Paper presented at the 52nd CFCS Annual Meeting, Guadeloupe, July 10-16, 2016
DESIGNING GUADELOUPEAN AGRICULTURE IN 2040: IMPLICATIONS AND CONDITIONS OF FIVE FORESIGHT SCENARIOS ON THE FUTURE OF GUADELOUPEAN AGRICULTURE IN ORDER TO TACKLE FUTURE CHALLENGES Carla Barlagne1, Jean-Louis Diman1, Marie-Béatrice Galan2, Claude Hoton3, Thierry Noglotte3, Arsène Vinglassalon3, Olivier Mora4 and Harry Ozier-Lafontaine5 1
UE PEYI Plateforme Expérimentale sur le végétal et les agrosYstèmes Innovants, INRA, 97170, Petit-Bourg (Guadeloupe), France, 2Ambre Développement, 19 allée des Goyaviers, Lot Belair Desrozières, 97170 Petit-Bourg, Guadeloupe, 3 HPC Conseil, 75 rue Jean Jaurès, 97110 Pointe-à-Pitre, Guadeloupe, 4INRA, Unité DEPE, Institut national de la recherche agronomique (INRA), 147 rue de l’université, 75 338 Paris, Cedex 07, France, 5 ASTRO Agrosystèmes tropicaux, INRA, 97170, Petit-Bourg (Guadeloupe), France Key words: scenario planning, evaluation, global challenges, sustainable agriculture, territorial development, governance, identity Abstract Agriculture constantly has to adapt to new challenges. Among the tools actors on the ground, can mobilize in order to prepare themselves and to anticipate those challenges is scenario planning (De Jouvenel, H., 2000; Godet,M., 2000). Five scenarios were elaborated after a foresight study on Guadeloupean agriculture in 2040 at the request of the Chamber of Agriculture of Guadeloupe and in order to pave the way for a shared agricultural project for Guadeloupe (see Barlagne et al., 2016 a). We examined the extent to which those scenarios could help local stakeholders tackle head-on, some of the challenges for Guadeloupean agriculture. This is the first step towards the definition of an action plan leading to the desired outcomes for Guadeloupean agriculture in the future. Material and Methods Issues considered (by the working group involved in the scenarios definition) as important for Guadeloupean agriculture in the future were among others: i) to design a sustainable agriculture that improves food security and generates employment through a well balanced territorial development; ii) to define governance mechanisms giving venues to endogenous policies answering local expectations and; iii) to ensure that the social group of the Guadeloupean farmers is maintained in its ability to remain the custodian and guarantor of a shared identity basis. The five scenarios were examined in their capacity to tackle those challenges. First, their implications in terms of local employment and territorial development were evaluated. So was the agriculture they describe, in its ability to meet the food needs of the population both quantitatively and qualitatively. Then, the dynamics they trigger within the territory was explored while the options they offer in response to climate change were discussed. Next the conditions of their realization were assessed in terms of the possible sources of funding for agricultural activities as well as adequate research, training and development system (RTD) and governance mechanisms. To finish with, the joint evolution of the social group of farmers and of the society was extrapolated. Main results The five scenarios provided a differentiated answer to the different challenges. As far as employment and territorial development are concerned, scenario 1 and 2 reflect a general decrease in the number of farms and farmers and indirect employment on the opposite to scenarios 3, 4 and 5. When it comes to hired labor, S2 and S3 are the ones that contribute more importantly to an increase of direct employment. Contribution to food security, food sovereignty and public health indicators were evaluated as follow: in terms of food security, S4 and S5 are more likely to contribute to food security than S1, S2 and S3; food sovereignty is more warranted in S4 and S5; public health indicators are also the best in S4 and S5. The triggered dynamics at the territorial scale results either in the containment of agriculture to specific areas or in a well balanced and coherent spread of it throughout the territory. In S1 and S2, the focus on economic performances of agriculture leads to the use of the least expensive to develop area (ei.: mountain ridges). In S3, the specialization on one crop entails its generalization to the more difficult areas even. In S4 and S5, agriculture takes advantage of the agroecological potentialities of the territory and is designed in those lines. The scenarios offer different responses to climate change. S2 and S3 provide two options to cope with global warming. While S2 foresees the development of an industrial agriculture that can be regulated to cope with a wide range of conditions and constraints, S3 bets on a safe speculation – cane – that can adapt to an increase in temperatures and unpredictable events. In S4 and S5, global warming is handled thanks to the alternatives offered by biodiversity and by adapted varieties and farming practices. In terms of financial support to agriculture, S1, S4 and S5 establish the retention of public funds while private and foreign capitals take over in S2. In S3, the competitivity of agriculture increases and lays the ground for a self-financed agricultural development. Civil society also represents a stakeholders’ group of growing importance in the orientation of agriculture and territorial development. It gets involved in S4 and fully supports farmers in S5.
275