Inside and outside the sector: implementing agricultural adaptation instruments in France and Senegal
Through a comparative study of France and Senegal, this article argues that the agricultural policy subsystem's dominant actors and institutional arrangements mediate adaptation outcomes by creating a trade-off where instruments embedded in core sectors enjoy stability but subordinate adaptation to productivist goals, while those at the margins align better with adaptation objectives yet remain institutionally fragile.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer
Farmers have always had to guess the weather, but today that guesswork is becoming a matter of survival. As global temperatures rise, the seasons shift, and the rains become unpredictable, the question is no longer just how to grow food, but how to help the people who grow it survive the changes. Governments around the world are trying to help by creating new tools, or policies, designed to adapt agriculture to a changing climate. Some of these tools are like weather reports that tell farmers when to plant; others are like safety nets that pay them if a storm destroys their crops. The big challenge for scientists and policymakers is not just inventing these tools, but making sure they actually work when put into practice. Often, a plan that looks perfect on paper fails in the real world because the people running the system have their own ideas about what is important, and they steer the tools in directions the original designers never intended.
This is the puzzle that Bétina Boutroue set out to solve. She wanted to understand why some agricultural adaptation tools succeed and become permanent parts of the farming system, while others fade away or fail to change how farmers behave. To find the answer, she looked at two very different places: France, a wealthy nation in Europe with a long history of powerful farmer unions, and Senegal, a nation in West Africa where farming is often a struggle against drought and where the government relies heavily on international aid. She focused on two specific types of tools used in both countries: climate services, which provide farmers with information about future weather patterns to help them plan, and climate insurance, which pays farmers when bad weather causes financial loss. By studying how these tools were built, funded, and used over several decades, she discovered that the success of a policy depends less on how well it is designed and more on who holds the keys to the system.
The research began with a massive effort to listen to the people involved. Boutroue conducted 145 interviews with farmers, insurance agents, government officials, and researchers in both countries. She also pored over decades of reports, laws, and project documents. What she found was a story of two different paths. In both France and Senegal, the tools that provided information about the weather—climate services—struggled to survive. They were often underfunded, dependent on short-term projects, and ignored by the most powerful voices in agriculture. Meanwhile, the tools that paid out money for losses—climate insurance—thrived. They received steady funding, grew larger over time, and became deeply embedded in the farming system. However, there was a catch. The thriving insurance tools were not actually helping farmers adapt to the climate. They were designed to compensate for losses, not to encourage farmers to change what they grew or how they farmed to suit the new weather. The information tools, which were actually designed to help farmers adapt, were the ones that were left behind.
The reason for this split lies in who controls the agricultural system in each country. In France, a powerful alliance exists between the main farmer unions and the companies that sell insurance. This group has been in charge for decades. When new ideas come along, this alliance decides whether they fit their vision. Their vision is focused on keeping farms profitable and stable. Insurance fits this vision perfectly because it protects income. Information about climate change, however, suggests that farmers might need to change their crops or methods, which could be risky or expensive in the short term. Because the powerful alliance did not see a need for this kind of change, the information tools were quietly sidelined. They were not banned, but they were simply not given the money or the political support to grow. The system kept doing what it always did: paying for losses rather than preventing them.
Senegal tells a similar story, but with a different cast of characters. There, the government and international donors have been the main drivers of agricultural policy. The powerful farmer organizations in Senegal are not as tightly linked to the financial institutions as they are in France. Instead, the system is driven by a mix of state agencies and foreign aid projects. Even here, the same pattern emerged. The insurance schemes, backed by banks and international donors, became compulsory for anyone who wanted a loan to buy seeds or fertilizer. This made the insurance grow rapidly and become a permanent part of the system. But again, it did not help farmers adapt. It simply paid them when the rain failed. The climate information tools, which were developed by meteorologists and environmental groups outside the main agricultural circle, remained fragile. They relied on project funding that had to be renewed every few years. Without a powerful group inside the agricultural system to champion them, they could not secure the stable support they needed to last.
The most striking finding is that in neither country did the researchers find a tool that was both stable and truly focused on adaptation. The tools that were stable were focused on paying for losses, not on changing farming practices. The tools that were focused on changing practices were too unstable to survive. This creates a situation where farmers are protected from the financial shock of bad weather, but they are not encouraged or supported to change their farming to match the new climate. In fact, the insurance might even encourage them to keep planting the same crops in places where those crops are no longer safe, because they know they will be paid if the crop fails. This is a form of maladaptation, where a solution to one problem creates a bigger problem later.
The study also revealed how these systems treat different types of farmers. In France, the insurance system ended up covering the wealthy, large-scale farmers who grow grapes or grains, while the smaller farmers who grow grass or fruit were left out. In Senegal, the insurance only reached the farmers who could get bank loans, leaving the vast majority of poor farmers who farm without credit completely unprotected. The tools that were supposed to help everyone ended up helping only a specific group, often the ones who were already the most secure. The research suggests that this happens because the people who run the agricultural system have a vested interest in keeping things the way they are. They are more likely to support tools that protect their current income than tools that ask them to take risks and change their ways.
Ultimately, the paper argues that fixing this problem is not just a matter of designing better tools. It is a matter of politics. As long as the powerful groups in agriculture are the ones who decide which tools get funded, the system will continue to favor insurance over adaptation. The researchers suggest that to break this cycle, the rules for funding might need to come from outside the agricultural sector, perhaps from international bodies or different parts of the government. They also point out that adaptation cannot just be the farmer's job. If the people who buy the food, like supermarkets and food processors, do not ask for crops that are suited to the new climate, farmers will have no reason to change. The study concludes that until the people who control the money and the power are willing to support tools that actually change how farming works, the gap between what we need to do to adapt and what we are actually doing will remain wide. The tools are there, but the system is keeping them from working.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.