COMMENTS ON THE REPORT OF ELS WYNEN AND OVERVIEW OF THE ENOF RESEARCH PROJECT BY RAFFAELE ZANOLI

A general comment is that the report is very welcome and quite thoroughly researched. It is very welcome because research in organic farming has only recently become an issue for major governmental and inter-governmental agencies and the level of funding is still below the minimum needs.

Nevertheless, in various European countries things are changing and the European Commission itself has sponsored a certain number of research projects on ecological agriculture, including two networks: one is named "European Network for the Coordination of Research in Organic Farming" (ENOF) and the other concerns the "Development of a Strategy for Cooperation and Optimal Documentation and Supply of Literature on Ecological Agriculture" (DOCEA). The latter has just finished and its second phase is being prepared.

By personal participation in both projects, I think that networks, although quite inexpensive compared to a proper research project, are a very efficient means for stimulating research and dissemination of results among the scientific community, although they do NOT provide a good means for extension and technology transfer to the farmers/producers.

Therefore, a FAO network on organic farming is welcome, but it should be coupled with adequately funded tools for extension and training, e.g. by means of pilot projects affecting precisely identified areas.

As an agricultural economist and participant in the EU-funded FAIR3 CT96-1794 project on "Effects of the CAP-reform and possible further developments on organic farming in the EU" (see Annex), I have some specific comments on some points of E. Wynen's report, concerning data and the importance of economic research in organic farming and subsequent training/extension to farmers:

1. Data availability: as is pointed out in the report "data on organic agriculture in the public domain is almost non-existent". This is why in our project we have dedicated a large amount of time to data collection and the building of an extensive database (raw data and literature) covering eighteen European countries. Economists are used to dealing with data collection and have specific tools for processing "bad" or "noisy" data. It is not strange therefore, that a lot of research projects concerning OF are run by economists.

2. Comparisons: What is stated in chapter 5.4 of the report is not completely acceptable. Comparisons are still very useful and provide the basis for system simulations which enhance the insights in our understanding of organic farming at work. A shift in the productive "paradigm" needs extensive comparison with the cost and benefits of the former mainstream paradigm. In economic research, particularly, comparison will still represent a very useful approach to the better understanding of organic farming. Less important for research, but more important for extension, are the studies concerning the conversion process, as stated at the end of the Second ENOF workshop held in Barcelona (Spain) in 1996.

3. Methodology: interdisciplinarity is crucial in organic farming, as is a holistic approach to research. Successful networking (as ENOF and DOCEA have proved) necessarily involves researchers from different backgrounds and disciplines. A future FAO network should not focus only on one discipline, although restricting the scope by choosing a single strategic topic to be approached by different points of view and disciplinary backgrounds (e.g. methodological issues, fruit and vegetables, cereals, cotton, etc).

4. Food safety and food security: these two issues seem to become central in the following years and their relationship with organic farming practices should be further investigated. These appear to be two very important issues for FAO too and quite apt to be approached in an interdisciplinary way.

In general, other important issues are connected with biodiversity preservation and the role of organic farming, as well as the issues raised by stockless organic farming. Organic farming has originated as a mixed farming system, but in some area has developed in a different way. The possibility of developing viable stockless systems is an important matter to investigate, especially in relationship to the development of organic farming in arid areas, where other sources of organic matter should be devised and in relationship to energy balances and food security.

In conclusion, however, research efforts should not only be concentrated in the technical areas, as economics and marketing are also crucial for efficient farming systems. This is not clear enough in E. Wynen's report. Farmers are to be seen as total entrepreneurs and not only as mere technicians: a lot of energy and nutrient waste and environmental damages could be avoided in the future if farmers develop their entrepreneurial abilities and better understand economic and market issues. This is particularly important for innovative farmers, as organic farmers are.

Sub-coordinator for legal and Economic Aspects ENOF

Permanent invitee to DOCEA as 'data consumer'

Founding member of GRAB-IT, Group for the Coordination of the Research in Organic Farming, Italy

Overview of the ENOF research project "Effects of the CAP reform and possible further developments on organic farming in the EU"^[3]

Background

Organic farming is currently still a minor part of European agriculture, though in some countries it has left the niche it used to be in and gained acceptance of up to 8% of farms. Originally the system developed largely independently from specific policy influence. A recent emphasis in policy towards more environmental friendly farming practices and the importance of surplus reduction has led to more attention towards organic farming and the establishment of specific policy provisions. Of special importance in this respect is EC regulation 2078/92 (on agricultural production methods compatible with the requirements of the protection of the environment and the maintenance of the countryside).While the importance of this regulation is obvious there are other factors affecting the organic farming sector as well like the general CAP rules and the development of the market for organic food including EC-regulation 2092/91 which covers the certification of organic food. The resulting premium prices offer economic incentives for farms to convert to organic farming. While organic farming is a system that had developed with little input from state research institutions, the technology delivery system and the institutional setting of extension services become important with rapid development of organic farming.

Objectives

The general objective of the project is to provide an assessment of the impact of CAP-reform and possible policy developments on organic farming and thus contribute to a better understanding of the effects that current EU policies have on this sub-sector. This implies the objective of improving the understanding of the consequences future policy development might have on organic farming and on the contribution organic farming might be able to make to EU policy goals.

To accomplish the general objectives, the following detailed objectives must be fulfilled:

1. To describe in detail the policy and regulatory environment within which organic farming currently operates in the EU and some immediate neighbours, with specific emphasis on:

• legislation defining and controlling organic production (EC Reg. 2092/91),

• the 1992 CAP Reform (EC Reg. 1765/92 and others),

• the accompanying agri-environmental measures (EC Reg. 2078/92),

• the expansion of the EU to include Austria, Finland and Sweden,

• other policies influencing organic farming directly or indirectly, and

• direct support for organic farming in the Czech Republic, Norway and Switzerland (i.e. outside the EU policy framework).

2. To assess ex post the impact on organic farming of the mainstream and additional CAP Reform measures, as well as regulations defining and controlling trade in organic products and other relevant policies; and to assess the contribution of organic farming to current agricultural and environmental policy objectives. Specifically the impact of policies on organic farming and the contribution of organic farming to policy objectives will be assessed in the following areas:

2.1 Number of organic farms, land area and enterprise structure;

2.2 Market growth and development;

2.3 Farm level and regional socio-economic performance;

2.4 Environmental and resource use impacts;

2.5 Output and public expenditure implications.

3.1 To develop a list of possible policy instruments suitable for influencing the rate of conversion, including an evaluation of their effects and of institutional prerequisites for an efficient implementation.

3.2 To identify institutional factors of political, economic and other nature suited for promoting conversion to organic agriculture by analysing the reasons for the major differences in the rate of conversion among EU member states and selected non-member states 1985-96.

4.1 To provide some realistic and up-to-date examples of farmers’ reactions to policy options with a simulation approach that is guided by farmers and advisers.

4.2 To perform an impact assessment of different levels of adoption of organic farming on

• the structure of agricultural production;

• agricultural markets (supply, prices);

• income from agriculture;

• nutrient balances in agriculture.

4.3 To use the scenario analysis technique to develop consistent scenarios of the possible future developments of organic farming (and respective policy options) by integrating all the available quantitative, semi-quantitative and qualitative information.

5. To draw conclusions from the results of the previous tasks and to provide policy recommendations

List of tasks and sub-tasks

Task 1: The policy and regulatory environment for organic farming in the European Union (coordination: P2).

Task 2: Impact assessment of current policies and regulations on organic farming and its contribution to policy objectives (coordination: P2).

Subtask 2.1: Number of organic farms, land area and enterprise structure (coordination: P2).

Subtask 2.2: Market growth and development (coordination: P3).

Subtask 2.3: Farm level and regional socio-economic performance (coordination: P5).

Subtask 2.4: Environmental and resource use impacts (coordination: P1).

Subtask 2.5: Output and public expenditure implications (coordination: P4).

Task 3: Institutional factors influencing the variation in the rate of conversion to organic farming in Europe 1985-1996 (coordination: P3).

Subtask 3.1: General overview including all EU member states and 3 non-member states (coordination: P3).

Subtask 3.2: In-depth study of selected nations/regions (coordination P3).

Task 4: Impact assessment of different levels of adoption of organic farming and policy options (coordination: P1).

Subtask 4.1: Farm level case studies (coordination: P1).

Subtask 4.2: Quantitative sector modelling (coordination: P5).

Subtask 4.3: Scenario analysis (coordination: P4).

Task 5: Policy implications and recommendations (coordination: P1).

Overall methodology

The structure of the project and some important connections between the tasks are highlighted by a flowchart (Figure 4).

A systematic understanding of the policy and regulatory environment of agriculture as far as it is relevant to organic farming (Task 1) is a prerequisite for the whole project, specifically for the work to be carried out in Task 2. Task 3 broadens the view and seeks to explain both the development of organic farming before the recent reform came into effect and the institutional and other factors that influence the spatial and dynamically differing conversion rates beyond the policy influence. These tasks set the stage for Task 4 which aims at assessing the impact an increased adoption (at different levels) will have and on the consequences alternative policy options will have. Subtask 4.1 provides a very close-up look on selected farms in order to demonstrate likely adaptations of organic farms to a changed policy environment and to generate hypotheses for the more macro-oriented approaches, especially Subtask 4.2. This subtask will adapt and develop existing quantitative sector models in order to fulfil the objective of Task 4. Due to the inherent limitations of such a quantitative approach, Subtask 4.3 uses the scenario analysis method to integrate and evaluate the results in a semi-quantitative and qualitative fashion. Task 5 draws on all previous tasks in order to provide conclusions and policy recommendations.

The project uses a mix of methodologies. Literature review and review of other materials will be performed according to the standards of the social sciences and applies to all tasks. Face to face interviews will be used according to established standards of empirical social research in a number of tasks. Interviews will use quantitative, semi-quantitative and qualitative questions. Modelling at the farm level combines a simulation approach combined with programming modelling techniques and uses local consultancy groups as an input among other sources. Quantitative sector models include programming models based on regionalised farms, a multi-product market model and a programming model differentiated by regions and farm-type. Existing models will be used and extended for project use. Scenario analysis is used as a tool to integrate the results and guide all other tasks during the course of the research project. The combination of modelling techniques with scenario analysis is innovative. Data collection and interpretation within Task 1 and Task 2 is an essential input to the modelling efforts and the scenario analysis.

PARTICIPATING INSTITUTIONS

Project Duration: 1 March 1997 to 30 June 2000

Figure 4: Schematic overview on ENOF project tasks and work flow

Prepared by the project coordinator, 4 March 1997