. Cirad-Tera, Montpellier, 119-123. Chia E., Dulcire M., 2005. La vitrine ou l'arrière boutique : les impacts des CTE sur les évolutions des exploitations agricoles en Guadeloupe. Gérer et comprendre, sous presse (déc. 2005). Chia E., Dulcire M., 2003. La mise en œuvre de la LOA en Guadeloupe : moyens, conditions,

9 conséquences. Le point de vue des institutions. CIRAD-INRA, Montpellier, 63 p. CES, Conseil Economique et Social (présenté par Berthelot C.), 2003. Quels enjeux et quels développements pour les agricultures des DOM ? CES, Paris, 188 p. CNASEA, 2003. Évaluation à mi-parcours portant sur l’application en France du règlement CE n°1257/1999 du Conseil, concernant le soutien au développement rural. Partie relative aux quatre mesures d’accompagnement de la PAC et aux CTE dans les départements d'Outre-Mer. Rapport d'évaluation, Cnasea, Paris, 70 p. Delcombel E., 2005. Organization de l’action collective et rôle de la puissance publique pour le développement de l’agriculture Guadeloupéenne. Thèse de doctorat en économie, Université des Antilles-Guyane, Cirad-Tera, Montpellier. Deverre C., 1997. Les réformes foncières à la Réunion et à la Guadeloupe, éléments pour un bilan. « Politique des structures et action foncière au service du développement agricole et rural », Actes, Saint Denis, novembre 1997, 27-42. Dulcire M., 2005. A patrimonial commodity from myth to revival, the « bonifieur » coffee in Guadeloupe (FWI). Anthropology of Food, 4, http://www.aofood.org Dulcire M. (Ed.), 2004. La multifonctionnalité de l’agriculture et la mise en place des CTE dans les DOM. Actes du séminaire, coll. «Regards sur les agricultures familiales et la multifonctionnalité : les Départements français d’Outre Mer », Bouillante, Guadeloupe, déc. 2000. Cirad-Tera, Montpellier Dulcire M., Chia E., Piraux M., 2005. Spécificités territoriales et évolutions des exploitations agricoles. Les CTE à La Réunion et en Guadeloupe. Communication au séminaire « Territoires et enjeux du développement régional », Lyon, mars 2005, http://www.inra.fr/rhone-alpes/symposium/index.htm. Dulcire M., Cattan P., 2002. Monoculture d’exportation et développement agricole durable : cas de la banane en Guadeloupe. Cahiers Agricultures, 11, 313-321 Ehrenberg A., 1995. L'individu incertain. Pluriel, Hachette, 323 p. Feenberg A., 1999. Questioning technology. New York and London, Routledge. (French edition, 2004, La Découverte, Paris, 231 p.) Frémeaux P., 2003. Guadeloupe en progrès, mais peut mieux faire. Alternatives économiques, 215, 33-35 Gafsi M., 2003. Multifonctionnalité de l'agriculture et redéfinition du rapport de l'exploitation agricole au territoire ». Barthélemy et al. (éd.), La multifonctionnalité de l'activité agricole et sa reconnaissance par les politiques publiques, actes, CIRAD-SFER, Paris, 745-63 Gimenez G., 2003. Les CTE en Guadeloupe : impact sur les exploitations et conséquences pour le développement de l’agriculture. CIRAD-ENESAD, Dijon, 53 p. Glissant E., 2004. La créolisation du monde est irréversible. In Le Monde 2, n° 46, 26-9. Hervieu B., 2002. La multifonctionnalité de l'agriculture: genèse et fondements d'une nouvelle approche conceptuelle de l'activité agricole. Cahiers Agricultures, 11, 6, 415-9. INSEE, 2001. Tableaux Economiques de la Guadeloupe. Pointe à Pitre Kpokpogbé C., 2000. Construction sociale d'innovations techniques et résistance paysanne au changement : le phénomène d'hybridation du palmier à huile dans le sus-est du Bénin. Thèse, Université de Laval, Canada, 300 p. Lascoumes P., Valluy J., 1996. Les activités publiques conventionnelles (APC) : un nouvel instrument de politique publique ? L’exemple de la protection de l’environnement industriel. Sociologie du travail, n° 4/96, 551-573. Léger F., 2004. Les CTE : une approche contractuelle fondée sur la reconnaissance de la localité. In « La multifonctionnalité de l’agriculture et la mise en place des CTE dans les DOM », actes, Dulcire M. (Éd.), Cirad-Tera, Montpellier, 55-64. Neuschwander C., 1997. Les chantiers majeurs du développement des Antilles françaises. Rapport de la mission, MCN, Paris, 47 p.

10 Nowotny H., Scott P., Gibbons M., 2001. Re-Thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty. London: Polity Press (French edition, Paris, Belin Débats, 2003, 319 p.) Piraux M., Chia E., Dulcire M., Bonin M., Bonnal P., Guilluy D., Aubert S., 2004. Modèles de développement et identité des territoires dans les DOM insulaires. Les Cahiers de la Multifonctionnalité, n° 6, 77-83. Rémy J., 2001. La co-institution des contrats territoriaux d'exploitation. Ingénieries. Eau Agriculture Territoires, n° spécial « Multifonctionnalité de l'agriculture et CTE », 45-54. Rémy J., 2000. Multifonctionnalité agricole et pluralité sociale : les contrats territoriaux d'exploitation. Aménagement et Nature, 136, 25-36. Rouget P., 2001. Les travailleurs de la banane au régime sec. Volcans, 44, 27-29. Soret O, 2001. La politique régionale en matière agricole. Des moyens financiers et des outils d’accompagnement (Guadeloupe). École Nationale d’Application des Cadres Territoriaux, Angers, 22 p. Supiot A., 2001. La contractualisation de la société. Le courrier de l'environnement, 43, INRA, Paris, 51-8. Watzlawick P., 1984. The invented reality. Norton, New York, (French edition, L’invention de la réalité, Paris, Seuil, 1988, 374 p.) Zébus M.-F., 1999. Paysannerie et économie de plantation. Le cas de la Guadeloupe, 1848- 1980. Ruralia, 5, 55-83 Zébus M.-F., Alexandre G., Diman J.-L., Despois E., Xandé A., 2004. Activités informelles, normalisation et développement. L'élevage porcin en Guadeloupe. Cahiers Agricultures, 13, 3, 263-70.

11