2019/01/01 by Xavier Reboud, Reboud, Xavier
Agricultural and Biological Sciences · Social Sciences · #0 #Agriculture and Rural Development Research #Agroecology #Agroécologie #Aménagement territorial #Comptabilité environnementale #Conservation #Ecosystem services #French Urban and Social Studies #Land use #Services écosystémiques #Sustainable agriculture
paper · pdf · doi:10.15454/7iefc5
openalex publication_date 2019/01/01 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/22
Regularly, scientific results stress the alarming decline of biodiversity on mostly all taxa, from terrestrial or marine vertebrates to arthropods or flora. The land surface is largely occupied by agricultural activities, so the articulation of agriculture and biodiversity remains more than ever a major concern. Consideration of this issue has become widespread and the sense of urgency has been reinforced since 2008. Different policies integrate this concern largely driven by social pressure. We can pinpoint that the decade has been used to establish or generalize regulatory and organizational tools to broaden the prospects for sustainability; on the other hand we must also admit that their implementation is based on still unambitious criteria. In 2018, the ‘Cours des Comptes’ denounced this chilliness but the globalization of markets is a serious obstacle to bold progress that are likely to destabilize the respective position of a country relative to its institutional partners. Now that it is definitely established and accepted that intensive agriculture has a major impact on biodiversity, this is the services and value that biodiversity may have in sustainable farming systems that is becoming at stake. This reversal shift is expressed in several political plans, including the agroecological project for France, the deployment of an Ecophyto plan aiming to reduce the use of pesticides, and delivery of incentives for ecosystem services coverage. The stability and resilience properties brought by biodiversity are also highlighted; the recognition of the 'system' dimension and the widening of scales to integrate have also made their way. Paradoxically, the brakes as well as the possible ways of a better consideration of biodiversity are in the hands of the economic and entrepreneurial sphere; on one side: short-termism, emphasis on market values and the tragedy of the commons remain very important, including agricultural choices; on the other hand, the frame of Corporate Social Responsibility makes one think openly about the advent of a generalized environmental accounting. Such a framework would be very conducive to accounting for the place played for and by biodiversity on farms. The changes that will take place should not necessarily lead to de-intensification of agricultural systems but rather to expression through other forms of intensification in favor of biodiversity; digital farming could support this dynamics. To accompany the transition, direct forms of recognition through labeling will coexist with indirect forms of support, potentially with the introduction of a payment for service; a way of recognizing that biodiversity plays a role in territories far more than just contributing to agricultural production. An extended range of stakeholders should be mobilized.