Integration is a growing economic reality in French agriculture. For many farmers, this means structuring their relationships with downstream suppliers, particularly processing and marketing companies. While this type of organisation can provide outlets and a degree of security, it also raises important questions about the farmer's autonomy and the contractual balance. The integration contract is not an agreement like any other: it is specifically regulated by law in an attempt to protect the producer. Understanding its precise legal definition, its distinct legal nature and the essential criteria of reciprocal obligations is an essential first step for any farmer concerned. The contract is part of a wider set of rules that shape modern farming; for an overview of the legal framework for agricultureexplore our other resources.
What is an agricultural integration contract?
The legislator has given a specific definition of the integration contract. According to Article L. 326-1 of the French Rural and Maritime Fishing Codeare considered as such "all contracts, agreements or arrangements concluded between an agricultural producer or a group of producers and one or more industrial or commercial undertakings involving a reciprocal obligation to supply products or services".. This legal definition emphasises the existence of a structured and binding exchange between the parties.
It is important not to confuse this legal definition with other concepts. Firstly, it differs from the purely economic notion of integration, which often refers to a situation of subordination where a single centre takes the decisions for an entire sector. French law, on the other hand, defines a relationship of contractualIn practice, however, economic dependence may exist. Secondly, the integration contract must be distinguished from <> or <> (now often replaced by <>). These terms refer to agricultural production methods designed to limit environmental impact, which is quite different from the agro-industrial contractual relationship discussed here.
The scope of the integration contract is broad. It can be found in a wide variety of agricultural production sectors. Livestock farming is a favoured area (production of veal calves, pigs, poultry such as chickens or turkeys), but plant production is also concerned (growing vegetables for processing such as peas or gherkins, growing flowers). Jurisprudence has even qualified as an integration contract an agreement relating to vermiculture (earthworm farming).
The specific legal nature of the integration contract
Correctly qualifying a contract is essential because it determines the rules that apply to it. The integration contract has its own legal nature, which distinguishes it from other common agricultural agreements.
Basically, the integration contract is similar to a variety of business contract. Farmers do not simply sell a finished product; they undertake to provide a service, to "do" something in accordance with defined procedures: raise animals, cultivate plants in accordance with specifications, etc. It is this obligation to do that brings them closer to contracting out. It is this obligation to do something that makes it similar to a contract for work.
This nature clearly differentiates it from simple supply contract. Article L. 326-3 of the French Rural and Maritime Fishing Code clearly states that contracts for the supply of products or services required for agricultural production (food, seed, etc.) are not covered by the definition of "contract". not integration contracts if they only involve the farmer paying a price. Case law confirms this distinction: if the farmer simply buys feed, even on credit, without any other reciprocal commitments, this is not an integration contract subject to the protective law of 1964. Similarly, a simple sale for delivery is not an integration contract.
It should also be distinguished from employment contract. Although integrated farmers may feel economically dependent, in theory they retain their legal independence. There is no legal relationship of subordination characteristic of salaried employment. The farmer remains an independent entrepreneur. However, the dividing line can be fine. Case law has already reclassified as an employment contract a situation where a so-called "integrator" provided the land, premises and equipment and exercised very close technical supervision over the duck force-feeding activity, considering that there was a de facto relationship of subordination. This reclassification has important consequences, particularly in terms of social security contributions.
Mutual obligation: the heart of the integration contract
The absolutely decisive criterion for qualifying an integration contract, as laid down by article L. 326-1is the existence of a mutual obligation supply of products or services. Without this reciprocity, there can be no integration contract within the meaning of the law. What does this mean in practice?
This involves a genuine exchange of commitments that goes beyond a simple sale or purchase. The integrating company does not simply sell inputs or buy production; it also undertakes to provide something (specific products, services, financing), while the farmer, in return, undertakes not only to produce but also often to comply with specific conditions, to use certain products, or to deliver his production exclusively.
Case law is full of examples illustrating this reciprocity:
- An industrial company finances the purchase of young animals, supplies the specific feed and, in return, the breeder undertakes to rear these animals according to precise technical rules and to deliver them exclusively to the company.
- A feed manufacturer provides technical assistance and feed (sometimes on credit), and in exchange the farmer undertakes to use only that feed and to market his production via a slaughterhouse approved by the manufacturer.
This reciprocity of obligations is considered by the courts to be the condition for sine qua non to apply the protective regime for integration contracts. A contract in which the farmer simply pays for his supplies and remains free to sell his production to whomever he wishes will not generally qualify as an integration contract (subject to the specific rules for livestock farming, which will be discussed in a later section). article dedicated to the conditions of validity and breeding).
Sometimes complex obligations: the case of multiple agreements
Contractual reality is sometimes more complex than a single document. The reciprocal obligation required to qualify as an integration contract may result not from a single contract, but from a series of apparently separate agreements.
Article L. 326-1, paragraph 2 of the French Rural and Maritime Fishing Code makes explicit provision for this: "Separate contracts, agreements or understandings concluded by one or more industrial or commercial undertakings with the same agricultural producer or group of agricultural producers, the combination of which results in the reciprocal obligation referred to in the previous paragraph, are also deemed to be integration contracts"..
Judges must therefore take a global view. They may consider that several contracts, taken in isolation, do not constitute integration, but that their combination in fact creates the reciprocity sought. This can happen when the different agreements are between the same parties (for example, an exclusive loan agreement and supply/delivery agreement between a farmer and a company).
The situation may also involve third parties. A farmer may have an exclusive feed supply contract with company A, and be obliged by that same contract (or another related one) to enter into a marketing contract with a company B (a slaughterhouse, for example) approved by A. Case law considers that this combination may constitute an integration contract linking the farmer to company A, even if the final delivery is made to B. Analysis of these arrangements requires particular attention. The disappearance of one of these linked contracts could, in some cases, result in the nullity of the whole, as provided for in ordinary contract law (article 1186 of the Civil Code), if the performance of the disappeared contract was a determining condition.
For a more in-depth understanding of how judges interpret economic dependence and collective arrangements, see our article on group integration contracts.
Who are the parties to the integration contract?
The legal definition is very clear on the quality of the parties required for a contract to qualify as integration. There must be a link between, on the one hand, a agricultural producer (or a group of producers) and, on the other, one or more industrial or commercial companies.
Le agricultural producer is the first condition. The aim of the law is to protect farmers. Thus, a contract concluded by a company with a simple livestock dealer will not be an integration contract. The classification of livestock farmers as agricultural producers has sometimes been questioned, particularly in the case of "off-ground" livestock farming. Case law has clarified that even a farmer with no land, or whose activity may be of an ancillary commercial nature, is considered to be an agricultural producer within the meaning of this law, provided that his main activity involves agricultural products.
The other party must be a industrial or commercial company. This criterion is interpreted strictly. It may be a commercial company in terms of its form (SA, SARL, etc.) or its activity (purchase for resale, processing, etc.). This condition excludes several types of structure from the scope of integration contracts:
- Agricultural cooperatives : In principle, relations between an agricultural cooperative and its member cooperators are not not governed by the rules of integration contracts (article L. 326-5, penultimate paragraph of the rural code). The idea is that the cooperator-co-operative relationship is of a different nature. Be careful, however: this same article specifies that if a cooperative enters into an integration contract with a farmer who is not not its member, it is then subject to all the obligations of the Integration Act.
- Agricultural unions An agricultural union, even if it offers services or a technical framework (such as a label), is not an industrial or commercial enterprise. The contracts signed with it are therefore not integration contracts, even if they impose constraints (approved suppliers, etc.).
- GAECs (Groupements Agricoles d'Exploitation en Commun): These groups have a civil form and purpose. They cannot therefore be considered as the industrial or commercial enterprise required for an integration contract. Relationships between farmers within a GAEC or between GAECs are based on a "horizontal" logic, whereas the law on integration specifically targets "vertical" integration between the producer and a downstream or upstream company.
The precise nature of your contractual relationship is therefore decisive in determining whether you can benefit from the specific protections provided by the law on integration contracts.
The nature of your contractual relationship is crucial to your rights. If you are unsure about the nature of your commitments, our firm can help. can analyse your situation to help you secure your commercial relationships.
Sources
- Code rural et de la pêche maritime, in particular articles L. 326-1 to L. 326-10 and R. 326-1 to R. 326-10.
- Civil Code, in particular articles 1186, 1352 et seq (for aspects relating to lapse and restitutions).
- Law no. 64-678 of 6 July 1964 defining the principles and procedures of the contractual system in agriculture.
EN 
FR