Bibliography - Centre-Val de Loire

The approach to sustainable food and sustainable food systems proposed in this part of the PATAMIL programme targets the implementation of food solidarity initiatives, distinguishing between ‘democratic solidarity’ (reciprocal solidarity that values people’s autonomy) and the more vertical ‘philanthropic solidarity’ (Laville, 2010)[1] of food assistance. These ideas bring together the concepts of food justice, food democracy and sustainable food, concepts that are closely interrelated but not entirely congruent.

Sustainable food as we understand it in the PATAMIL programme proposes a systemic approach – interconnecting the issues of production, processing, distribution methods and consumption (D. Paturel and M. Ramel, 2017) – by reaffirming the need to consider all food practices and choices that respect environmental, ethical (accessibility for all to quality food; fair remuneration of farmers; respect for animal welfare, etc.) and health criteria (nutritional quality and health safety (Redlingshöfer, 2006). Food democracy, which calls for the right to sustainable food for all, has been defined by Tim Lang (1999) as the possibility for citizens to decide autonomously, rather than from the top down, on their food choices and to set up actions and food supply chains that bring together all the stakeholders (producers, processors, distributors, consumers), avoiding asymmetrical relationships, to encourage the participation and decision-making of citizens, including those in precarious food situations. Food democracy (Balbot et al, 2020) combines the right to food with food solidarity, particularly in its territorial dimensions (Bodiguel, 2019; Darrot and Noël, 2018) and with the objectives of sustainability (Ndiaye and Paturel, 2017), responsible food (Dubuisson-Quellier, 2018) and autonomy (Pimbert, 2009). This approach requires us to rethink the modes of food governance[2] in the territorial dynamics of ‘relocalisation’, including TAPs (Lardon S and Loudyi S., 2016; Billon Camille, 2017). While, according to D. Paturel (2020), the concept of food democracy encompasses that of food justice, C. Hochedez and J. Le Gall (2016) point to the challenges of democratic food governance, in which citizens (and local authorities) seize upon food as a condition of food justice and as a political project for deciding on food choices and implementing supply chains adapted to these choices (T. Lang, 1999; Renting et al, 2012; Arc Lascaux, 2014; Paturel and Carimentrand, 2016). From this point of view, food democracy is a field of critical analysis of the organisation of food aid, focusing on governance processes.

Strongly influenced by an Anglo-Saxon approach, often militant and critical (food movement), the notion of food justice is the subject of a recent scientific explosion in France (Toussaint, 2017), and even of interest on the part of certain political leaders (speech by G. Garot during the États Généraux de l’alimentation in 2017). In the Anglo-Saxon world, particularly in the US, the approach focuses on the conditions of access to food for urban consumers in precarious situations, without much discussion of the links with economically productive urban agriculture (Alkon, 2012; Slocoum and Cadieux, 2015). Julie Le Gall and Camille Hochedez (2016, op.cit.) point out that agricultural resources are the bedrock of food systems and a rebalancing of research proposals between production and consumption would make it possible to reconnect the concept with the basis of food systems. Without calling into question the definition given by Gottlieb and Joshi (2010)[3] which points out that food practices are embedded in localised structural socio-spatial inequalities, the two authors prefer to use the concept of agri-food justice (Ibid.). More firmly rooted spatially, the concept favours a balanced approach between the requirements of socio-economic justice for agricultural producers and those of accessibility to quality food for disadvantaged consumers, across all localised sectors. In addition, facilitating access to quality food for all means considering its various dimensions (nutritional, but also social, cultural and hedonistic) as well as the participation of all populations (including the most vulnerable) in food decisions and initiatives (empowerment: the ability to make decisions and take action). So the notion of “agri-food” is not just a problem of financial accessibility or distance (food desert), or a question of food insecurity (sufficient, healthy, quality food). It ensures that improving access to quality food for all is done fairly. The elements that make up the notion of agri-food justice are mutually reinforcing: food security for consumers (particularly disadvantaged consumers) would be achieved by improving food justice where they live, which presupposes action on the structural inequalities that shape food systems. Food justice is about the ability to have access to quality food through governance processes that encourage the empowerment of people to exercise food and agricultural citizenship (Lyson, 2004; Renting et al, 2012), favouring food aid systems that prefer justice to charity (Paturel 2020; Retière and Le Crom, 2018) and that reconnect the difficulties of certain farmers with poorly met local food needs (Paturel et al, 2015; Marescot, 2019). In this respect, environmental education and nutrition education are crucial to increasing people’s knowledge of food systems (Levkoe, 2006; Alkon and Agyeman, 2011; Paddeu, 2012; Hochedez and Le Gall, 2016).

But how can food justice be implemented and promoted locally, within sustainable food systems? This question is made all the more complex by the fact that food justice is a concept with a vague perimeter: what criteria should be used to define food justice, how should it be assessed and by whom? That’s why we’re going to focus on the implementation of food solidarity initiatives (whether “democratic” or “philanthropic”) in local areas, including initiatives included in the TAPs (Pays des Châteaux). But with two related questions:

• What food systems for greater food justice? Sustainable and/or fair food systems[4] (Toussaint-Soulard, 2017 or 2018)? This raises the question of the territorial dimension of food justice and the ability of alternative and relocalised food systems to meet this challenge.
• What role do agriculture and food play in reducing local inequalities?

This is a dimension that is still very rarely addressed in food relocation schemes, the characteristic feature of food insecurity being the relative invisibility of the ‘insecure’. Even so, the charities working to combat exclusion and inequality are still limited by food supply sources that do not focus on quality, fresh, local or labelled products (Paturel, 2013; Le Velly, 2017).

More generally, this issue is often avoided because it is not politically consensual. For if the role of the agri-food industry in reducing local inequalities is shown to be weak, we might think that we are putting the cart before the horse and that we should first establish far-reaching social reforms before working towards food justice: no food democracy without an egalitarian democracy, so to speak. The issue is particularly acute in Indian society, which is characterised by huge socio-economic disparities and very marked power hierarchies. The food issue must therefore be a tool for social justice and not just an object: this reinforces the stakes of the PATAMIL project.

In fact, critical hindsight invites us to go beyond the presupposition that relocalised food systems are necessarily socially just[5] (R. Slocoum et al., 2011) and to move away from the fetishism of the local, which is sometimes a ‘decoy’ (Toussaint-Soulard, 2017). There are many examples of relocalised food systems that favour certain groups to the detriment of the most disadvantaged (H. Leloup) or juxtapose two food models with very unequal qualities in space (A. Beischer and J. Corbett), showing that, in ‘alternative food’ territories, often the preserve of the well-off (Laisney, 2013), some populations remain disconnected from local resources. Beyond the economic and financial aspects, geographical proximity is no guarantee that disadvantaged groups will use the new food channels. False proximity (Maccintock et al, 2018) occurs when spatial proximity is not backed up by social and cultural proximity, with food embedded in local practices, cultural habits and social inequalities. It is not enough for a farmers’ market to be close by, and affordable in terms of price, for the underprivileged and/or those unaccustomed to this type of shop to go there[6].

In South India, while educated people are rediscovering the nutritional virtues of millets, a hitherto despised food, underprivileged households often still prefer white rice, a high-caste/class food to which they did not always have access until recently.

However, the dynamics of solidarity are very much part of relocalised food systems. Systems other than short circuits and direct sales also exist (Paturel and Ramel, 2017, op.cit.): community gleaning actions (Beisher and Corbett, 2016), urban agriculture (Hors et al, 2017), nutrition education (Hochedez and Le Gall, 2016) or food social enterprises (Lanciano et al, 2017). For example, partnerships have been formed in Rhône Alpes between BIOCOOPs and social and solidarity grocery shops (Lapoutte A. et al., 2017). The SOLALTER project (2012-2015; Solidarités Alimentations Territoires en Bretagne) can give us an indication of the diversity of approaches possible in the regions (Noel J. and Darrot C., 2018) on the contribution of 43 agri-urban short food circuit initiatives to the field of sustainable social development (AMAP and urban collective gardens).

In this context, what might be the conditions enabling better access for all inhabitants (including disadvantaged people) to sustainable food, in all its dimensions (social, nutritional, environmental and cultural, healthy and of high quality, meeting the current public policies set out in France by the LAA of 2014 (PAT) and by the PNAA (2019-2023), and combining (or not) relocation and equity?

What are the possibilities and examples developed and to be developed in the CVL Region that can be transposed elsewhere (Noël and Darrot, 2018, op.cit.; Saleilles and Lapoutte et al, 2017, op.cit.)? What experiences can we draw on to set up a sustainable and fair food system in the regions? In the PATAMIL project, the aim is to observe how, in local PATs – and the PATAMIL programme takes the example of the PAT du Pays des Châteaux – solidarity actions can build a unified, local, quality and fair food system and overcome the concept of food assistance assigning the poorest people to a ‘second food market’ of surplus waste and unsold produce. What external experiences can we draw on, and how can the actions undertaken in the Centre Val de Loire echo or even be transposed to other contexts?

This question is becoming an increasingly pressing issue in local, regional and national public action, awareness of which has been accelerated by COVID 19 (increasing number of seminars on food insecurity and fair access to food; enthusiasm for short food circuits, at least for the time being). For example, short food circuits can include solidarity baskets in their approach (new forms of solidarity in the AMAPs), and solidarity grocery shops can be supplied by local and/or quality product platforms as part of the access to quality, chosen food (examples of actions carried out by ANDES, the UNITERRES project associating vulnerable farmers and vulnerable populations).

Two levels of analysis are proposed:

Initially, the aim will be to identify a range of food solidarity practices in the Centre Val-de-Loire region, distinguishing between those based on democratic solidarity and those based on philanthropic solidarity. Using the Pays des Châteaux and PETR Centre Cher laboratory areas as examples of the territorial dimension of efforts to achieve greater food justice, the aim is to (i) target more qualitative surveys on these solidarity initiatives as part of a debate on sustainable food systems, (ii) characterise the weight and nature of food solidarity considerations in the setting up of TAPs and, more specifically, those of the Pays des Châteaux[7] and the PETR Centre-Cher, (iii) draw up a typology of actions carried out (inspired in part by Noel and Darrot, 2018, op. cit. cit.) on the basis of characteristics including the three dimensions of food justice (ensuring quality food in terms of nutrition, taste and socio-economics; improving spatial, socio-cultural and financial access to quality food; combating structural inequalities through education, inclusion and empowerment; see FRUGAL, PSDR 4, 2017) and (iv) adding the dimension of anchoring products in the territory and the importance of “local” products in these dynamics, possibly organising proximity between producers and consumers. It will then be possible to draw up a categorisation grid for solidarity actions, illustrated in the form of a radar diagram: one branch reflecting the methods of mobilisation: bottom-up citizen mobilisation or top-down impetus from public players; another branch the empowerment of the beneficiaries (assistance to individuals or empowerment process), another the ‘local roots’: Another is the accessibility of the products: quality (including organic), diversity of choice, and finally the ‘food’ context in which the actions are being carried out: what diversity of local food supply in general?

[1] Philanthropic solidarity: is vertical, inegalitarian, non-participatory and non-reciprocal, creating or maintaining dependency and in a way legitimising and perpetuating inequalities through a system where the rich give to the poor without questioning the roots of inequalities and the means of reducing them.

Democratic solidarity: this can be re-distributive (State) or private, based on equality and reciprocity, particularly developed in SSE structures. Putting the beneficiary back at the centre of the system, going beyond the way food aid works. Move from passive beneficiary to partner….

[2] Food governance: a coordinated set of rules and processes, whether formalised or not, through which all stakeholders (public and private) take part in the decision-making and implementation of collective actions around the “food issue” (from production to consumption), conducted at local level.

[3] “Fair sharing of the benefits and risks of products and the way food is produced, processed, transported, distributed, accessed and eaten”.

[4] Focusing on disadvantaged populations who often have very little autonomy in their food choices because they are dependent on food assistance systems that leave them little power…

[5] According to Mundler and Roudier, 2016: alternative food systems and CCPs are signs that the food issue is being reclaimed through spatial reorganisations in the processes of qualification and governance of agricultural production: they offer a wide-ranging review of the literature on these subjects…

[6] Mundler et al (2013) show that, despite prices that are quite competitive compared with markets and supermarkets, AMAPs are struggling to open up socially, even when they opt for a strategy of low prices for disadvantaged groups.

[7] According to Suivi et support des dynamiques de Projets Alimentaires Territoriaux en Région Centre-Val de Loire, Rapport d’étude 2020 (InPACT, RESOLIS), 24 p. https://www.pat-cvl.fr/actualites/suivi-et-support-des-dynamiques-de-pat-en-region-cvl-rapport-2020/

Initiated by the LAAF law of 13/10/2014, the PATs are said to be 210 PATs identified today in France, compared with 500 initially expected by 2020. The goal of developing TAPs was reaffirmed by the 2019-2023 NAP, with at least one TAP supported by the NAP and funded by the MAA, per department, by 2023.

At the same time, the Centre-Val de Loire Region has been committed since 2013 to the reterritorialisation of its agriculture and the relocalisation of the food its inhabitants eat. Alongside its Regional Programme for Sustainable Agriculture (PRAD), it has also adopted its “Regional Plan for the Consumption of Regional Food Products”. Taking into account the achievements of this plan and the growing demand for citizens to reclaim their food, the region adopted a food strategy on 2 July 2017. From its inception, this regional strategy has been built around a central axis of support for the gradual emergence of territorialised food systems, now embodied by the PAT scheme. The Region has defined 7 criteria for recognising TAPs, published on 9 April 2019 at the first Regional Food Committee (governance body for the regional NAP created by the 2018 EGAlim law), and which provide guidelines so that TAPs can benefit from regional subsidy funds meet the ambitions of the regional food strategy.

Part of the Regional Territorial Solidarity Contracts (CRST) from which project areas and local authorities benefit are geared towards the emergence of TAPs. These criteria are as follows, and the criterion of food democracy, associated with the establishment of more sustainable food systems, is one of them:

1) territorial and plural governance,

2) A catchment area as the basis for the project,

3) shared diagnosis

4) taking account of the environment in the objectives and actions,

5) development of the local economy through local short circuits,

6) responding to agricultural issues in terms of land, the sustainability of farms and agro-ecology, and

7) food democracy.

At present, the Pays des Châteaux TAP, along with that of the PNR du Perche, is the only one to have begun the operational phase of implementing the first TAP actions. It is therefore the most advanced in the Region, and in total, 23 out of 35 local areas in the Region are planning to set up a TAP in their area (categories 2 to 5), i.e. two thirds; + 2 departmental TAPs.

By the end of 2020, 2 projects in the CVL region had been awarded the PAT label by the French government: the Pays des Châteaux project and the Mangeons Loiret project. Only the Pays des Châteaux project has been recognised by the Region as meeting the 7 criteria it has defined for labelling TAPs, in its regional food committee. However, in this TAP as in others, the “social equity” dimension seems to be the poor relation.

In 2020, the theme of the first TAP orientation day in the CVL Region was “social accessibility to food”. Identified in 2019 as the failing dimension of the majority of emerging projects in the region, the aim was to raise awareness among local players and guide project leaders in setting up initiatives to promote access to quality food for all. The Covid crisis has heightened this concern, and a large number of food accessibility initiatives were strengthened during the initial lockdown. Most of these emergency measures are not linked to a systemic action plan or a global reflection on food quality. However, by the end of 2020, we had identified 7 initiatives, of varying degrees of progress, linked to PATs, which could be used to roll out actions to develop access to quality local produce for the most disadvantaged and isolated citizens. These initiatives to supply quality local produce to food aid associations, community grocery shops and social welfare centres (CIAS) will have the opportunity to be stepped up in 2021, particularly as part of the recovery plan and its focus on “Helping those involved in local food to make it more widely available: local food for all”.

Bibliographie :

BALBOT J.-C., DALMAIS M., VANHERZEELE Y., 2020, « La démocratie dans l’alimentation, seule réponse possible aux enjeux agricoles et alimentaires »,  Raison présente, 2020/2-3 (N° 214-215), pages 163 à 172.

BILLON CAMILLE, 2017, « La gouvernance alimentaire territoriale au prisme de l’analyse de trois démarches en France », Géocarrefour, vol 91, n° 4, 21 p.

BODIGUEL L., 2019, Système alimentaire territorial et démocratie alimentaire. Journées des ateliers du GDR Nost, GdR Normes, sciences et techniques (NOST) https://www.nost.fr/ , Jun 2019, Paris, France. ⟨hal-02431675⟩

CLOSSON C., FOURAT E., HOLZEMER L., HUDON M., 2019, Social inclusion in an alternative food network : values, practices and tensions. Université Libre de Bruxelles, 2019, (En Ligne), https://ideas.repec.org/p/sol/wpaper/2013-280933.html

COHEN, NEVIN, 2018, Feeding or starving gentrification: the role of food policy, Policy brief, https://www.cunyurbanfoodpolicy.org/news/2018/3/27/feeding-or-starving-gentrification-the-role-of-food-policy

DARROT C., NOEL J., 2018, « Les solidarités alimentaires territorialisées en Bretagne », Anthropology Of Food, 12, 21 p. [En ligne] URL : https://journals.openedition.org/aof/8271 . Mise en ligne le 27 février 2018.

GOTTLIEB R., JOSHI A., 2010, Food Justice, MIT Press, Sep 24, 2010 – Science – 320 pages.

HOCHEDEZ Camille, LE GALL Julie, 2016, Justice alimentaire et agriculture-Food Justice and Agriculture, Justice Spatiale, n°9, janvier 2016.

LAISNEY C., 2013, Les différences sociales en matière d’alimentation. Analyse du Centre d’Études et de Prospective, 64 p.

LAPOUTTE A., LOHIER-FRANCHINI C., SALEILLES S., 2017, De l’aide à la justice alimentaires : étude d’un partenariat entre Biocoop et  des épiceries sociales et solidaires, halshs-01660289

LARDON S., LOUDYI S., 2016, « Agriculture et alimentation urbaines : entre politiques publiques et initiatives locales », Géocarrefour, vol 89, n° 1-2, p. 3-10.

LE VELLY R., 2017, Sociologie des systèmes alimentaires alternatifs. Une promesse de différence, Presses de l’École des Mines, Paris, 200 p.

LYSON T., 2004, Civic agriculture: reconnecting farm, family and community. New York: University Press of New England.

MACCINTOCK K., TOUSSAINT-SOULARD C. ET PADDEU F., 2018, « De l’agriculture urbaine à la justice alimentaire : regards critiques franco-américains », Urbanité, 2018, halshs-02627159

MARESCOT C., 2019, Transformation par et pour des populations vulnérables de fruits et légumes issus de l’agriculture urbaine et locale, étude portée par la Chaire Agricultures Urbaines, services écosystémiques et alimentation des villes, 2019.

MUNDLER P., 2013, « Le prix des paniers est-il un frein à l’ouverture sociale des AMAP ? Une analyse des prix dans sept AMAP de la Région Rhône-Alpes », Économie rurale, 336, pp. 3-19. DOI : 10.4000/economierurale.3983

NDIAYE P., PATUREL D., 2017, La démocratie alimentaire locale : quels rôles pour les collectivités locales ? État du droit, état des droits, Centre Michel de l’Hospital, 856 p., 2017, Mélanges du Centre Michel de l’Hospital, 978-2-912589-51-4. ⟨hal-01604822⟩

NOEL J., DARROT C., 2018, « Huit initiatives bretonnes d’agriculture urbaine solidaire. Quelles formes de justice et de démocratie alimentaires ? » Vertigo, HS 31, septembre 2018, 10 p.

PADDEU F., 2012, « L’Agriculture urbaine dans les quartiers défavorisés de la métropole new-yorkaise: la justice alimentaire à l’épreuve de la justice sociale, » Vertigo, vol 12, n° 2.

PATUREL D., RAMEL M., 2017, « Éthique du care et démocratie alimentaire : les enjeux du droit à une alimentation durable », Revue Française d’Éthique Appliquée, 2017/2, n° 4, p. 49-60.

PATUREL D., 2020. De l’aide alimentaire à l’aide humanitaire : récit d’un dérapage social. Urgence Transformation Agricole et Alimentaire, https://utaa.fr/2020/05/18/de-laide-alimentaire-a-laide-humanitaire-recit-dun-derapage-social/

PATUREL D., CARIMENTRAND A., 2018, « Un modèle associatif de circuits courts de proximité pour les épiceries sociales et solidaires : vers une démocratie alimentaire ? », Revue de l’organisation responsable, 2018/1 (Vol. 13), pages 43 à 54.

PATUREL D., MARAJO-PETITZON É., CHIFFOLEAU Y., 2015, « La précarité alimentaire des agriculteurs », Pour, 2015/1 (N° 225), p. 77-81. DOI : 10.3917/pour.225.0077. URL : https://www.cairn-int.info/revue-pour-2015-1-page-77.htm

PIMBERT M., 2009, Towards food sovereignty: reclaiming autonomous food systems. London: International Institute for Environment and Development.

REDLINGSHÖFER B., 2006, « Vers une alimentation durable ? Ce qu’enseigne la littérature scientifique », Courrier de l’Environnement de l’INRA, n°58, p. 83-103.

RENTING H., SCHERMER  M., ROSSI A., 2012, “Building food democracy : exploring civic food networks and newly emerging forms of food citizenship”, International Journal of sociology of agriculture and food, 19(3), pp. 289-307.

RETIERE J.-N., LE CROM J.-P., 2018, Une solidarité en miettes. Sociohistoire de l’aide alimentaire des années 1930 à nos jours. Rennes, Presses Universitaires de Rennes.

SLOCOUM R., SALDAUHA A, (EDS.), 2011, “Geographies of race and food. Fields, bodies, markets”. Critical food studies, 339 p., 2011.

ACCARDO Aliocha, BRUN Agnès, LELLOUCH, Thomas, 2022, “La crise sanitaire a accentué la précarité des bénéficiaires de l’aide alimentaire », INSEE Première, n° 1907, juin 2022, https://www.insee.fr/fr/statistiques/6466177

ANE Claire, LE NEVE Soazig, POMMIERS Elea, 2022, « Comment l’aide alimentaire et la restauration collective tentent de fonctionner malgré l’inflation », Le Monde, 22 novembre 2022, https://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2022/11/22/collectes-alimentaires-restos-u-cantines-le-casse-tete-de-l-inflation-alimentaire_6151001_3224.html

BLEHAUT M., GRESSIER M., BERNARD de RAYMOND B. (2023) La débrouille des personnes qui ne mangent pas toujours à leur faim, CREDOC, n° 2023-4892, septembre 2023, https://www.credoc.fr/publications/la-debrouille-des-personnes-qui-ne-mangent-pas-toujours-a-leur-faim

BLEHAUT M., GRESSIER M. (2023) En forte hausse, la précarité alimentaire s’ajoute à d’autres fragilités, CREDOC, n° CMV 329, mai 2023, https://www.credoc.fr/publications/en-forte-hausse-la-precarite-alimentaire-sajoute-a-dautres-fragilites

BOURRON Stanislas (dir), 2023, Comment renforcer l’accessibilité à une alimentation durable et de qualité pour tous dans les quartiers prioritaires de la politique de la ville ? Résultats de la Fabrique Prospective, Agence Nationale de la Cohésion des Territoires, mai 2023, 49 p. https://agence-cohesion-territoires.gouv.fr/comment-renforcer-laccessibilite-une-alimentation-durable-et-de-qualite-pour-tous-dans-les

DUMAT Camille, LOUDIYI Salma, MARGETIC Christine, 2022, Intelligence collective pour les transitions écologiques au service de notre alimentation et de la santé globale, POUR, la Revue de Groupe Ruralités, Éducation et Politiques, n° 244, novembre 2022, 264 p.

FOSSE Julien, FURIC Peggy, GOMEL Cyril, HAGENBURG Marie, ROUSSELON Julien, 2021, Pour une alimentation saine et durable. Analyse des politiques de l’alimentation en France. Rapport pour l’Assemblée Nationale, France Stratégie, 367 p.. https://www.strategie.gouv.fr/publications/une-alimentation-saine-durable-rapport-lassemblee-nationale

GUENEE L., LE MENER E., MACCHI O., 2021, « Nourrir les « nouveaux pauvres ». une enquête de terrain dans les services d’aide alimentaire parisiens au temps du premier confinement, Tracés, revue des Sciences Humaines, n° 41, p. 187-206, https://journals.openedition.org/traces/12985

MANGIN Gaëtan, ROY Alex, 2023, « Sobriété : et si l’on s’inspirait de ceux et celles qui la pratiquent au quotidien ? » The Conversation, 26 janvier 2023, https://theconversation.com/sobriete-et-si-on-sinspirait-de-ce…%20ceux%20et%20celles%20qui%20la%20pratiquent%20au%20quotidien

RADE É., LEON O., 2022, «Aide alimentaire : une fréquentation accrue des centres de distribution dans les grandes villes les plus exposées à la pauvreté début 2021», Études et Résultats n° 1218, février 2022.

SECOURS CATHOLIQUE, 2022, État de la pauvreté en France 2022. À l’épreuve des crises. Enquêtes sur les budgets des plus précaires, Secours Catholique Caritas France, 168 p., https://www.secours-catholique.org/m-informer/nos-positions/notre-etat-de-la-pauvrete-en-france-2022

YON Mathieu, 2022, « L’hégémonie des grandes surfaces a repoussé les paysans à la marge du marché alimentaire », Reporterre, 9 novembre 2022, https://reporterre.net/Prendre-en-main-la-distribution-alimentair…m_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl_quotidienne

2022 https://www.rural21.com/francais/actualites/detail/article/methode-amelioree-de-mesure-de-la-pauvrete-en-milieu-rural.html?no_cache=1

2021 Moins de pauvres en milieu rural. Exemple de la région Centre val de Loire https://www.insee.fr/fr/statistiques/5891108

2021 Des plutôt que la pauvreté en milieu rural : https://comptoir.org/2021/10/19/la-pauvrete-rurale-francaise-un-phenomene-social-invisibilise/

2020 estimation du taux de pauvreté par l’INSEE : https://www.insee.fr/fr/statistiques/4964147

2020 la pauvreté en milieu rural : https://www.cairn.info/revue-pour-2010-2-page-7.htm

2019 Des pistes pour mieux déceler la pauvreté en milieu rural https://www.uqar.ca/nouvelles/uqar-info/3018-des-pistes-pour-mieux-deceler-et-contrer-la-pauvrete-en-milieu-rural

2019 Pauvreté et précarité en milieu rural http://caprural.org/co-construire/chantiers-en-cours/6581-pauvrete-et-precarite-en-rural-2

2018 Que faire pour lutter contre la pauvreté rurale ? https://www.lagazettedescommunes.com/549125/que-faire-pour-lutter-contre-la-pauvrete-rurale/

2018 Comment mesurer la pauvreté : https://adsv.fr/comment-mesurer-la-pauvrete/

2018 pauvreté et intervention sociale en milieu rural https://www.erudit.org/fr/revues/nps/2018-v30-n1-nps03972/1054258ar/

2017 Milieu rural, la face cachée de la pauvreté (Secours populaire) : https://www.secourspopulaire.fr/zones-rurales-la-face-cachee-de-la-pauvrete

2015 Une pauvreté plus prégnante en milieu rural qu’en milieu périurbain, https://www.insee.fr/fr/statistiques/1285523

2015 pauvreté et précarité en milieu rural : https://www.cairn.info/revue-pour-2015-1-page-35.htm

2014 les publics invisibles socialement : les pauvres en milieu rural http://www.caprural.org/etudes/3123-les-publics-invisibles-socialement-les-pauvres-en-milieu-rural

2011 la pauvreté en milieu rural : https://books.openedition.org/pumi/6570

2009 Pauvreté, précarité, solidarité en milieu rural : https://www.vie-publique.fr/sites/default/files/rapport/pdf/094000616.pdf

2009 https://www.cnle.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/Note_de_cadrage_GT_Fnars_pauvrete_en_milieu_rural.pdf

2005 la pauvreté en milieu rural. Entretien avec Pagès : https://www.place-publique.fr/index.php/solidarite/la-pauvrete-en-milieu-rural/

2001 pauvreté et exclusion en milieu rural français : https://journals.openedition.org/etudesrurales/71