Farming and Landscape Management: How French Farmers Are Coping with the Ecologization of Their Activities

Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics (2006) 19:563–585 DOI 10.1007/s10806-006-9010-0 Ó Springer 2006

PHILIPPE DEUFFIC and JACQUELINE CANDAU

FARMING AND LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT: HOW FRENCH FARMERS ARE COPING WITH THE ECOLOGIZATION OF THEIR ACTIVITIES

(Accepted in revised form June 10, 2006)

ABSTRACT. In Europe, an increasing share of public subsidies for food production is being transferred towards the production of goods and environmental services. Today, farmers hesitate between the quest for technical and economic performance, which has been the paradigm of their professional activities since the 1960s, on one hand, and taking account of the environmental concerns that have been imposed since the middle of the 80s, on the other. Is it possible for farmers to continue to work according to the paradigm of the producer of agri-food goods, and how do they react to the ecologization of their activities? In this paper, we will see the difficulties and sources of tension induced by landscape maintenance in the daily professional practice of the farmers. We will see that the professional identity of the farmers is profoundly brought into question by these changes (substitution of strictly ‘‘agricultural issues’’ by more general concerns such as ‘‘rural issues,’’ substitution of the farmer by the ‘‘ecologized’’ peasant...). The topic of landscape reveals social strains between farmers. It also raises the question of the legitimacy of farmers to define the sense of their activities by themselves. Finally we will see that environmental orientations do not systematically open up new prospects for all farmers; they sometimes contribute to increase the inequalities between farmers (financial support proportional to land property, marginalization of farmers who are less socially integrated...).

KEY WORDS: agri-environment, farmers professional identity, landscape, multifunctionality, rural amenities, social contract

Since the beginning of the 1990s, European and French agricultural and rural policies have encouraged agricultural productive systems to produce rural amenities and environmental services by specific public support. Among these policies, the first article of the new Agriculture Act, passed in France in 1999, encourages farmers to maintain landscapes. This environmental function is placed on the same level as their economic and social functions. The farmer is appointed by society to be not only a producer of foodstuffs, but also the guardian of French rural landscapes. However, maintaining landscapes is a mission that goes against the former standards of the agricultural activity and hurts the pride of farmers who have made great sacrifices to intensify their systems of production 564 P. DEUFFIC AND J. CANDAU

(Re´my, 2000). In fact, the state of progress in the processes of integration of environmental issues in the agricultural sector is uneven, and they are often driven by actors who do not belong to the agricultural world (Mallein and Chemery, 1996). Some of these actors no longer hesitate to call into question the monopoly of rural area management hitherto reserved for farmers. Their criticisms of landscape management pinpoint the destruction of hedgerows, the lack of integration of agricultural buildings, the extension of fallow land, etc. According to Halfacree (1995), the representation of the rural by residents is not a naı¨ve acceptance of the ‘‘rural idyll’’ but involves a more engaged and often critical reflection on rural living. Henceforth the emergence of non-agriculturalist discourses of rurality – often promoted by well- educated newcomers – have a significant impact on State policies (Svendsen, 2004). Their implementation can be seen as a struggle between management actors to ensure that their representations of the area prevail, and to garner their legitimacy to speak for the area (Greider and Garkovitch, 1994; Kitchen, 2000). In reply, the farmers’ unions seek to portray farmers as a homogenous group with common problems, and promote the image of a group under attack from the rest of the society (McHenry, 1996). But new pressures are creating a bifurcation between the role of the farmer as a specialized producer locked into distant markets and the role of the farmer as a small rural businessman or local environmental manager (Fuller, 1990 cited by Mars- den, 1999, p. 510). In fact, agricultural professional organizations and farmers seem to be divided on the attitude to adopt towards the ecologization of their activities. Ecologization is a process in which the society assigns farming other goals than only the production of commercial foodstuffs. This process supports and recognizes the multifunctionality of agriculture that the European and French agricultural policies have promoted since the 90s. At this policy level, there is no fundamental difference between the conservation of natural resources and the protection of natural and cultural landscapes. Indeed, farmers are strongly encouraged to take into account a large range of diverse potential environmental issues such as biodiversity conservation, soil protection, animal welfare, water quality, and landscape preservation. Concerning the last point, farmers’ reservations are based not on the rejection of the notion of landscape, but on the fear that this new aspect of their activities is not a real solution to earn their living (Laurent, 1994). Schoon and Grotenhuis (2001) assume the existence of two main value systems concerning the man-nature relation: some farmers have idealistic motivations and justify their farming practices with moral arguments or normative principle (farming ‘‘with’’ or ‘‘against’’ nature); other farmers have pragmatic convictions and are motivated by the FARMING AND LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT 565 continuation of their business to the extent that they can switch from con- ventional to agri-enviromental farming as long as there is a market for their products. And when farmers decide to join agri-enviromental schemes, these basic motivations still remain. Wilson and Hart (2001) thereby distinguish between ‘‘active adopters’’ of agri-environmental schemes for whom financial reason or ease of management plan implementation are important, but for whom conservation reasons are equally important in their decision to participate, and ‘‘passive adopters’’ who enter purely for ease of fit with management plans and financial reasons and who adhere as long as there is sufficient financial remuneration. From 2000 to 2003, French farmers could enter into five-year agreements, called Territorial Farming Contracts (CTE1), with the Ministry for Agriculture, Food, Fisheries, and Rurality. This contract specified certain environmental management practices on the farm (e.g., landscape management, reduction in the use of pesticides, etc.) in return for financial payments and investment facilities. The CTE program was the main instrument for the enforcement of European rural development regulations. Its aim was to encourage environmental and landscape-sensitive farming methods in order to protect or enhance areas of great interest in terms of landscape and biodiversity. CTE applied relatively undemanding entry conditions; farmers just had to comply with compulsory sanitary standards and to adopt at least one agri-environmental measure (AEM). By adopting this ‘‘permissive approach,’’ almost all farmers who met basic eligbility could take part. Like in the Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) scheme adopted in the UK, the French Ministry for Agriculture was concerned with achieving high participation rates in terms of the farmers and agricultural land covered by the CTE program (quantity instead of quality). In this paper,2 we analyze whether landscape management practices are seen as relevant by the farmers who enroll in the CTE when they present their professional activities. The bibliographic review presented above leads us to formulate the following assumption: the adoption of environmental objectives by the farmers leads them to modify their practices, and this change involves two dimensions: a technical change but also a more structural shift that particularly concerns their professional identity and their role in the management of the territory. To grasp these changes, we will analyze farmers’ attitudes by using an approach of common-sense knowledge sociology. We observe, in particular:

1 CTE: In French, ‘‘contrat territorial d’exploitation’’. 2 A version of this paper was presented during the 11th World Congress of Rural Sociology, Trondheim, Norway, July 25–30, 2004. 566 P. DEUFFIC AND J. CANDAU

– The practical and tangible diﬃculties they encounter when they try to implement these landscape management practices; – The ways in which these measures raise questions for them on the sense of their job, on the place and role of agriculture in rural areas, and on their relations with the other actors in the rural world (with tourists in particular). In this changing context where new goals are explicitly requested of agriculture, the production of landscape enables us to grasp the sense that farmers give to their activity. Our study is based on a qualitative survey carried out in the Dordogne in 2002, following the implementation of the CTE.

1. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK AND METHODOLOGY

1.1. Theoretical Frame and Methodology To study farmers’ opinions on landscape maintenance, we have adopted the theoretical frame of the common-sense knowledge sociology proposed by Berger and Luckmann (1986), which they developed from the phenomenological perspective of Schu¨tz (1987). These authors argue that knowledge is socially constructed and oriented towards particular practical problems so that facts can never be considered as neutral but reflective of why they are required. The objective is to uncover the ‘‘typifications’’ by which actors, in intersubjective ways, organize their everyday actions and construct common-sense knowledge, to discover how they operate with ‘‘taken-for-gran- ted assumptions’’ and ‘‘stock knowledge’’ and achieve a ‘‘reciprocity of perspective,’’ a ‘‘natural attitude.’’ In a similar phenomenological postulate, we consider the landscape as an image resulting from a mental construction that is socially and culturally determined, what Berque (1995) calls a mediation. Following this general framework, our intention is to grasp farmers’ concerns about landscape maintenance. But firstly, we have to understand in-depth the social representations that structure their everyday life reality. This is the reason why we let the farmers speak in their familiar and professional universe. Secondly, the word ‘‘landscape’’ is introduced (by the interviewees or the interviewer) and we observe whether this notion is relevant for them and what senses and meanings they assign to the term. We consider that the relevance, the meanings and the attitudes towards agri-environmental schemes are built collectively. Darre´(1994) shows that French farmers discuss their ways of going about things with neighboring farmers and within a local network of relations (local professional network, family, local councilors). But they also participate in more external networks FARMING AND LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT 567

(trade unions, farming cooperatives, etc.) where they discuss the evolution of their activity as well (Le´mery, 2003; Schoon and Grotenhuis, 2000). We therefore make the assumption that farmers elaborate the sense of their activity in various places of social integration by discussing with selected peers or interlocutors, such as other farmers, agricultural extension consultants, local councilors. Depending on these places of social integration, the acceptance of, and meanings conferred on landscape measures can differ from one group of farmers to another. This diversity of sense assigned to the production of landscape by farmers could be explained by their involvement in certain professional organizations whose institutional discourse elevates maintenance of the landscape to the status of a new function of agriculture (Candau and Chabert, 2003). Moreover, as the production of landscape is mainly requested by non-farmers, we suppose that the diversity of meanings also affects the symbolic system of exchange between farmers and non-farmers who are particularly present in Dordogne (visitors, new residents). Our investigation material consists of semi-structured, tape-recorded, and face-to-face interviews conducted with seventeen farmers who have signed a contract (CTE). We asked them to speak about their professional experience and the difficulties they encounter in their daily activities. This enables us to see whether they speak about landscape to present their current concerns and to justify their choice with respect to the agri-environmental practices con- tracted within the framework of their CTE. In order to determine the social basis for these choices, we identified their various places of social integration. Then, a content analysis of their discourse was performed in two parts. Firstly, we characterized the social and professional integration of the farmer on various territorial scales and his types of relations (professional, asso- ciative, elective, etc.). Then, we extracted the points in their discourse relating to the concept of landscape (the maintenance of rural areas, the specific agri- environmental practices concerning landscape, the diversity and quality of their surroundings, places of interest for tourists, etc.). By this cross-analysis, we segmented the interviewees into four groups. Each group is characterized by a specific form of socio-professional integration and a different way of considering the notion of landscape.

1.2. The Case-study Area The interviews were carried out in the south of the Dordogne in the Pays des Bastides (Figure 1). There are 17 inhabitants per km2 living in the area. Agricultural production is highly diversiﬁed and often organized around family farms. In the west, they mainly grow cereals and orchards (plums for prunes) and the average surface area of the farms is around 37 ha. In the center, they are oriented towards mixed-farming (tobacco, strawberry, 568 P. DEUFFIC AND J. CANDAU

BAYAC O E

MONSAC BEAUMOv S

# CAPDROT MAZEYROLLES MONPAZIER

0 500 1000 Kilomètres Source : ESRI (Data and Maps)

CH ARE NTE -M A RI T IM E HAUTE-VIENNE CH ARE NTE

CORREZE

DORDOGNE Canton de Beaumount GIRONDE Canton de Monpazier 0 5 10 15 Ki lomè tres LOT Canton de Villefranche du Perigord LOT-ET-GARONN E 02550Kilomètres So urce : IGN (Géofla) Source : IGN (Géofla) Figure 1. Localization of the Pays des Bastides in the South of France. arboriculture) and dairy farming; average farm surface area is around 29 ha. In the east, the farms are very small (19 ha) and mainly oriented towards arboriculture (walnut and chestnut) and sheep farming. The forest cover rate ranges from 30% in the west to 70% in the east. This case-study area was selected because landscape issues are important locally; there is a long and strong tradition of residential, leisure, and agritourism in which landscape arguments are widely promoted. There is also a special project of collective CTEs that have been proposed to the farmers on the initiative of a highly inﬂuential local farmer (a member of the French Senate). The purpose of this collective project is ‘‘to develop the environment and local heritage through the improvement of the visual appearance of the territory by the maintenance of open spaces.’’ The main obligations for the contractors consist in the integration of farm buildings, the control of forest edge dynamics and the improvement of wetland management.’’ The four groups of farmers will be presented below and we will see how and why the contractors integrate the landscape dimension into their professional practices. Then we will see how the maintenance of rural areas redeﬁnes and raises major questions about the sense of their activity.

2. THE RELEVANCE OF LANDSCAPE IN THE FARM PROJECTS: A WIDE RANGE OF SIGNIFICATIONS

The farmers did not mention the concept of landscape directly, but they used the term ‘‘maintenance of farmland,’’ which is perceived as being an inherent aspect of their work. On the other hand, depending on their places FARMING AND LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT 569 of professional integration, they elevate the maintenance of rural areas to very diﬀerent statuses within the framework of their own contract. The ﬁrst group mainly considers the contractual landscape practices as a source of income, the second group as an activity inherent to their farming activities or a ‘‘sub-product,’’ the third as a service for payment or a ‘‘co-product,’’ and the fourth as the ‘‘main product’’ of their agricultural activities.

2.1. A Source of Income Support The farmers belonging to this first group are not very well integrated into local life. They maintain only basic relations of the client/service provider type with the agricultural extension services. The main income of their activity comes from production that is independent of public subsidies and of agronomic and climate conditions (poultry, foie gras). They are seen as specialists in these forms of production and are proud of the economic and technical performance of their various units of production. They thus draw their legitimacy from their commercial exchanges. Their great fear is that of their activity being financially dependent on subsidies. For them, the landscape is a means like any other of collecting the subsidies necessary to maintain their income. As this poultry farmer says: ‘‘I went to Beaumont for information because everyone was talking about subsidies, everyone was getting help and I hadn’t asked for anything. I went to see (...) and it worked ... so while I was at it, I added in the building, I got the machine and I profited from the CTE (n°17).’’ They enter into environmental agreements that do not directly involve their system of production only because they are obliged to sign up to at least one environmental measure. They are not particularly motivated by landscape management and they maintain the most productive zones. While the conservation of small patches of land is appreciated, the pieces of land in question are seen as areas outside the farming system, not an integral part of it. This attitude is very similar to what Gravsholt (2002) describes as ‘‘rational restructuring’’ in some Danish farms: farmers segregate the land into two parts – on one hand, land for farming and on the other hand, land for natural conservation. Their action is guided by two principles: to take on the least restrictive environmental measures and to collect the largest amount of subsidies. They can be assimilated to the ‘‘passive’’ adopters in the participation spectrum proposed by Morris and Potter (1995).

2.2. An Inherent Part of their Professional Activity In this second group, farmers are very closely involved in the local professional networks – exchange of material and mutual aid between farmers. They also have responsibilities in their the village (town councils, 570 P. DEUFFIC AND J. CANDAU festival committees, parent–teacher associations, etc.). On the professional level, they take part in the technical networks of the agricultural organizations (farm machinery cooperatives, producer cooperatives, etc.) but without assuming elective responsibilities. They introduce themselves as small producers who work on scattered and specialized farm systems (tobacco and asparagus, strawberry and plums). Those activities are not developed beyond the labor capacities available within the family or through mutual aid among neighbors. They feel different from the farmers who grow strawberries in intensive production systems on a large scale, in tunnels and who take on permanent workers. They never evoke the concept of landscape directly but, on the other hand, they are happy to talk about land and space management, which seems to them to go without saying for two reasons: – Ethical arguments: farmland maintenance concerns a certain ethics of farming practices: it is essential that farmers control nature and scrub encroachment, that they keep the farm ‘‘clean’’ and maintain the family heritage in good condition; – technical-economic reasons: to contain forest edges and brambles is an obligation if they are to maintain the cultivated surface area and the output of their land in this region where the forest is omnipresent and where the field surface areas are small. However, they do not maintain the edges or the banks bordering patches of land that are not very productive or are too far from the farm. These farmers feel that they preserve the landscape naturally and they do not see the justification for a collective project focused on landscape preservation. Moreover, this collective contract proposes to pay them for the maintenance of rural areas, thus going against their professional standard that theoretically excludes all financial compensation for this type of action. For this fruit grower, ‘‘to keep up the hedgerow is something we have to do. It is not something we do for money.’’

2.3. A Service for Payment The farmers in this third group have farming systems similar to those in the preceding group but their social proﬁles are diﬀerent. They often have professional responsibilities as board members of cooperatives, farmers unions, technical organizations, and banks. For this reason, they can be called upon by town councilors to think about local projects like the collective CTE. They are also very present in the local community (town council, festival committee, etc.) and seem more independent of the farmers’ mutual aid networks. FARMING AND LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT 571

Regarding the landscape issue, these farmers admit that, due to the effect of the modernization of agriculture, they have not always maintained their farmlands at their best, and that they have contributed to changing the traditional landscape pattern significantly. Today, they are aware that the context has changed. They adhere to some aesthetic criteria that relate to the immediate surroundings of their farm (storage of equipment, embellishment of the access to the farm, tree planting, etc.). For one woman and sheep breeder, ‘‘farmers are now aware that, even if they are farmers, it is better not to have their manure heap in front of their door. We clean our farmyard so that it looks tidy and pleasant to the eye, for us and for others.’’ They also feel that they maintain their arable lands correctly. But unlike the preceding group, the type of contract they have signed enables them to maintain their land better than before and to do it over more extensive areas and sometimes even over the whole of their estate. We thus observe a professionalization and intensification of the practices of land maintenance: the banks, paths, hedgerows, and forest edges are cut more frequently, at a greater height and with better tools. These tasks are so large that they sometimes need to call in companies specialized in land maintenance. They are also different from the previous group on one essential point: they consider that the maintenance of rural areas is typically an environmental service and they totally accept the financial compensation. For this dairy farmer, ‘‘you have to live with the times. Before you were paid for what you sold, now you are paid for a service.’’ They also notice that, for the moment, nobody else can implement these landscape actions. No others rural actors have all the necessary skill and the suitable equipment to do it. For them, the core of their job has changed: until now, they had concen- trated all their efforts on production to the detriment of landscape management. Today, society seems ready to pay for landscape actions ‘‘the subsidies are the carrot to maintain the landscape. As we are paid for that, we do it. It is also true that it makes the landscape nicer.’’ For all that, they consider these actions more as a service than a production in itself. These farmers still define themselves first as producers, tobacco growers, stock- breeders, or fruit growers, not as landscape stewards.

2.4. Landscape, The Main Product of Agriculture It is difficult to speak about a fourth group because it actually contains only one farmer. Less integrated into the agricultural professional networks, she hardly ever takes part in the relations of exchange and mutual aid with her neighbors. Because she was informed of the CTE by the local daily paper, she contacted the agricultural adviser of the Chamber of Agriculture. She 572 P. DEUFFIC AND J. CANDAU put together her CTE only with agri-environmental measures and refused all subsidies allotted for improvement and investments in new equipment. This woman considers that one of the main roles of the farmers is to welcome outsiders in the rural areas, subject to certain minimum rules and conditions. Farming activity can thus be directed resolutely towards landscape management, pushing the production aims into the background. She is the only interviewee to stress the idea of agriculture in which the core mission should be dedicated to landscape management. This point of view is probably influenced by the fact that a part of these activities consists in agritourism. The contractors attach very different senses and priorities to the notion of landscape in their activities. For the first and the second group, landscape is neither the relevant word that describes the result of their physical actions on the land nor a key factor for decision making as signing a CTE contract. Even if they are conscious that some social groups and institutions ask for more ‘‘landscape’’ actions, they prefer to use the word ‘‘farmland maintenance’’ to talk about the aesthetic dimension of their activities and about the aesthetic relations they still have had with their land. This is more than a simple oratorical precaution; it reveals the gap between their conception of landscape – considered as a free sub-product of their farming activities and whose norms have been discussed hitherto inside the local community, and what they believe the conception of external actors is: aesthetization of the countryside detached from farm production concerns. If farmers of the third and the fourth group also don’t use the word ‘‘landscape maintenance’’ but ‘‘farmland maintenance’’ to describe the visual consequences of their activities, they have completely integrated this notion in their decision making. They accept the new mission defined in the CTE contract and that consists in landscape maintenance (as annual hedgerows maintenance) and even sometimes ‘‘landscape production’’ (as transformation of derelict fallow lands into ‘‘beautiful’’ but ‘‘productive’’ meadows) for the benefit of the local community and the visitors. However, as they analyze landscape maintenance as an external social demand and as a more constraining action than traditional farmland maintenance (as it goes over their own land property), they accept the financial compensation as a normal counterpart for their efforts. The landscape, formerly a sub-product, has acquired the status of a co- product and even, in some situations, the status of a main product of agricultural activities (Deffontaines, 1998). But sometimes it is also totally excluded. This diversity of attitudes is a source of tensions. It reveals the difficulties of a profession to create a new social identity and the movements of decomposition and recombination that are presently underway within the farming world (Le´mery, 2003). This first analysis shows that the various FARMING AND LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT 573 conceptions of landscape management are closely correlated with the places of social integration.

3. THE SOURCES OF TENSION

Several studies (Mitchell, 1998; Dupre´, 2001; Candau and le Floch, 2002) have denounced the risk of simulacrum of agriculture by seeking to restore the traditional activities and their emblematic material components (man-made objects such as old dry stone walls, terraces, traditional fences, orchards, etc.) in the name of the landscape. We are not in a similar situation in the Pays des Bastides, where the question is focused on the maintenance of arable land, ﬁeld patterns, and forest edges, and not on the restoration of obsolete material elements (barn, walls, terraces). The majority of the farmers agree to maintain and produce landscape, but, at the same time, they wonder about their role in society today.

3.1. Landscape Management as a Joint Product rather than a Main Product For the farmers, the maintenance of space is an everyday and ordinary practice and they refuse to make it their main production. This is why they distinguish clearly between ‘‘farmland maintenance’’ on the one hand (ob- ject of thought relevant to their activity and on which they feel it is legiti- mate to intervene) and ‘‘landscape management and design’’ on the other hand (category of thought that farmers allot to tourists). If the farmers in group n°3 go a long way in this separation of agricultural outputs and environmental services, they are also very clear on the limits that must not be exceeded. Of course, they do not blame the choices made by their neighbors, such as the farmer in group n°4 – landscape maintenance (generally in coherence with an agri-tourism unit) can be an individual option – but they still refuse the idea of landscape management becoming the sole reason and the collective sense of their profession. They learned to produce and this is what defines them as farmers, above all else. Landscape care or conservation is considered as providing ‘‘a second leg to stand on’’ and an alternative income source (McHenry, 1996). Consequently, the priority given to the landscape in the collective CTE project leaves them circumspect. They fear they will have to answer requests that will be unwise and disconnected from their own conception of Nature. One dairy farmer thinks that ‘‘to maintain the hedges and the river banks is important. To avoid the proliferation of nature so that it doesn’t invade everything is also important, but I’m rather sceptical about changing the land into a garden.’’ Their practices aim to control the proliferation of weeds and shrubs, not to garden their farmlands. In other words, the choice of the landscape project seems to confirm their view that agrarian problems 574 P. DEUFFIC AND J. CANDAU are being abandoned in favor of objects such as ‘‘landscape, nature, environment’’ that have few links with the rural and even less with agriculture (de la Soudie` re, 1991). These farmers are in the same state of tension described by Dupre´(2001), hesitating between aesthetic reasons and professional reasons, since the former is seeking to be an end in itself. Their fear is that they will see particular conceptions of their job prevail, such as ‘‘landscape as scenery, a decoration, landscape without peasants, culture without farmers, structure without structuring work, finality without end, work of art’’ (Bourdieu, 1977).

3.2. A Reformatting of their Professional Identity All the interviewees describe themselves by their main production (strawberry grower, dairy or poultry farmer, tobacco grower) and by their activity of farmland maintenance. To heighten their conviction, they make a point of distinguishing themselves from a number of particular figures. Three of these figures are mentioned more often than others: the roadman, the gardener and the landscape manager. The image of the ‘‘roadman’’3 was introduced by the professional agricultural organizations at the end of the 1980s and has been taken up by the farmers themselves since the implementation of the first agri-environmental schemes (AES) concerning ‘‘landscape conservation and management.’’ The ‘‘roadman’’ refers to the person who – as he was considered as unable to do another work – was filling up holes on the road and also was mowing the grass and the weeds on the roadside for the benefit of the local rural community at the end of the 19th century. This vernacular expression betrays the contempt and envy that the peasants traditionally felt for the roadmen and their supposed lack of ardor in their work (Re´my, 1998). In contrast, hard work is seen as a virtue for farmers and increases in production are valued in their own right. But with the AES, there is no reward for doing anything more than the minimum necessary to qualify for the subsidies. Real work means maximizing harvests and anything less demanding is considered to be ‘‘pretend farming’’ (Silvasti, 2003). This is why the farmers always refuse this image. In addition, they give it a political dimension: they refuse to become ‘‘the roadman of Europe.’’ Hence they denounce the arbitrary dimension of the orientations of the CAP on which they have little influence but that call into question their professional identity through the concrete devices of the AES. The image of the ‘‘gardener’’ conveyed by the farmers in groups 2 and 3 is more positive than the previous one in terms of know-how and technical skills. The way the farm looks (its shape, condition, and general appearance)

3 ‘‘cantonnier’’ in French. FARMING AND LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT 575 is an indication of the kind of farmer that farms there and is a criterion used to describe a good farmer. For the farmer himself, the aesthetic aspect of his farmland is important, as Mie´ville has shown for French and Swiss farmers: ‘‘there is beauty where there is order’’ (Mie´ville-Ott, 2000) The garden metaphor reinforces the productionist ethic as gardens are, by their very nature, places where human beings work to transform the landscape. When nature is understood to be a garden, untended land represents decline and disarray. Landscape is not primarily to be conserved or preserved but to be cultivated and shaped. (Silvasti, 2003). This explains why the farmers in groups 2 and 3 assert that they are the prime manufacturers of the agricultural landscape and often its only guardians. However, this identification with gardeners reflects neither the reality of farming nor the scope and the difficulties of this activity. To garden the whole rural space appears unre- alistic to them and impossible to achieve. They would prefer a differential management of spaces to be ‘‘landscaped.’’ Some contractors, such as one cattle breeder, wish not to maintain the hedges beyond ‘‘the 200 meters visible from the road’’; others estimate that the gardening of rural areas will distort the essence of the countryside. Lastly, this reference to gardening raises the question of the aesthetic standards applied in rural areas: are we not trying to set up the countryside and its actors as a scene, ‘‘a pleasant perspective’’ (Williams, 1977)? The image of ‘‘the landscape manager’’ is not evoked as such but it emerges from the self-presentation made by some farmers in the third group. The most convincing example is a dairy farmer who applies the agri-environmental practices dedicated to ‘‘farmland maintenance’’ with the same preoccupation of profitability and quality as his agricultural products. The implementation of the landscape measures requires meticulous organiza- tion; he has had to invest in specific material (hedge and verge cutter4)in order to carry out more effective, better-quality pruning that was more pleasing to his eyes. This investment allows him to propose his services to the local communities and to sign contracts in order to maintain the roadside banks. In a way, he has become an environmental service provider, but he still defines himself as a producer of agricultural outputs. No farmer substitutes any of these images for his profession of producer of agricultural foods because, in spite of the redefinition of their activities induced by the agri-environmental policies, the competences and skills related to these activities do not correspond to, and do not enhance their farming activities. Farmers’ relationships with nature are still based on the principle of production.

4 Verge cutter without longitudinal blade but circular saws, used to prune the hedges in a vertical position and to limit the splitting of the branches. 576 P. DEUFFIC AND J. CANDAU

They also perceive the AES as a form of dequalification of their professional skills. A dairy farmer in the second group notes that, at the beginning of the 1960s, the traditional practices and knowledge were abandoned and even ridiculed to make way for ‘‘modern’’ agriculture. However these traditional practices had a sense for the farmers and an effect on the landscape: ‘‘Once, even the woodlands were clean as a whistle. Old men were cutting the ferns; landscape was really different.’’ Today, everyone misses them: ‘‘For tourism we really need to tidy the land. It looks so dirty when thorns grow everywhere. It really changes the landscape.’’ There is, however, no question of returning to old methods of maintenance because the context has changed radically: there is not enough family labor and time to devote to this activity, which is generally decoupled from the production process. Moreover, their competence in terms of farmland maintenance is not really recognized. The modes of action and the spatial structures concerned in landscape action are defined without their involvement. They just have to apply to the letter the management prescriptions laid down by ‘‘people in offices’’ (technicians, experts, decision-makers,, etc.) who seem to deny the value of the farmer’s specialist knowledge. As shown in the Environmentally Sensitive Area scheme in the United Kingdom, farmers feel that landscape management instructions are ‘‘imposed’’ on them, with little flexibility or room for discussion, and this leads them to a feeling of being dispossessed (Wilson and Hart, 2001). However they doubt the relevance and the impact of AEM on landscape patterns, in particular when these actions are carried out on dispersed and discontinuous hedges and surfaces. In the 1960s, farmers uprooted hedges as a symbol of archaic agriculture; today farmers are ironic about the patrimonial value of these hedges and the natural – more than agricultural – dimension of this landscape structure (Perichon, 2004). They also reject the agri-environmental practice of concentric mowing of meadows for the protection of birds. As scientists and experts are sometimes hesitant as to the relevance of their agri- environmental schemes, their knowledge and power can be ignored more easily, as their ideas do not work (Murdoch and Clark, 1994). Concerning the ‘‘high-tech’’ equipment for pruning such as verge cutters, one fruit grower (and also a specialist in tree pruning) considers that it goes against the code of good practices: ‘‘With a verge cutter, you never prune a tree close enough to the trunk (...). It sometimes leaves a dead stump one meter long. The work is done quickly but when the guys from the Chamber of Agriculture tell me that it is more ecological, I’m shocked.’’ Even if they have all signed up for agri-environmental practices, they are perceived as the antithesis of a certain progress in the profession of the farmer, incompatible with the desire to improve technical performance and skills (Droz and Mie´ville-Ott, 2001, p. 20). FARMING AND LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT 577

They are also afraid of not being able to cope with additional technical investments that are unconnected with the production process. Even if the farmers in the third group consider landscape maintenance as a co-product of farming, they sometimes have diﬃculties carrying out this work themselves. This is the case, in particular, for the agri-environmental practices ‘‘maintenance of forest edges and the hedgerows’’ for which payments are higher if the work is carried out at a greater height with speciﬁc pruning material. But the farmers only have rotary tillers, a second-hand verge shredder, and a chainsaw, but not very specialized tools like verge cutters. They therefore delegate this type of work completely to external contractors and prefer to devote their time to production. However, these contractors will accept the work only if several kilometers of hedgerows have to be pruned.

3.3. To Tidy the Countryside to Welcome the Tourist? The contractors wonder about the place for agriculture and tourism, respectively, that the collective landscape CTE project will create: can landscape maintenance target agricultural and tourism issues simultaneously? Is landscape management the most relevant agri-environmental problem in the Pays des Bastides? For the most motivated contractors, the fact that the maintenance of the landscape is of benefit to tourist activity is not a problem in itself, because they see themselves as being in a relation of exchange with the visitors. The tourist looks approvingly on the clean and ordered landspace enhanced by landscape maintenance practices. This reinforces the idea of a positive social contract between farmers and visitors, as this cattle breeder says, ‘‘we see tourists who stroll around; they tell us that the countryside is well maintained, beautiful.’’ The public reward for landscape maintenance is tourist and community recognition through the tangible appearance of the farm and the countryside. Consequently, the standard of ‘‘good maintenance’’ is not only internal to the agricultural profession. On the level of the Pays des Bastides as a whole, this action simultaneously benefits the farmers who earn their living from agritourism, the tourists who benefit from path maintenance, and the other actors in local development (shopkeepers, res- taurant owners...). In this way, the landscape is seen as the basis of a ‘‘common good’’ to be produced by agriculture. This is the legitimacy of the collective CTE in the area such as it is defended by the local councilors. However, the successful cohabitation of agriculture and tourism is not a given. Farmers feel that tourists’ and city dwellers’ views of the countryside are beginning to dominate in society. They fear, in particular, that the stakes related to tourism and consequently landscape management may prevail 578 P. DEUFFIC AND J. CANDAU over farming priorities, as this cattle breeder of the third group shows: ‘‘medium and long-distance footpaths have been created for hikers. These paths should not be reserved only for hikers, farming machines must also be allowed on them. There has to be a happy medium; we must respect each other.’’ Even if the institutional norms of landscape management and tourist development do not correspond systematically to those of the farmers, they will probably prevail. If this happens, landscape projects could consist in setting up the rural space and its actors as pleasant scenery. Putting the emphasis on the landscape appears to them to be putting agriculture at the service of tourism, when these two activities are in fact increasingly inter- dependent and should coexist in a balanced battle of wills. However, according to Droz and Mie´ville (2001), this representation of qualities of the countryside and the submission of farming and rural projects to the control of their peers’ and urban dwellers’ demands constitute a prison for the farmers who are obliged to personify the peasant myth. The only solution for them in this case would be to conform to what the others think their activity should be. This collusion of interests between tourist activities and social demand for environmental issues gives farmers the impression that they have been excluded from the definition of local development issues and policies in the area. This feeling is heightened by the fact that, during the examination of their contract, the agricultural authorities appear very concerned by these questions of landscape. They seem to be emphasized to the detriment of aspects relating to production and other environmental and economic problems: ‘‘farming advisors are tending more and more towards environmental programmes. We feel that they are suggesting we maintain the landscape so that city-dwellers don’t get their feet dirty; but we don’t want to become gardeners on a golf course.’’ The farmers fear that, for strategic reasons, it is being requested of the agricultural profession to line up under only one banner, that of a collective ‘‘landscape’’ project supposed to support and improve local development. Lastly, for them, the landscape appears to be a project by default, a very consensual environmental topic, but not particularly relevant: the farmers in the second and the third groups would have preferred a collective CTE orientated towards the production of other goods and services like water quality or small-scale farming support. While the absence of a clear landscape project reinforces their feeling of an action by default, other priorities seem more urgent to be solved. They would have liked the implementation of the CTE to be an opportunity to discuss the future of farms and farming and some other acute issues, such as the maintenance of incomes, the reduction of working times, labor shortages, or the system of assistance and reorganization of mutual aid. McHenry (1996) has observed a similar FARMING AND LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT 579 phenomenon: the farming union press, agricultural policy makers, and county councilors prefer to promote an ideal image of agricultural activity materialized by beautiful landscapes than to discuss acute environmental problems such as water quality or use of pesticides. The priority given to the landscape management project raises the question among farmers of the balance between tourism and agricultural activities, and the respective roles of these two sectors in local development. Seeing that the CAP reform supports the production of food goods less and less, many farmers are trying to diversify their income by setting up agri- tourist activities. However, present orientations of rural tourism have induced an adaptation and a selection of the farmers who are ready and able to attract up-market customers (Perret, 2002). On this point, we agree with the fear expressed by Laurent (1994) who analyzes the remuneration of agricultural services ‘‘as a social program aiming at transitorily mitigating the most brutal effects of the reform of the CAP.’’ It could act as a social treatment of unemployment where the farmers would profit from welfare transfers if they accept conforming to a certain number of obligations such as landscape maintenance, but without being really included in the discussion about the norms chosen for this activity and without making it possible to have a similar income to that of other social and economic categories with the same level of qualification (Laurent, 1994).

3.4. Free or Remunerated Service? In spite of these reserves, all the farmers we met subscribed to practices aiming at improving the maintenance of rural space. For them, signing a contract implies adhering to an ‘‘environmentalist’’ state of mind. For this reason, they criticize the members of the first group who are said to have signed contracts only out of financial interest, and they denounce them as ‘‘subsidy hunters.’’ If this adhesion to an environmentalist ethic federates the last three groups, opinions differ concerning the remuneration of this service. For the farmers in the second group, the maintenance of space is an activity inherent to their professional identity; it is an aspect of their work. The farmers thus build their professional project free to do their job and manage the landscape as they want; they develop their own aesthetics of their work in this framework (Luginbu¨hl, 2001). This professional standard has a moral justification and excludes, in principle, all financial compensation, as this fruit grower in the second group testifies: ‘‘maintaining the landscape is something we have to do; it isn’t something we do for money.’’ But at the same time, with the successive reforms of the CAP, the majority of farm income is now earned behind a desk, filling out forms for subsidies. As Silvasti (2003) 580 P. DEUFFIC AND J. CANDAU showed for Finnish farmers, this underrates the social value of farming and is a threat to the cultural script of hard work and the notion of real farm work. Working hard is regarded as being a central virtue but, with the subsidies, farmers complain that there is no incentive to do real work and they see the emergence of a new form of ‘‘pretend farming’’ (Silvasti, 2003). Furthermore, subsidies add to the feeling that payments are a luxury afforded by a wealthy society, and do not have any real substance. This in turn contributes to the feeling that they might be a transient fad (McHenry, 1996). On the other hand, the farmers in the third group consider the maintenance of space as a service for which it is conceivable to be remunerated. The landscape is no longer an inherent consequence of their work but a ‘‘common good’’ produced by agriculture and for which there is a social demand. With the question of remuneration, the image of farmers as food producers and ‘‘society feeders,’’ – which has always been the basic foun- dation of their professional identity through the ages – is thus profoundly brought into question. The farmers in groups 2 and 3 agree totally with the idea of welcoming visitors to their territory. But the financial compensation instituted by the CTE radically changes the terms of this exchange. We can say that the conception of the second group is based on the notion of a gift that is in keeping with the non-commercial field and is based on an ethical obligation that they set themselves (Mauss, 1985). They would probably be willing to continue with landscape management practices even if the CTE scheme and payments stopped. On the other hand, the remunerated service, conceived by the farmers in the third group, concerns an economy of environmental services (Aznar and Perrier-Cornet, 2003): the farmer is bound by contractual obligations that can be evaluated and sanctioned if they are not observed (by administrative controls). There is a shift here from an ethical justification for landscape maintenance to a commercial one. This change induces a moral obligation that can be imposed on farmers.

4. CONCLUSION: TOWARDS A NEW SOCIAL CONTRACT

Although farmers are integrating the new agri-environmental functions allotted to agricultural activity, they are doing it at the expense of a great effort in terms of sense construction. This effort is made not individually, but collectively in different places of social integration, which gives it dif- fering contents. For some, farmland maintenance does not have any relevance as an intentional purpose while, for the majority of the farmers interviewed, it is a sub-product; for others a by-product; finally, for a small number of others, it can become the main product of their activity. This FARMING AND LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT 581 result is slightly different from the findings of Gravsholt (2002) on Danish farmers’ attitudes to landscape: in our case-study area, landscape is also a concern for full-time farmers and not only for those who farm as a hobby. For the first and second group, creating profitable production conditions is effectively the dominant concern, but for the two other groups, agricultural production and amenity considerations are linked. The majority of the farmers who have signed contracts have integrated the environmental orientations, but they hope not to change the core of their value system, which remains articulated around the production of food goods. This ecologization of agriculture also leads farmers to reconsider the terms of their exchanges with other actors. Set up and legitimized as the production of a common good, farmland and landscape management do not appear, to their eyes, to be the main activities that define them as farmers. They constitute only a secondary aspect of their productive activities, among the other multiple functions of agriculture. Farmers have constructed themselves as active rather than passive stewards of nature and landscape because this brought with it some prospect of maintaining their way of life at a time when other options had been fully explored or closed off (Harrison et al., 1998). However, the contractual form of the CTE causes these multiple functions to be dispersed and disconnected. Whereas the multifunctionality of agriculture is based on the narrow hybridization of commercial and non- commercial functions, this public policy device separates them and tries to merchandise all of them. Moreover, these systems officialize the remuneration of some non-commercial functions that farmers have done for nothing until now, and in which they found the nobility of their activity. Payment overturns this system of values and constitutes a kind of insult to the ideal of most farmers regarding the maintenance of their lands (Droz and Mie´ville- Ott, 2001). In fact, the terms of the exchange with the rest of the society are called into question. On the one hand, the farmer is not considered only as a producer of agricultural food products. Even if the policy makers have got used to this idea, it is still far from being accepted as part of the values and reference framework of the farmers themselves. They hesitate to give up this function of feeding society, because the other functions – landscape management or biodiversity—remain very unsettled in their eyes (Droz and Mie´ville, 2001). They don’t know if landscape orientations will continue after the next new CAP reform in 2013; they are also very doubtful about the capacity of all the rural actors to act collectively on the landscape. In addition, farmland maintenance cannot be offered by the farmers any more, since it has become a remunerated service. It is no longer a gift, something they have deliberately chosen to offer, but a commercial service. 582 P. DEUFFIC AND J. CANDAU

In the past, aesthetic standards were defined within the local professional group (the farmers) as a gift based on an ethical obligation (Notteghem, 1991). Today, the production of this service should logically obey technical and aesthetic standards discussed and defined jointly by the farmers and the visitors, the environmentalists, the local economic agents etc., without knowing to which concrete collective landscape representations each group can refer, however. Farmers need an internal debate in order to build a common position on the mode of recognition of this function, and more basically on the exemption of payment or the commodification of this service. This study leads us to raise questions as to the present capacity of the agricultural profession to organize a debate on these points of tension that would enable it to control the restructuring of its professional identity. It also throws light on a major point: since both CAP reform and French agriculture Act have defined environmental and landscape issues as structural orientations (at least till 2013), French farmers are conscious that they will have to cope with the landscape in on-farm decision making. Until now, norms of farmland maintenance have been discussed within their professional group and the local community. From today, the scale of discussions change with the participation of external actors such as NGO, institutions, and actors from very different levels (local, regional, national, and European). If they want to have much weight in these decision making processes, they will have to define and agree about a common position concerning the condition of their participation in rural landscape maintenance. As Lemery (2003) mentioned, with the division of their profession and direct competition between farmers for the control of their future professional orientations, it is more difficult for farmers to find convergent perspectives and common modalities for action and to elaborate a collective conception of their profession. In fact, the farmers who are closely integrated into the professional networks are those who leave a place for the landscape in their activity. As it is seen as a sub-product or a by-product, the terms of remuneration will probably be discussed among themselves. On the other hand, the farmers who defend a professional identity exclusively based on the production of food goods and, at the other end of the scale, those who are ready to be totally involved in landscape management are not represented in these networks. And the results of our study tend to confirm that the non- contractors (who represent the majority of French farmers) tend to belong to these two groups. If the production of landscape concerns the production of common goods, then it needs ‘‘a definition that bases its truth in reason and nature’’ (Douglas, 1999). If farmers are seen as active landscape stewards, agri- environment policies fail to recognize that farmers also need to preserve a FARMING AND LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT 583 way of life, a sense and a value for their professions. Landscape will also have a place and a sense in farmers’ minds if the social tensions between the rural and urban world are symbolically resolved. This symbolic construction requires the terms of the exchange to be defined. In this process, financial commodification should not be applied systematically, and may not even be the most relevant tool.

REFERENCES

Aznar, O. and P. Perrier-Cornet (2003), ‘‘Les services environnementaux dans les espaces ruraux: une approche par l’ećonomie des services.’’ Economie Rurale, 273– 274, pp. 142–157. Berque, A. (1995), Les raisons du paysage de la Chine antique aux environnements de synthe`se, Paris: Hazan. Berger, P. and T. Luckmann (1986), La construction sociale de la reálite´, Paris: Me´ridiens Klincksieck. Bourdieu, P. (1977), ‘‘Une classe d’objets.’’ Actes de la Recherche en Sciences sociales, 17–18, pp. 2–5. Candau, J. and S. Le Floch (2002), ‘‘Le paysage comme cate´gorie d’action publiq- ue.’’ Natures, sciences et socie´te´s, 10 (2), pp. 59–65. Candau, J. and M. Chabert. (2003), ‘‘La multifonctionnalite´, un sens en discussion. La place accordeé au paysage dans le projet agricole de la Dordogne,’’ in P. Caron and J-M. Pivot (eds.), Les Cahiers de la multifonctionnalite´ ‘‘Coordinations locales et action collective pour une agriculture multifonctionnelle.’’, Paris: Editions Cemagref-Inra-Cirad, pp. 71–87. Darre´, J.-P. (ed.), (1994), Pairs et experts en agriculture. Dialogues et production de connaissance pour l’action, Ere` s: Ramonville Saint -Agne. Deffontaines, J. P. (1998), Les sentiers d’un geóagronome, Paris: Editions Argu- ments. De la Soudie` re, M. (1991), ‘‘Paysages et alte´rite´.’’ En queˆte de ‘cultures paysage`res’: re´flexion me´thodologique. Etudes rurales, 121–124, pp. 141–150. Douglas, M. (1999), Comment pensent les institutions, Paris: La Dećouverte Droz, Y. and V. Mie´ville-Ott (2001), On ache`ve bien les paysans, Georg e´diteur: Gene` ve. Dupre´, L., (2001), ‘‘Relancer une activiteágricole traditionnelle en (re)qualifiant son paysage? Quand une chaˆ taigneraie ardećhoise devient ‘paysage de reconqueˆ te’.’’ pp. 451–458 in Dynamique rurale. Environnement et strate´gies spatiales (Mont- pellier: ed. A. Berger). Gravsholt Busck, A. (2002), ‘‘Farmers’ Landscape Decisions: Relationships Between Farmers’ Values and Landscape Practices.’’ Sociologia Ruralis, 42 (3), pp. 233–249. Greider, T. and L. Garkovich (1994), ‘‘Landscapes: The Social Construction of Nature and the Environment.’’ Rural Sociology, 59 (1), pp. 1–24. Halfacree, K. H. (1995), ‘‘Talking About Rurality: Social Representations of the Rural as Expressed by Residents of Six English Parishes.’’ Journal of Rural Studies, 11 (1), pp. 1–20. 584 P. DEUFFIC AND J. CANDAU

Harrison, C. M., J. Burgess, and J. Clark (1998), ‘‘Discounted Knowledges: ‘Farmers’ and ‘Residents’ Understandings of Nature Conservation Goals and Policies.’’ Journal of Environmental Management, 54 (4), pp. 305–320. Kitchen, L. (2000), ‘‘Environmental Policy and the Differentiation of Rural Space: an Actor-Network Perspective.’’ Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning,2, pp. 135–147. Laurent, C. (1994), ‘‘L’agriculture paysagiste: du discours aux reálite´s.’’ Natures Sciences Socie´te´s, 2 (3), pp. 231–242. Le´mery, B. (2003), ‘‘Les agriculteurs dans la fabrique d’une nouvelle agriculture.’’ Sociologie du travail, 45, pp. 9–25. Luginbu¨hl, Y., ‘‘La demande sociale de paysage.’’ In Conseil National du Paysage, rapport de la seánce inaugurale du 28 mai 2001 (Paris: Ministe` re de l’ećologie et du de´veloppement durable, 2001) 11–30. Mallein, P. and J.-B. Chemery (1996), ‘‘Agriculteurs et environnement: y aller ou pas?’’ Travaux et innovations, 25, pp. 51–55. Marsden, T. (1999), ‘‘Rural Futures: The Consumption Countryside and Its Regu- lation.’’ Sociologica Ruralis, 39 (4), pp. 501–520. Mauss, M. (1985), Essai sur le don Forme et raison de l’ećhange dans les socie´te´s archaı¨ques, PUF: Paris. McHenry, H. (1996), ‘‘Farming and Environmental Discourses: A Study of the Depiction of Environmental Issues in a German Farming Newspaper.’’ Journal of Rural Studies, 12 (4), pp. 375–386. Mie´ville-Ott, V. (2000), ‘‘Les e´leveurs du Jura face a` l’ećologisation de leur me´tier.’’ Le courrier de l’environnement de l’INRA, 40, pp. 75–84. Mitchell, C. J. A. (1998), ‘‘Entrepreneurialism, Commodification and Creative Destruction: A Model of Post-modern Community Development.’’ Journal of Rural Studies, 14 (3), pp. 273–286. Morris, C. and C. Potter (1995), ‘‘Recruiting the New Conservationists: Farmers’ Adoption of Agri-environmental Schemes in the U.K.’’ Journal of Rural Studies, 11 (1), pp. 51–63. Murdoch, J. and J. Clark (1994), ‘‘Sustainable Knowledge.’’ Geoforum 25, pp. 115– 132. Notteghem, P. (1991), ‘‘Haie se` che, haie vive et ronce artificielle.’’ Etudes rurales, 121–124, pp. 59–72. Pe´richon S., (2004), ‘‘L’impossible reconstruction des bocages de´truits.’’ L’Espace geógraphique, vol. 2004, n°2, pp. 175–187. Perret, J., (2002), ‘‘La mise en valeur d’ameńite´s touristiques rurales pour une e´lite.’’ Ingeńieries EAT, spećial vol. ‘‘Ameńite´s rurales’’ pp. 35–42. Re´my, J. (1998), ‘‘Quelle(s) culture(s) de l’environnement?’’ Ruralia, 2, pp. 85–103. Re´my, J. (2000), ‘‘Multifonctionnaliteágricole et pluralite´sociale: Les contrats ter- ritoriaux d’exploitation.’’ Ameńagement et Nature, 136, pp. 25–36. Schoon, B. and R. Te Grotenhuis (2000), ‘‘Values of Farmers, Sustainability and Agricultural Policy.’’ Journal of Agricultural and Environnemental Ethics, 12, pp. 17–27. Schu¨tz, A. (1987), Le chercheur et le quotidien, Paris: Klincksieck Silvasti, T. (2003), ‘‘The Cultural Model of ‘The Good Farmer’ and the Environmental Question in Finland’’ Agriculture and Human Values, 20 (2), pp. 143–150. FARMING AND LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT 585

Svendsen, G. L. H. (2004), ‘‘The Right to Development: Construction of a Non- Agriculturalist Discourse of Rurality in Denmark.’’ Journal of Rural Studies,20 (1), pp. 79–94. Williams, R. (1977), ‘‘Plaisantes perspectives. Invention du paysage et abolition du paysan.’’ Actes de la Recherche en Sciences sociales, 17–18, pp. 29–36. Wilson, G. A. and K. Hart (2001), ‘‘Farmer Participation in Agri-environment Schemes: Towards Conservation-oriented Thinking?’’ Sociologia Ruralis, 41 (2), pp. 254–274.

Cemagref, UR Agriculture and Dynamics of Rural Areas 50 avenue de Verdun 33612, Cestas France E-mail: philippe.deuﬃ[email protected]