Implementing Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development in the European Alps

Introduction

In the Alps, farming has a major impact on land use,landscape, rural life, and development. Alpine agricul-ture is declining and to manage its future in accordancewith rural development stakes is a key challenge if thenatural and cultural value of the Alps is to be main-tained and if they are to remain attractive to tourists andlocal people alike. Thus agriculture is not only a matterof sectoral concern but requires a territorial approach.In scientific and political discourses (O’Connor et al2006), there is common agreement today that the futureof agriculture is a challenge not only for farmers, butalso for society at large. What remains unclear is the

question of how to adapt agriculture towards sustainabledevelopment of the Alpine territory in a manner thattakes sufficient account of the complexity of social, eco-nomic, and environmental diversity.

We face 2 major difficulties. On the one hand, thestandard approaches based on a set of measures appliedat individual farm level showed some limits in the reori-entation of agriculture. Research has revealed thatdespite the process of reforming the Common Agricul-tural Policy (CAP) and farmers’ commitment in agro-environmental schemes, farmers often continue tointensify and specialize their farms (Walford 2003). Onthe other hand, there is an increasing awareness of therelevance of approaches enhancing mutual learning andcooperation (Heinz 2002; Wiesmann et al 2005). Thusthe concept of local projects involving the principle ofparticipation is often seen as a solution to handle localdiversities and to reinforce solidarities between actorsworking towards sustainable development. But suchapproaches entail the difficulty of combining agricultur-al and rural development issues. Indeed, the limitedintegration of agriculture and farmers has often beenobserved in current assessments of rural developmentprojects (Trouvé 2004). This could be related to the sec-toral orientation of farmers and agricultural organiza-tions. On the other hand there is also a lack of interestexpressed by other stakeholders who consider mountainagriculture to be an activity on the decline, doomed todisappear without any major economic impact (Mac-Donald et al 2000). Bridging agriculture and sustainablelocal development therefore remains a key challenge formaintaining farming in mountain regions.

Based on a 3-year experiment, this paper analyzesthe capacity of local people to take joint action to con-tribute to rural development and sustainable agricul-ture in the Alps. We discuss the assets and limitations ofparticipative projects in initiating closer links betweenfarmers and other stakeholders and in renewing thecontribution of agriculture to rural development. Afterpresenting the methodology, this paper focuses on 2points:• How social dynamics between farmers and other

actors are initiated and enable them to take jointaction towards sustainable development;

• The impact of these local projects on agriculture andrural development and the counterbalance of globalfactors, including market trends and related policies.

Materials and methods

The IMALP projectIMALP (Implementation of Sustainable Agriculture andRural Development in Alpine Mountains) was aresearch and demonstration project (2003–2006) whichinvolved 4 pilot areas across the Alps (Moyenne-

In current scientificand political discours-es there is commonagreement that thefuture of Alpine agri-culture is a challengenot only for farmers,but also for society atlarge. What remainsunclear is the ques-tion of how to adapt

agriculture towards sustainable development of theAlpine territory in a manner that takes sufficient accountof local diversity. We propose to treat agriculture andrural development as a matter of local concern, startingwith a definition of sustainable agriculture drawn up bylocal stakeholders. Based on a 3-year experiment, weexamine the capacity of local people to take joint actionto contribute in a consistent way to rural developmentand to sustainable agriculture. We discuss the assetsand limitations of local projects based on multi-stake-holder participation, ie in relation to their capacity to ini-tiate closer links between farmers and other stakehold-ers and renew the contribution of agriculture to ruraldevelopment. Our paper highlights 2 main points: first,how social dynamics are initiated and how farmers andother actors take joint action towards sustainable devel-opment; second, we analyze the impact of such localprojects on agriculture and rural development and thecounterbalancing effects of global factors, including mar-ket trends and related policies. Finally, we discuss theconsequences of our results for policies targeting sus-tainable rural development.

Keywords: Agriculture; rural development; collectiveaction; local projects; sustainability; policy; EuropeanAlps.

Peer-reviewed: July 2008 Accepted: August 2008

Implementing Sustainable Agriculture and RuralDevelopment in the European AlpsAssets and Limitations of Local Projects Based on Multi-stakeholder Participation

Philippe Fleury, Sandrine Petit, Laurent Dobremez, Markus Schermer, Christoph Kirchengast, Giorgio De Ros, Natalia Magnani, Lauro Struffi, Valérie Mieville-Ott, and Olivier Roque

226

Mountain Research and Development Vol 28 No 3/4 Aug–Nov 2008: 226–232 doi:10.1659/mrd.1002

Research

227

Tarentaise, France; Val d’Hérens, Switzerland; Murau,Austria; Val di Sole, Italy; see Figure 1). IMALP initiatedan experimental situation where a group of local stake-holders comprising around 20 people (farmers, electedofficials, and NGO members) designed and implement-ed a consistent set of actions towards sustainable agri-culture and rural development. This demonstrationpart was associated with a research part aiming at assess-ing this experience.

The demonstration part was organized in 2 phases.First, using the “future workshop” method (Jungk andMüllert 1996), the wishes and objectives of the so-called“local groups” for sustainable agriculture and ruraldevelopment were determined in each pilot area in acollective process in which sectoral interests and pointsof view were diverse and were articulated in a particularway. This resulted in the elaboration of collectivelydefined action plans in favor of sustainable agricultureand rural development. Second, over a period of 3years, a set of actions was initiated and implemented ina participative way. For each action, an “action group”of 5–10 people ensured its practical implementation.Throughout implementation, the “local group” was incharge of safeguarding consistency of the overall actionplan comprising 4–8 actions. In total, 19 actions were

implemented in the 4 pilot areas, including the follow-ing: design and implementation of contracts for land-scape maintenance, development of agri-tourism andeducational activities, design of forms and means ofcommunication about agriculture, establishment of anew food production and marketing chain, develop-ment of wood-based energy production, etc.

For the research part an interdisciplinary approachcovering sociological and agronomic aspects was devel-oped to better understand how stakeholders graduallydesign and implement their action plans.

Methodologies used in the research partTo survey the capacity of local people to take jointaction, permanent monitoring of local and actiongroups was carried out in the 4 pilot areas. In eachmeeting the following data were recorded: participants,consensual and conflictual topics, interactions betweenmembers, methods of facilitation, ways of decision mak-ing, and major outputs (concrete actions, documents,etc). To analyze this process we used a method derivedfrom Actor Network Theory (Law 1992; Latour 2005).This is a constructivist theory. At its center is the con-cept of translation in which stakeholders attempt to cre-ate a network. During the process of translation, the

FIGURE 1 Location of the 4 pilot areas in the European Alps. (Adapted by Ulla Gaemperli from: http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/images/map/cooperat2007/transnational/alpinespace.pdf, accessed on 14 August 2008; courtesy of European Commission)


Mountain Research and Development Vol 28 No 3/4 Aug–Nov 2008

228

identity of actors, the possibilities of interaction, andthe margins of maneuver are negotiated and delimited(Callon 1986).

The impact of actions on the sustainability of agri-culture was assessed at farm level using an interdiscipli-nary approach with 6 environmental, 6 economic, and 6social indicators. This approach combines standardindicators, such as stocking rate and fertilization, andspecific indicators, such as workload (Dedieu et al2000), as well as farmers’ perceptions about relationswith the municipality, local people, and the food chain.To make a comparative analysis possible, the samplingis made up of farmers involved in IMALP (10 farms perarea) and of farmers not involved (5 farms per area).We conducted 15 farm surveys per pilot area on 2 occa-sions, separated by a 2-year interval (T0: 2003 and T+2:2005).

To evaluate the overall impact of the IMALP proj-ect on rural development and on local awareness of sus-tainability, we carried out a survey of local stakeholders.This survey was conducted at the end of the project andtotaled 15–20 individual interviews per pilot area. Inboth demonstration and research parts, a special focuswas placed on the implementation of actions, settingthis study apart from the majority of existing approach-es to participative projects which are mainly concernedwith the design phase.

Results

Towards a concrete approach to sustainable agricultureAlthough many political documents have been drafted tospecify the basic concept of sustainable development, thedebate regarding the meaning of the term “sustainability”remains open. An original aspect of IMALP concerns itsassociation of two approaches to sustainability: the view oflocal actors on the one hand, and an expert assessment(Table 1) on the other. This combination results in a con-crete approach to agricultural sustainability.

A salient feature is the importance given by thelocal groups to the social component of sustainability.The place of agriculture in the local area and the rela-tions between farmers and other stakeholders were realconcerns (41% of farmers were unsatisfied with theirrelations with other people). The action plans encour-aged closer partnerships with local stakeholders such asschools or the tourism sector. In Moyenne-Tarentaise,for instance, the tourism office got involved in support-ing agri-tourism projects; it provided its expertise to thelocal group to shoot a film presenting farming in moun-tainous areas; and it also contributed to forging rela-tions between farmers and municipalities by designing aleaflet presenting the characteristics of farms and thepossible services offered by farmers to municipalities.Indeed, better communication about the agricultural

FIGURE 2 A services cooperative of farmers in Moyenne-Tarentaise, France. (Photo by Sandrine Petit)

Research

229

sector was an objective of several action plans; thisreflected farmers’ preoccupation with being under-stood and recognized by other stakeholders.

The working conditions of farmers are a controver-sial matter. The expert assessment highlighted highworkloads in 3 pilot areas (Val d’Hérens, Val di Sole,Moyenne-Tarentaise). However, in the local groups thisdiagnosis was only echoed in Moyenne-Tarentaise,where an attempt has been made to establish a collectivestructure for mutual help between farmers (Figure 2).

The term “environment” appears to have manymeanings, despite a general consensus on the positiveimpact of agriculture on landscape. Farming systems inthe Alps usually generate a positive impact: mainte-nance of permanent grasslands, contribution to plantand animal diversity, limited use of pesticides in live-stock farms, etc. Only 11% of the farms in our samplepresented an unsustainable performance in 2003, whenwe first assessed farm sustainability. High stocking ratesand the related intensification of foraging (fertilizationand purchased feeds for cattle) in certain farms are themajor problems. When discussing the environmentalsustainability of farms, stakeholders mainly interpretedit as a landscape challenge. Consequently actions torecover abandoned lands were undertaken in France,Italy, and Switzerland.

Agricultural income is a weak point for a high pro-portion of farms (41% at T0). Accordingly, we assessedthe percentage of farms with an income lower than thelegal minimum wage, considering this figure as a possi-ble indicator of the number of farms at risk of closing.

The economic situation of farms is more dependent onexternal factors, such as market trends and supportthrough policies, than on local-level initiatives. Howev-er, some actions had an impact on farmers’ income,such as the development of on-farm tourism activities(France, Switzerland, Italy) and the establishment of anew marketing chain (for meat from Hérens cattle inSwitzerland).

Implemented local actions towards sustainability: socialdynamics requiring capacity building and networkestablishmentIn all 4 pilot areas, we noticed that the local actors hadconsiderable difficulties shifting from a common strate-gic project to the practical implementation of actions.In this section we analyze how they faced up to this chal-lenge and how finally stakeholders took joint action. Ifwe refer to concepts taken from the sociology of transla-tion (Callon 1986), we can say that the translation ofideas or problems into action encompasses 4 majordimensions: 1) continuous refining of sustainabilityissues, 2) broadening the scope of actors, 3) sharingroles and duties, and finally 4) taking joint action.

Continuous refining of sustainability issues: A firststage involves debating about different issues (land-scape encroachment, shortage of labor, lack of commu-nication with local authorities, etc) and then definingsolutions. One of our main results is that formulating aproblem does not end once a solution or action planhas been determined. It is an iterative process andoften the problem can be reformulated several times,

Sustainability component Indicator Threshold for “unsustainable performance”

% of farms with unsustainable performance

2003 2005

Social aspects Level of satisfaction regarding relationships with municipality, localpeople, food chain, other farmers

Farmer unsatisfied or very unsatisfiedwith one or more of these relationships

41% 41%

Workload Number of peak days and satisfac-tion regarding workload

More than 120 peak days per year orfarmer unsatisfied or very unsatisfiedwith workload

58% 55%

Environment Level of intensification based onstocking rate and fertilization

Fertilization higher than 100 nitrogenunits/ha or stocking rate higher than 2 livestock units/ha

11% 16%

Economic aspects

Agricultural income/annual agricultural work unit

Income lower than the legal minimumwage: EUR 14,600 in France, same value in Austria (where a legal minimumwage does not exist), EUR 15,100 inItaly, EUR 22,000 in Switzerland (wherea legal minimum wage does not exist)

41% 33%

TABLE 1 Scientific assessment of sustainability at farm level in the 4 pilot areas of IMALP. Peak days = days when daily obligatory work (eg milking) is longer than8 hours + days entirely dedicated to seasonal tasks (eg hay making). The data were collected during 2 surveys conducted in 2003 (T0: launch of actions) and2005 (T+2: 2 years of implementation) from a sample of 64 farms.



230

not only at the early stages when the group is definingobjectives, but also later in the action implementationphase. There are a number of reasons for this. In theaction implementation phase, concrete decision mak-ing modifies the problem, requiring new knowledge inthat issues are taken into account that were initiallyignored. Reformulation may also be related to changeswithin the local group and its network. Stakeholdersfrom outside often initiate reformulation as they bringin new perspectives, new kinds of knowledge and net-works. In Murau, for instance, the cooperative for woodenergy changed its objective from selling wood chips tobeing a major actor of “Energy Vision 2015.” This proj-ect launched in the district of Murau in 2001 aims atachieving energy self-sufficiency for the whole districtby the year 2015. Reformulation of the problem hasgone hand in hand with a scaling-up of the group and abroadening of the partnerships forged at regional level.

Broadening the scope of actors: Taking action is a socialprocess which calls for establishment of a network ofdifferent stakeholders. The initial actors thus have tosolicit the participation of others. Stakeholders mightbe considered as relevant because they have specialexpertise, are key partners in a sector that the groupcannot ignore, are sources of possible funding, or cancarry out some of the tasks envisaged. One challengemay be to involve stakeholders from sectors other thanfarming. In Val di Sole, for example, in an actioninvolving educational activities (Figure 3), the firststage was to arouse the interest of school representa-tives. The group thus contacted the director of themain valley school, a contact that turned out to be fruit-ful as that person later became the leader of the action.

Sharing roles and duties: If arousing the interest ofnew stakeholders is a key stage for action progress,obtaining their enrolment and continued participationturns out to be crucial. Indeed, participants have tobecome actors and individual strategies have to be artic-ulated within a collective strategy. The handing over ofindividual responsibilities is a tricky stage. It requires anextensive appropriation of the process and a personalcommitment to accepting the idea of change along withthe risks of failure. Implementation succeeds whenenrolment is extended to a consistent network of stake-holders and consolidated by institutionalized rules. InVal d’Hérens, for an action involving beef productionand local marketing, the action group succeeded in set-ting up a working network of farmers, butchers, andrestaurant managers. The creation of an association hasallowed the roles of the various actors to be defined.

Taking joint action: When stakeholders form a con-sistent network inside and outside the local area andtake joint action, the action can be considered to be ata successful stage. A spokesperson is designated andrepresents the group. Actions progress thanks to coor-dinated and collective commitment from all partici-pants. Afterwards, success depends on the capacity toevolve and make adaptations enabling new actors tobecome involved while retaining the initial actors. How-ever, success of an action is never assured, for it is anongoing process and may fail due to changing condi-tions. Changes may result, for example, from internalcauses, such as conflict between actors, or externalcauses, such as a downturn in the economy that can callinto question the entire action.

Assessment of the impact of local actions in relation tomajor driving forces such as prices and policiesThe IMALP actions had an impact on farm economiesin the case of farms that changed their strategies, forexample by starting a new activity to achieve diversifi-cation or by introducing direct sales of a new product:development of quality meat products, diversificationof farms towards agri-tourism, and educational activi-ties. These actions were successfully implemented andhad appreciable positive impacts on farm incomes.For other farms (dairy farms), the economic impactof the project remained limited. Farm incomes aremainly related to global factors, including markettrends and related policies. Our analysis showed thatbetween 2003 and 2005 in each of the 4 areas somefarms scaled up production by increasing herd size orraising the level of productivity per cow. This strategyis standard practice following a decrease in milkprices. Consequently, the economic component isonly partially influenced by local projects, especially ifthey encourage alternative strategies such as new on-farm activities.

FIGURE 3 On-farm educational activities in Val di Sole, Italy: A farmer showsschoolchildren how cheese is made. (Photo by Daniela Turri)

Research

The environmental components of sustainabilityraise the same issue: balancing factors that are outsidethe control of the local area and factors easily influ-enced by local stakeholders. In general, componentsdepending on factors outside the control of the localarea (such as global climate change) were not tackledby stakeholders. Landscape upkeep contracts betweenfarmers and municipalities are major issues welladdressed and managed by local projects. The contractsin the IMALP project specified the areas to be recov-ered and the agricultural practices to be used (mechan-ical or manual clearing, grazing). Biodiversity andmanure management remain delicate issues. InMoyenne-Tarentaise, just one farmer signed a contractwith an environmental NGO to test a type of farm man-agement meeting strict requirements in terms of biodi-versity. Regarding manure management, not manyfarmers were interested in the use of a manure curingmachine proposed in Val di Sole. Energy use was onlyaddressed in Murau. Possible reasons for this lack ofinvolvement include environmental concerns beingperceived as external debates (as with biodiversity) or,in the case of manure management, latent conflictsbetween farmers and village inhabitants or within thefarmers’ group that make them reluctant to address thisissue. As regards biodiversity management, there was amutual lack of trust between farmers’ representativesand the environmental sector. Obtaining the involve-ment of farmers, municipalities, and the environmentalsector requires relevant methods of activation. Despitethese difficulties, local and regional agreements in thefield of environment and nature preservation are ofmajor significance in preserving the natural heritage inthe Alps (Wiesmann et al 2005).

Finally, the main output concerns the social compo-nent of sustainability and the dynamics for rural devel-opment. A comparative analysis of the 4 pilot areasinvolved in the project shows that IMALP has helped tolink agricultural sustainability and local development in2 major ways. First, by developing both empowermentand skills of local stakeholders: In the final survey wenoticed a greater awareness of the principle of sustain-able development and of the links between agriculture,the economic activities of the local area, and the futureof its inhabitants: for instance, stakeholders declaredthat the IMALP project had encouraged a commonfeeling of being part of a group and a territory. Farmersrealized that they were not as marginal as they hadoften assumed and that agriculture remained importantfor the future of the local area. Second, by extendingsocial capital and creating an efficient working networkof stakeholders: We noticed the development of newrelations between agriculture and other sectors such asenvironmental protection, tourism, handicraft, andenergy production. In addition, it is also necessary to

point out the establishment of new links between vari-ous farmers and certain types of agricultural produc-tion in the local groups (eg between goat/sheep andcow breeders, between meat and cow milk producers).

Conclusion

The results of the above analysis lead to the followingconclusions regarding the assets and limits of participa-tory multi-stakeholder projects and appropriate supportthrough policies.

Combining general agricultural support and orientationpolicies with supportive policies for local actionThe impact of local participation projects is counterbal-anced by the influence of major economic drivingforces that are often outside the control of the localarea: CAP, milk prices, food sector strategies. Theseforces create uncertainties which induce farmers toadopt standard strategies such as scaling-up and intensi-fication. Thus, to ensure a minimum of stability in farmincome and in the strategic orientation of farmers,direct payments are a pre-condition for maintainingAlpine agriculture. However, they are not sufficient topromote sustainable development based on localresources and collective initiative. To reinforce thecapacity of local and collective initiatives, it is importantto combine existing support, mainly at farm level, withsupporting policies for local projects. This concernsboth training of facilitators, technical advisors, exten-sion services, and local leaders and providing the neces-sary means for local activation.

Revisiting the concept of action in policies forsustainable agriculture and rural developmentConventionally, the design and implementation of proj-ects is analyzed as a linear process, with successive phas-es of management such as definition of objectives andrisks, planning of actions, implementation, adjust-ments, and evaluations of results according to theextent to which objectives have been achieved (EuropeAid 2004). Our main assertion is that implementationof the “local governance” principle (multi-stakeholderand participative approaches) in small-scale projectsrequires an alternative view of the phases of projectmanagement (IMALP project© 2006).

Conception and action are intermingled phases.Collective action towards sustainability is a processwhere goals, values, knowledge, and relations are re-constructed continuously (Hatchuel 2000). Our resultsemphasize 2 major points. First, action always startswithout full knowledge of a problem and action pro-duces knowledge. Second, social concerns such asinvolvement of stakeholders, definitions and break-downs of duties and responsibilities are of major impor-

231



232

tance for the success of an action. As a consequence,the problem and the objectives are constantly re-exam-ined and the outcome is not known in advance.

In a project, output is both non-tangible and tangi-ble. Examples of non-tangible results include exchangeof knowledge between stakeholders, mutual learningthrough joint efforts to specify actions, setting-up ofnetworks, and increases in capacity building. Suchresults are difficult to measure in a precise manner.Projects also produce tangible results, though: a leafletreflecting the collective dynamics of farms involved indiversification, signing of contracts for landscape up-

keep, works for land recovery, setting-up of a new meatproduction chain, etc.

Consequently, accepting redefinition of the objec-tives of a project, associating the design and the imple-mentation of projects in a holistic way, giving priority toa progressive learning path are the major recommenda-tions that emerge from our research. Despite the diffi-culties and the uncomfortable situation for policymak-ers, these are some of the conditions which need to bemet to reinforce the ability of participative local proj-ects to reach concrete results towards sustainable localdevelopment.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The IMALP project benefits from financial support from the European Commis-sion (contract QLK5-CT-2002-0109, 5th framework program for Quality of Lifeand Management of Living Resources) and of the Swiss Confederation (project02.0364, State Secretariat for Education and Research).

AUTHORS

Philippe FleuryISARA-Lyon (Institut Supérieur d’Agriculture et d’agro-alimentaire Rhône-Alpes)/ Groupement d’intérêt scientifique Alpes du Nord, Department of SocialSciences and Management, Agrapole, 23 rue Jean Baldassini, 69364 LyonCedex 07, [email protected]

Sandrine PetitINRA (Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique), Unité de Recherche718, Laboratoire de recherche sur les innovations socio-techniques etorganisationnelles en agriculture, 26 boulevard du Dr Petitjean, BP 87 999,21079 Dijon Cedex, [email protected]

Laurent DobremezCEMAGREF (Centre national du Machinisme Agricole, du Génie Rural, des Eauxet des Forêts) / Groupement d’intérêt scientifique Alpes du Nord, Unité deRecherche Développement des territoires montagnards, BP 76, 38402 Saint-Martin d’Hères, [email protected]

Markus Schermer and Christoph KirchengastUniversity of Innsbruck, Institute of Sociology, Universitätsstrasse 15 / II,6020 Innsbruck, [email protected] (M.S.); [email protected] (C.K.)

Giorgio De RosEdmund Mach Foundation Research Center, Agricultural Resources Depart-ment, Via E. Mach 1, 38010 San Michele all’Adige, Trento, [email protected]

Natalia Magnani and Lauro StruffiTrento University, Human and Social Sciences Department, Piazza Venezia 41,38100 Trento, [email protected] (N.M.); [email protected] (L.S.)

Valérie Mieville-Ott and Olivier RoqueAgridea, Avenue des Jordils 1, Case postale 128, 1000 Lausanne 6,[email protected] (V.M.-O.); [email protected] (O.R.)

REFERENCES

Callon M. 1986. Eléments pour une sociologie de la traduction. Ladomestication des coquilles Saint-Jacques et des marins-pêcheurs dans labaie de Saint-Brieuc. L’Année Sociologique 36:169–208.Dedieu B, Serviere G, Jordan A. 2000. Work organization and livestockmanagement: Lessons from “Bilan Travail” studies. In: Gagnaux D, Poffet JR,editors. LFS: Integrating Animal Science Advances into the Search for Sustain-ability. Proceedings 97. Posieux, Switzerland: The European Association for Ani-mal Production, pp 374–377.Europe Aid. 2004. Project Cycle Management Guideline.http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/multimedia/publications/documents/tools/europeaid_adm_pcm_guidelines_2004_en.pdf; accessed on 14 August 2008.Hatchuel A. 2000. Intervention research and the production of knowledge. In:Cerf M, Gibbon D, Hubert B, Ison R, Jiggings J, Paine M, Proost J, Roling N, edi-tors. Cow Up a Tree: Knowing and Learning for Change in Agriculture. Case stud-ies from industrialised countries. Paris, France: INRA Editions, pp 55–68.Heinz I. 2002. Co-operative agreements to improve efficiency and effective-ness of policy targets. In: Brouwer F, van der Straaten J, editors. Nature andAgriculture in the European Union. Cheltenham, United Kingdom: Edward ElgarPublishing, pp 233–251.IMALP project©. 2006. Guidelines for Promoting Sustainable Agriculture inAlpine Mountain Regions: Insights into Handling Social Dynamics in Project Man-agement [available in English, French, German, and Italian]. Chambéry, France:Les éditions de la page blanche. http://www.alpes-du-nord.com/malp/handbook.html; accessed on 14 August 2008.

Jungk R, Müllert NR. 1996. Future Workshops—How to Create DesirableFutures. London, United Kingdom: Institute for Social Inventions.Latour B. 2005. Reassembling the Social—An Introduction to Actor-NetworkTheory. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.Law J. 1992. Notes on the theory of the actor-network: Ordering, strategy andheterogeneity. Systems Practice 5:379–393.MacDonald D, Crabtree JR, Wiesinger G, Dax T, Stamou N, Fleury P, GutierrezLazpita J, Gibon A. 2000. Agricultural abandonment in mountain areas ofEurope: Environmental consequences and policy response. Journal of Environ-mental Management 59:47–69.O’Connor D, Renting H, Gorman M, Kinsella J, editors. 2006. Driving RuralDevelopment: Policy and Practice in Seven EU Countries. Assen, The Nether-lands: Royal Van Gorcum. http://www.ucd.ie/bioenvsci/documents/Rural%20Dev.pdf; accessed on 14 August 2008.Trouvé A. 2004. Les régions, acteurs des politiques agricoles. Analysecomparée entre la Bavière et le Schleswig Holstein. Economie Rurale282:9–21.Walford N. 2003. Productivism is allegedly dead, long live productivism: Evi-dence of continued productivist attitudes and decision-making in South-EastEngland. Journal of Rural Studies 19:491–502.Wiesmann U, Liechti K, Rist S. 2005. Between conservation and develop-ment: Concretizing the first World Natural Heritage Site in the Alps throughparticipatory processes. Mountain Research and Development25:128–138.

Documents

Implementing Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development in the European Alps