The importance of organic agriculture in the European agricultural sector is growing and has been doing so especially since the early 1990s. The total area under organic production in Western Europe has increased from just over 100 000 hectares in 1985 to more than ten-fold a decade later. Some countries, especially the German-speaking and Scandinavian countries, are now showing a rate of growth which takes the organic industry out of its marginal position and transforms it into a more generally accepted form of agriculture. Central and Eastern Europe, where figures from only the last few years are available, shows a similar trend.
This growth is partly due to the change in policies which makes organic agriculture more attractive to farmers at present than in the past. The growing realisation that agriculture has a major impact on environmental quality has been an important motivation for this change. Perhaps the clearest indication of developments in the area of organic agriculture in the future is the move by some local authorities to encourage (Munich, Germany) or compel (Brittany, France) farmers to change to organic agriculture, in a bid to maintain or improve the quality of drinking water. Several national governments have allocated funds for conversion, marketing activities and research into organic production methods.
Research has played a significant role in the development of organic agriculture. In the past, when most research was carried out by farmers and some private research institutions, a large part of this research was directed to the physical aspects of crop production, with considerable emphasis on soils. Originally, comparing organic and conventional farming was perhaps mainly carried out to convince others that organic agriculture was worthy of attention. More recently, such studies have been used to analyse policies and optimal policy directions. Influencing consumption of organic products by promotion, improving information on product quality and decreasing marketing costs, is only just starting to be perceived as rather important in the progress of organic agriculture. Also other areas, such as animal husbandry and horticulture (fruit), have been somewhat neglected in the past, possibly indicating the degree of difficulty of coping with problems under organic management in these particular sectors. Although it was realised early on that one of the advantages of organic agriculture was the decrease in off-farm pollution, this aspect of farming has never received attention in much more than qualitative terms. Once organic agriculture reaches a certain stage of acceptance, as in Austria which officially recognises organic agriculture as the form of sustainable agriculture, attention is also given to the larger issues of other effects on the country, such as energy use and regional effects. This is perhaps also the time when the need for a restructuring of the whole infra-structure of research (such as interdisciplinary activities and long-term approaches) is acknowledged.
The most important barriers and problems for the advancement of research in organic agriculture were considered by respondents to a questionnaire (all Europeans) and by participants of a workshop in the US to be institutional rather than technical. The main barriers mentioned were the present structure of research funding; the different requirements in organic agriculture leading to rather expensive research; lack of a united front by the organic sector; absence of networks by researchers in organic agriculture; relative lack of good researchers and inadequate structure to foster them (by good supervision of potential researchers and peer review); and lack of policies which encourage research in organic agriculture directly or indirectly. For Central and Eastern Europe, the absence of legislation was also considered a problem, and the fear that pressure from outside (such as foreign private industry) may convince farmers and policy makers that the use of fertiliser and pesticides is the only way to progress in farming.
In its task to foster long-term environmental sustainability in agriculture and food security, FAO has great cause to be interested in and to promote organic agriculture. Not only should the greater European experience in organic agriculture be acknowledged and supported, but also the available knowledge ought to be more actively integrated in other FAO policies and programmes. To enable farmers in developing countries to make informed choices requires that FAO provides information on ‘alternative agricultural methods’. To do this, new programmes emphasising organic farming methods should be carefully integrated with existing activities. Successful and widespread adoption of organic methods would provide developing countries with a sustainable agricultural basis without the legacy of harmful environmental degradation that has been a feature of agriculture in many developed countries.
This Report was written for the Regional Office of Europe (REU) of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) which supports ESCORENA[2], a European Network System for the promotion of research cooperation, particularly in the field of sustainable agriculture.
The Sustainable Rural Environment and Energy Network (SREN), which is part of the ESCORENA Network, in 1993 suggested an expansion of its environmental focus by including research on certain aspects of biological farming. In this context, REU commissioned this Report to review the current situation in order to:
‘provide a working document with sufficient information and recommendations to permit FAO and research experts to evaluate the need and possible focus of an ESCORENA research network or other support on biological farming methods, which can be provided by FAO and be of benefit to FAO.’
For more details on the terms of reference, see Appendix A.
Possible future network activities are expected to also be of benefit to FAO in terms of input into related FAO activities in sustainable agriculture, food security and biodiversity.
In order to put research on biological agriculture into perspective, especially for those who are unfamiliar with the topic, Section 2 reviews the relevance of biological farming methods for agriculture, environment, economy and society in Europe, and its global significance.
This general section is followed by:
- a review of past and present research activities, priorities and trends;
- a discussion on special research issues of importance and relevance in support of improvement of biological farming practices;
- a discussion of present barriers and problems for the advancement of research in biological farming; and
- an analysis of present and future needs of researchers.
The question is then what kind of cooperation can help in overcoming at least some of the problems in order to promote research in the future. These issues will be discussed in the last section.
In this Report only those forms of agriculture which are covered by the European Union’s Council Regulation EC No.2092/91 (EC, 1991) are discussed. In 1991, the then European Committee regulated the concept of biological agriculture with member countries having to specify which word they wanted to use. For example, in Dutch, French, Italian and Portuguese, the word similar to ‘biological’ was reserved for use in this context, in Danish, German and Spanish, the word ‘ecological’ was chosen, and in English ‘organic’. Hence the word ‘organic’ is generally used in this Report.
In the above-mentioned regulation the word 'organic' was defined and standards for organic production were set. This was done in cooperation with the International Federation for Organic Agricultural Movements (IFOAM). The EU standards were based to a large extent on the IFOAM standards. The regulation required that each member state guarantee that what they traded under the name 'organic' was indeed produced according to the specified standards. Those forms of agriculture which do not comply with those standards, for example, those based on so called ‘integrated methods’, such as reduced input methods and integrated pest management techniques, cannot be called organic and therefore are excluded from this study. It is to be noted that the standards relate to the system of production, not to the end product per se.
Before the 1990s, the area under organic management and number of organic farmers represented less than one per cent of the total agricultural sector in most countries. Since that time the situation has changed with some countries expanding organic agriculture considerably. Total certified and in-conversion areas in Western European countries grew from approximately 114 000 ha in 1985 to just over 250 000 ha in 1990, but have almost reached 1 250 000 ha in 1996 (see Figure 1). The number of farms increased from approximately 7000 via 14 000 to 55 000 for the same years, as shown in Figure 2. Although the average 1996 figures for Europe still indicate less than one per cent of area under organic management as compared with total area under farming in 1993, there are several countries where these figures are higher, notably in the German- and Scandinavian-speaking countries. In the country with the largest increase in organic farming, Austria, both areas under organic production and number of farmers were around seven per cent in 1996 (N. Lampkin, University of Wales, Aberystwyth, personal communication, April 1997).
In Central and Eastern Europe, where data have been available only in more recent years, the trends are similar. The area under organic management more than doubled in the last three years, totalling 94 000 ha in 1996. The number of organic farmers grew at a slightly slower rate, indicating larger farms becoming involved in organic agriculture.
The average annual growth rates of area under organic management in the EU over the last five years was almost forty per cent, considerably higher than over the last ten years, when the average was around twenty-five per cent. Recently, the growth rate has slowed down again as it dipped just under the ten year average in 1995, although increasing again (to over thirty per cent) in 1996.
The changes are occurring under the influence of a number of factors, related both to market and regulatory conditions (see also Hamm and Michelsen (1996) and Lampkin and Weinschenck (1996)). The importance of each factor differs between and even within countries. The main factors include:
- the provision of subsidies, especially in the areas of:
- conversion
- marketing (licensing scheme, consumer education)
- information: research, education and extension
- changes in consumer behaviour:
increasing demand which, through firmer and more stable prices and a reduction in risk for producers, stimulates supply.
In the 1980s, government assistance in the form of establishing an organic certification scheme occurred in a number of European countries. Subsidies for education (with professorial chairs in organic agriculture) and extension services were other areas of government assistance. More recently, subsidies for conversion to organic methods were introduced. The EU agri-environmental programmes (Regulation 2078/92) also cover both conversion to, and continuation in, organic agriculture (Lampkin and Weinschenck, 1996).
A number of countries have found it important to set a goal for the growth of organic farming in the future. For example, in Sweden, Parliament resolved to aim for ten per cent of total farm area to be under organic management by the year 2000 (Ecology and Farming, 1994). In Denmark, the Ministry of Agriculture, in its plan of action for the promotion of organic production, foresees fifteen to twenty per cent of domestic market share for organic products in the year 2000, resulting in a seven per cent share of Danish agriculture at that time. Members of the Council responsible for the document have expressed views that this could well increase to between twenty and forty per cent by the year 2010, with a long-term goal of all agricultural land being farmed organically. In the document, policy strategies are proposed to effect this development (Danish Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, 1995). In Austria, in the early 1990s, ‘sustainable agriculture’ was declared to mean organic agriculture.
Reasons for such goal-setting by politicians include pressure from consumers and from voters who care about environmental quality; a wish to curtail over-production; and perceived marketing opportunities for conventional farmers by showing that the agricultural sector as a whole is moving towards environmentally-friendly practices.
There is little doubt that goals are translated into policies which are at least sympathetic towards organic agriculture, if not positively stimulating. For example, in Denmark, approximately US$150 million was allocated to the development of organic farming between 1995 and 2000, increasing from US$18 million in 1995 to over US$30 million in 1999 (Danish Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, 1995). It is likely that these differences in policies account for at least part of the variation of adoption rates in the different countries.
Apart from a change in composition of farming systems, the developments in organic agriculture have also had an effect on research in conventional farming. Niggli and Lockeretz (1996) mention advantages in the area of perceptions of researchers in conventional farming such as an easier acceptance of:
- alternative solutions to problems, that is, a widening of researchers’ horizons;
- acceptance of the notion that farmers can also be a source of invention; and
- awareness of the importance of biological and environmental processes in agricultural production, despite the possibilities of heavy technological intervention.
As in some countries conventional farmers see organic managers as the early adopters of a new technology (V. Lund, editor of ‘Research Notes on Ecological Agriculture in Nordic Countries’, personal communications, May 1997), research results in organic farming are presumably closely monitored by those who hold that opinion. It is then perhaps not too far-fetched to imagine that questions from this group of farmers to researchers in conventional agriculture would affect the direction of research generally.
Implications of developments in organic agriculture can also be seen in tendencies in conventional agriculture towards:
- reduced input use:
an increased sensitivity to off-farm cost of production resulting, amongst others, in research into decreased chemical inputs and livestock units per area unit;
- changed production:
changes in crop rotations and yield levels, where they occur, will cause changes in payments such as export subsidies. The direction of the change will depend on the particular product.
The body of literature on problems caused by agricultural practices is substantial and growing. This literature indicates that problems can be due to the use of certain specific inputs (for example pesticides and fertilisers) which differ between farming systems, or to the effect of the system as a whole (for example, intensification and specialisation increasing the risk of soil degradation). A few examples follow.
In an early study the 'indirect costs' of the use of pesticides in The Netherlands was estimated to amount to between forty and eighty per cent of the total direct expenditure on chemicals (Eitjes and Den Haan, 1987). With more intensive use of pesticides over the years, this percentage is likely to have increased. More recently in the USA, estimates of the total 'indirect' private and external (off-farm) costs (excluding the input price) of the use of synthetic pesticides were calculated to amount to US$8.1 billion annually, US$5 billion of which were environmental and public health costs. This compares with a total annual expenditure of US$4 billion on pesticide treatments including materials and application (Pimentel et al. 1993), so that the non-material costs of pesticides was estimated to be twice as high as the costs of the pesticides themselves. Effects on the environment include those on human health (although not those on the immune system, a relatively new area), ground and surface water, birds, bees, fisheries and pesticide pollution control. Loss of biodiversity is also an area which is accepted by many as a consequence of pesticide use, but is rarely quantified.
In a recent study, FAO (1996b) estimated the average cost of reducing pollution in the production of different vegetable oils, soybean, palm, rape-seed and sunflower and compared this with production costs. The increase of production cost of soybeans resulting from a fifty-five per cent reduction in pesticide pollution (including herbicides) was calculated at US$231 per tonne. Comparing this with the cost of materials used in the production process in the USA (including, apart from pesticides, fertilisers, seeds, etc. and amounting to US$132 per tonne), this showed an increase in cost of 175 per cent; that is, the cost of materials increased to nearly three-fold to reduce pollution by just over half. The lowest relative cost increase was calculated for rape-seed oil at twenty-eight per cent of materials used (in Germany). Pollution control costs for palm oil (produced in Malaysia) was estimated at thirty-six per cent and for sunflower oil (France) at over 120 per cent.
The effect of agriculture on water quality is increasingly acknowledged. Although few studies quantify the costs, some results are available. In England and Wales alone, the cost of measures to regulate and remove pesticides from UK drinking water is estimated to be around US$200 million annually, with over US$1.6 billion in initial investment costs. To control and abate nitrate pollution of drinking water, costs were calculated at around US$40 million per year (1996-97), with up to approximately US$450 million in total costs of initial investment in water treatment equipment and control measures since 1989 (Redman, 1996). In Germany, the Department of Works pays farmers in certain areas to convert to organic agriculture in a bid to maintain Munich’s drinking water quality (Heid, 1997). In Brittany in Northern France, Egmont-Florian (1997) reports that whole valleys are compelled to convert to organic management, as the drinking water quality was found to be unacceptable.
Concerns about the effects of applications of fertilisers and pesticides used in conventional agriculture are not confined to proponents of organic farming. The rise of environmentalism as a political force in a number of countries can be seen as a sign of this concern. For example, in The Netherlands, the quantity and timing of applications of agricultural nutrients have been restricted and the pesticide reduction schemes in Denmark, The Netherlands and Sweden are to a large extent a consequence of growing awareness. Under the EU Regulation 2078/92, certified organic farmers are entitled to payments on the basis of their management system, signifying that organic agriculture is considered as a means of reducing environmental problems.
Soil degradation is the topic of a large body of literature and widely recognised to be related to farm practices. The US National Research Council (1989, p.115) discusses on-farm and off-farm damage caused by soil erosion, which is attributed to 'Common management practices such as increased reliance on row crops grown continuously, fewer rotations involving forages and larger farms being tilled by one operator...'. It includes federal farm programmes which encourage '.... levels of production that work as a disincentive for effective erosion control practices.' In connection with specific differences between conventional and organic farming, Hodges and Arden-Clarke (1986) illustrated the connection between general farm practices and soil degradation in the UK, concluding that '... organic/biological farming can be shown to be a soil-conserving system' (p.33). At a more micro-level, Reganold et al. (1995) showed differences in soil quality between conventional and bio-dynamic farms in New Zealand, with the latter having a better biological and physical quality.
In a study on the influence of the production system on the atmosphere Vogtmann, Zehr and Simon (1996) conclude that organic agriculture can contribute substantially to a reduction in negative climatic impacts. This is attributed to a considerably lower use of ‘indirect energy’ in organic agriculture, that is, energy needed to produce agricultural inputs, such as synthetic fertilisers.
The case of moving towards organic agriculture brings up the question about costs and benefits to the farmer and to society. A number of studies have been conducted on these variables, many of which can be found in Lampkin and Padel (1994). Although it is often assumed that organic agriculture brings with it financial problems for farmers, experience does not bear this out. The main variables which influence this include: yields, input costs, total farm outputs and output prices.
Lampkin and Padel (1994) concluded that yield on organic as compared with conventional farms was related to the intensity of the conventional farming system. The more intense conventional agriculture, the larger the difference. Hence differences existed between:
- countries, where yields in Australia, Canada and the USA showed considerably less differences than those in Western European countries;
- crops, with greater differences for example in wheat yields than in yields of oats and field beans; and
- time, with absolute yield levels in organic agriculture increasing over time, but not as fast as in conventional agriculture, though changes in input costs were not included in the analysis.
It is also interesting to note that yields on organic farms were found to be significantly higher than those on conventional farms before the 1950s, thereby dispelling the notion that organic agriculture is going back to the old days.
Input cost is usually lower on organic farms, as expenditure for (organic) fertiliser and pesticides tends to be lower. Due to changes in crop rotations, the output mix changes as compared with conventional farming. The end-result is that relative returns vary. Location, enterprise and year can be important variables. Some results (expressed as farm returns minus variable and fixed costs), reported in studies in different countries, are as follows (see Lampkin and Padel, 1994):
|
similar or higher: |
Australia, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Denmark and the U.K. (Wales); |
|
and lower: |
Switzerland, U.K. (Britain) and USA. |
Results are also dependent on the time of research. Input and output prices change over time, and are likely to reflect the total (including environmental) cost of production more accurately in the future than they did in the past. This will influence relative farm profits.
There are usually costs attached to converting to organic agriculture, partly due to initial inexperience of the farmer; the biological processes on the farm which need time to develop; the difficulty of obtaining premiums in the conversion time; and the need for new investments. For enterprises with the most intensive production activities, conversion might not always be financially acceptable with present input and output prices. Conversion costs are generally recognised by many countries in Western Europe providing conversion subsidies, which are often somewhat higher than subsidies for established farmers.
When a large number of farmers moves towards organic agriculture it can be expected that a number of variables change, thereby affecting the profitability of organic farming. The first variable often mentioned is output prices. Many expect that with many farmers becoming organic, supply of organic products increases relative to demand, so that premiums erode, making organic farming unprofitable. This neglects the possibility of a shift in demand for organic products. Other changes could include those in input prices, when increased demand causes higher prices. Alternatively, economies of scale can cause a decrease.
Estimates of the effects of a substantial shift towards organic farming differ greatly. Some studies carried out in the USA around 1980, though diverging in many aspects, agreed that lower product quantities would be available for export leading to higher export earning (due to inelastic demand) and possibly higher farm incomes (Olson, Langley and Heady, 1982; Langley, Heady and Olson, 1983). From later studies, mentioned in Lampkin and Padel (1994), those which included farm incomes tended to show reduced incomes under organic management, especially when no premiums were allocated. Where employment was included, opportunities increased or decreased less than under conventional agriculture. A recent study for Australia (Wynen, 1997) found that, with a change of thirty per cent of cereal-livestock farmers to organic management, returns to the farming community would be reduced by less than three per cent, even under present pricing conditions. In Finland, a change towards organic agriculture was reported to be financially less rewarding only in the pig and vegetable industries. For all other enterprises, the returns to farming were estimated as being comparable to those in conventional agriculture, even without output premiums (Miettinen et al., 1997). These studies are carried out under present conditions, where environmental costs (including human health and landscape value) are not incorporated in the input and output prices.
To summarise, results of studies on financial consequences of organic farming and on the effect of a large-scale change towards organic agriculture, differ considerably. However, there is sufficient evidence to conclude that a change towards an organic management system does not necessarily result in financial problems for the farmer. For the whole farming sector, the situation is more complicated, although also here, predictions of financial disasters are not evident. No doubt, research in this area is likely to increase over time.
From early this century, research and extension activities in organic farming have been carried out by individuals amongst whom there are prominent names such as Steiner, Howard, Balfour and Rodale. Groups of individuals then started to combine in organizations, often consisting of farmers and some interested researchers; and private research stations were founded, of which the main ones in Europe are:
- Institute for Bio-dynamic Research, Germany (1950);
- Research Institute for Biological Agriculture, Switzerland (1974);
- Louis Bolk Institute, The Netherlands (1976);
- Ludwig Boltzman Institute for Biological Agriculture and Applied Ecology, Austria (1980);
- Elm Farm Research Centre, England (1982); and
- Norwegian Centre for Ecological Agriculture (1987).
Some of these institutions now receive part of their income from government sources.
In their article on the development of research in organic agriculture, Niggli and Lockeretz (1996) mention concern for soil health and fertility as reasons for interest in organic, as opposed to industrial (conventional), agriculture from early in the 20th century, leading to research in soil ecology. Woodward, Flemming and Vogtmann (1996) add the human health aspect to it, as ‘...the health of soil, plant, animal and man is one and indivisible’, quoting Balfour (1975).
By the second half of the 1970s enough critical mass had accumulated for a scientific conference on organic agriculture. The first conference of IFOAM took place in Switzerland in 1977 and its aim was to provide an overview of research in organic farming. Ever since, a biennial conference has been held. The last one was in Copenhagen in August 1996, at which close to 400 papers were presented.
One of the signs of acceptance of organic agriculture by the public sector was the establishment of professorial chairs, the first two in Germany (Kassel) and The Netherlands (Wageningen) in 1981. Other countries followed, Austria, Finland and Sweden with one each, and an expansion to six in Germany. Denmark has recently appointed the first professor in organic agriculture, and is presently in the process of appointing a second. Norway has also decided to establish a chair in this field. Some would say, however, that this was more window dressing than a real interest by the mainstream research community in organic agriculture. In the meantime, courses in the topic expanded, both at tertiary and secondary educational level, in a number of countries (see Mansvelt and Koelster, 1990). These developments occurred often as a reaction to pressure from different groups, such as students and the environmental movement, while an increase in demand for organic products showed another group expressing their interest in that direction. In some cases implementation of a course depended on particular people with interests in teaching these topics, sometimes even disguising the content behind a different name to ensure acceptance by management.
Ministries of agriculture in many countries started to show an interest in the 1980s, some setting up extension services for organic farmers (for example in The Netherlands), others getting involved in other aspects, such as setting up an organic certification scheme (as in Denmark). At present, involvement in many countries is through applied research (research stations) and extension. For example, around 200 organic advisers were employed in Germany in 1996, either by producer organizations or by the state (Ecology and Farming, 1996). However, state interest does not occur in all countries. Especially in the Southern European countries, little government interest was reported although regional differences can be large. Some Eastern European and Baltic states reported a poor infra-structure for organic agriculture including a lack of organic farmers’ associations; certification systems including no legal status for the word ‘organic’; marketing institutions; and training and research.
Private consultants have also appeared on the organic scene. As they often do not get paid for their services from public money they have to recuperate their costs from the clients. Many consultants in organic agriculture therefore work directly with farmers and often with those who are in the conversion stage.
In the 1970s, a lot of research on organic agriculture was carried out in the form of comparisons between organic and conventional agriculture. At that stage it seemed important to establish that organic agriculture indeed was financially feasible without exhausting soil fertility and without the farm, or that of the neighbour, being overrun with pest problems (including diseases, weeds, insects). In the early 1980s, organic researchers gathering in Sweden decided that it was time to stop trying to prove that organic agriculture was possible and that now the scarce resources available to research in that area should be put into looking at how organic agriculture could be made to work best and not whether it worked (Dlouhy and Nilsson 1983). Despite this resolution, comparisons did continue in many countries.
In a report on research in organic agriculture in Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Norway and Sweden, Höök (1997) mentions that in the 1980s the emphasis was on solving short-term production problems. Niggli and Lockeretz (1996) write that generally applied technical research has been and still is, favoured by farmers. This applied research concentrated on soil aspects with research into effects of rotations; materials such as ground rock; and animal manure and compost (which includes quality, storage, ease of spreading etc.). Pests and diseases were generally considered to be a direct reflection of the soil quality and received therefore less attention in research, at least in agricultural crops, although they have been a major area of investigation in horticulture. Weed problems have always been of considerable interest, where crop rotations (including the use of animals), timing of operations and mechanical means (including flame weeders) have had major attention. Research into animal production concentrated on nutrition, housing, breeding and veterinary medicine. However, this area has been somewhat neglected in the past. For example, Boehncke and Krutzinna (1996) report that only six per cent of 187 organic research projects in German-speaking countries in 1990 investigated animal husbandry issues.
Although ecological advantages of organic agriculture have been studied in the past, most of those studies were carried out more recently. The main exception here is the energy-efficient nature of organic agriculture which has always been considered an important topic. The emphasis was often on energy requirements in the processing of agricultural inputs, such as fertilisers and pesticides. For more details on past research priorities, see Niggli and Lockeretz (1996, pp.13-15), attached as Appendix B.
Höök (1997) mentions that there has been a change in focus of research over time. Since the 1980s, attention has moved to defining problems and gaps in knowledge. Present areas of priority are seen as energy; natural resource management; cycles (for example nutrients); plant nutrient availability and management; animal protection and health; agricultural ecology; biodiversity; measurements of food quality; and social and environmental consequences of ecological agriculture. Perhaps it signifies the recognition of the importance of wider issues in the development of organic agriculture.
A conference held in 1990 in Switzerland under the auspices of FAO and the Swiss Federal Research Station for Agricultural Chemistry and Hygiene of Environment (Besson, 1990) showed some of this trend. The general aim of the conference was to review and analyse the status and development perspectives of biological farming in Europe. The recommendations are shown in Box 1.
|
BOX 1: RECOMMENDATIONS OF FAO/FAC WORKSHOP 1990 - Develop a dialogue between researchers in organic and conventional agriculture. A workshop on one of the topics considered to need research (see below) was seen as a good opportunity to bring together researchers working in the different systems. - Activities to be undertaken:
- Topics to be researched:
- Development of standards for livestock production in the EU regulations. - Establishment of a data-base of research results. Source: Vogtmann, Stopes, Ölez, Besson (1990). |
There were three main themes:
- desirability of communications with researchers in conventional agriculture;
- topics of special interest, which were rather wide-ranging, including nutrients, crop protection, livestock (including the development of EU standards) and cropping systems without livestock; and
- development of methodologies, networks and databases.
This last point, in particular, can be seen as a trend towards defining gaps in knowledge.
Another example of the research direction mentioned by Höök (1997) can be seen in Austria. In the early 1990s, Austria accepted organic agriculture as the preferred method of sustainable agriculture and explicitly recognised this form of agriculture as a shift in paradigm (Lindenthal, Vogl and Hess 1996, p.6). In cooperative work between the Research Initiative for Organic Farming and the Ministry of Agriculture, seven areas of priorities were set out, of which ‘practical orientation’, that is, ‘problem solving’ research, was only one. The others are listed as follows (Lindenthal, Vogl and Hess 1996, p.6):
- closed materials cycles;
- material efficiency and regional economics;
- energy efficiency and solar orientation;
- strengthening and utilisation of natural self-regulatory mechanisms;
- priorities for suitable systems of livestock-keeping and feeding as well as natural breeding programmes oriented to ethological requirements of livestock and the goal of wide-scoped disease prevention; and
- specific priorities in the fields of organic fruit growing, viticulture and horticulture as well as processing and product quality.
A different methodology (including interdisciplinary activities, long-term initiatives, site orientation, applied research and regional related approaches) in research is considered to be important and is recognised as requiring separate funding. Changes in the processes related to research funding and promotion were also specifically mentioned as being in need of change, such as the process and criteria of evaluation. Many of these issues are mentioned as barriers to research in Section 4.
However, in other countries, the list of priorities of research into organic agriculture shows a different orientation. For example, the UK Register for Organic Food Standards (UKROFS) emphasises technical and production oriented problems, as shown in Table 1.
Short-term production issues, such as weed control, feature rather prominently on the list and pest issues (weeds, insects and diseases) occupy five out of nine places. Research on nutrients show under two headings and the other places are reserved for research in plant propagation and the conversion process, one each. Some interesting observations can be made:
- the lowest priority for funding with money available for organic farming (the conversion process) attracts by far the most funding, at almost half of the number of projects; and
- the list shows topics which are mentioned as appropriate for funding from money available for conventional farming. This notion will be referred to again in Section 5.
Denmark also concentrates its US$6.2 million for strategic (basic) research and a similar amount for applied research in the areas of farm production: nine in crop management, four in livestock and four in ‘farm and surroundings’, emphasising interactions between organic agriculture and environment and society (Ellen Hjort Petersen, Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, personal communications, May 1997). The basic research in crop management concentrates heavily on soil and nutrients (three out of four topics). For the applied research certain sectors are pinpointed for funding, such as some soft fruits, vegetables (including potatoes), cereal and pulses and row crops. In the livestock sector, egg and pig production are singled out.
Table 1: Research topics in organic agriculture in the UK (1995)
|
|
Projects |
|
|
1. Agricultural weed control |
3 |
|
|
2. Horticultural weed control |
2 |
|
|
3 Plant propagation |
1 |
|
|
4. Perennial weed control |
1 |
|
|
5. Parasites in livestock |
1 |
|
|
6. Nutrient transfer: manure-plants |
0 |
|
|
7. Seedborne and seedling diseases |
0 |
|
|
8. Nutrients from permanent fertilisers: supply and availability |
2 |
|
|
9. Conversion process: |
9 |
|
|
10. to be financed from funding in conventional agriculture |
|
|
|
|
a: set-aside and organic rotation: |
1 |
|
|
b: economics of stockless systems |
0 |
|
|
c: economics of organic poultry production |
0 |
|
Source: Elm Farm (1996). |
|
|
If inclusion in the Conference Proceedings is representative of the papers presented at the IFOAM Scientific Conference held in 1996, soil issues are also still important in organic agriculture in general. The second part of the Proceedings, which specifically deals with new research in organic agriculture (Kristensen and Hoegh-Jensen, 1996), includes topics as shown in Table 2.
‘Plant and soil interaction’ is, of course, a rather wide field. However, eight out of the thirteen papers were directly related to nutrient management, which would still place this topic at the top of the list.
Table 2: Number of papers under different topics (IFOAM Proceedings)
|
Topics |
Number of papers |
|
Plant and soil interaction |
13 |
|
Environmental impact and nature |
7 |
|
Traditional knowledge in sustainable agriculture |
7 |
|
Research, education and extension |
6 |
|
Community, consumer and market |
5 |
|
Potentials of organic farming |
4 |
|
Policy and financial strategies |
3 |
|
Animal production systems |
3 |
|
Source: from Oestergaard (1996) |
|
For the purposes of this study people involved with organic agriculture in twenty-four European countries were asked for their opinion on research. Answers were received from thirty-two respondents in eighteen countries. The questions are shown in Appendix C1 and details of the addressees in Appendix C2. No attempt was made to obtain a representative sample, in terms of either institution, research area of interest or country. Implications drawn from the survey should therefore be seen only as indicative rather than conclusive and as adding to other findings.
The lack of understanding between researchers in organic and conventional agriculture, the first point on the FAO-FAC 1990 list of recommendations on which to take action, was frequently mentioned under the barriers and problems to further progress in research in organic agriculture. This will be taken up in the next section.
Priorities mentioned by the respondents to the questionnaire were generally on technical matters, although the respondents from Central and Eastern European countries also mentioned the need for networks as a means of having access to information. Priorities were seen rather like those before the 1990s, that is, soil issues dominated. This was mentioned in relation to other topics such as:
- nutrient supplies to the plant;
- effect on soil conditions on pests; and
- minimisation of negative environmental effects.
Some respondents indicated that they did not think that research in the technical aspects of organic farming was of main importance as those problems were considered to be almost solved. There were two groups of interest, one with emphasis on communication and sharing of knowledge through strengthening of information-links, the other one on research into the socio-economic aspects of organic agriculture:
- individual farmer:
effect of social environment on, for example, rate of conversion;
- institutional level:
- farmers:
for example marketing structure;
- researchers:
with increased popularity of organic agriculture, existing research institutions try to integrate organic agriculture into their organizations. For organic agriculture to survive, a strong institutional effort, such as an international network with a peer reviewed scientific journal, was considered important; and
- macro-level: for example, effect on national employment.
Some researchers expressed the need for research in methodologies, for example of advisory work and certification; others of development of the theoretical basis of their discipline.
Already at the time of the First ESCORENA Workshop on Biological Farming, the need for sharing information and networking was felt. All respondents to the questionnaire, except for one, considered networks important in the promotion of biological agriculture. What developments have occurred in this area since 1990?
The European Network for Scientific Research Coordination in Organic Farming (ENOF) was funded by the Commission of the European Communities of the EU in 1995. At this stage the funding will continue until 1998. ENOF’s main objective is to facilitate contact between researchers and to establish collaborations between the European organizations which work in the area of education, research and extension of organic farming. Höök (1997) records twenty-seven members from thirteen countries amongst its members from universities and public or private research centres. Associate membership is possible in principle, for example for centres which carry out investigation in the field of agro-forestry ecology, which would enable participation at ENOF workshops and other scientific meetings which ENOF organises.
ENOF has a Steering Committee, chaired by its Coordinator, who is also the responsible liaison person to the EU. There are five sub-coordinators, one for each area of research:
- crop production and weed control;
- soil fertility and environmental aspects;
- animal husbandry, grasslands and fodder production;
- legal and economic aspects; and
- crop protection.
Annual workshops are organized and the proceedings published. ENOF is also a vehicle for researchers to combine in seeking funding for cooperative projects. In 1996, for example, a project with five social science departments in four different countries was granted funding by the European Commission for a large project which commenced in March 1997. Five universities and scientific institutions in Denmark, Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom are working on a complete inventory of organic farming at the EU-level. The aim is to provide an assessment of the impact of the CAP-reform and of possible policy developments in organic farming in the EU.
IFOAM Conferences
The biennial IFOAM scientific conferences are world conferences. In 1996 (Copenhagen), approximately 1000 people attended; up from about 800 in New Zealand in 1994. German-speaking countries have an annual scientific conference, in German, on organic farming, often with over fifty participants.
There are several journals which specialise in articles on organic agriculture. The more important ones include the 'Journal of Biological Agriculture and Horticulture' in the United Kingdom and the 'American Journal of Alternative Agriculture' in the United States of America. ‘Ecology and Farming’ is IFOAM’s magazine, which aims at keeping readers up to date with developments in organic agriculture all over the world. Research findings are summarised. A German edition is published which focuses more on topics relevant in German-speaking countries. Publications specific for Europe, both not peer-reviewed, include:
a) NENOF
ENOF commenced the publication of a Newsletter, "NENOF", which publishes scientific papers in the field of organic farming.
b) Research Notes on Ecological Agriculture in Nordic Countries
This is published ten times a year. The aim is to speed up the information dissemination on organic agriculture in the Scandinavian countries. It publishes preliminary research results so that the time lapse between research and the dissemination of the results is minimised.
The Development of a Strategy for Cooperation on Optimal Documentation and Supply of Literature on Ecological Agriculture (DOCEA) has as its aim to increase possibilities for the development of ecological/organic farming by improving access to published research. The philosophy behind the project is to optimise the use of the different databases available in Europe, such as Aberystwyth, Abstreco, Agralin, Gate and Ileia. It was considered that cooperation between the different databases could provide a better service to the needs of researchers and practitioners in organic agriculture.
The first part of the project ran from 1995 to 1997 and resulted in a strategy document agreeing to a procedure for further cooperation between databases on ecological/organic farming.
In early 1997 it was decided to proceed with work on the following:
- providing a database on ecological/organic farming that integrates research reported in the 'scientific' and 'grey' literature, particularly from Europe but also world-wide;
- creating a unified information resource for the whole organic farming community, including researchers, extension officers, farmers, retailers, policy makers;
- integrating records from all participant databases in a central database, preferably on CD-ROM with links to Web sites for updates; and
- establishing a multilingual interface.
The second stage, for which funding is sought from the EU, aims to produce the actual consolidated DOCEA database from the participating databases. If funded, the DOCEA database is expected to be ready by 1999. The result would be a consolidated database available on CD-ROM and also searchable on Internet, though different options are still open. It is anticipated that the database needs to pay for itself. Cooperation with ENOF occurs, to provide for direct linkages between documentation and research networks on ecological/organic farming.
The European Network for Sustainable Agriculture Education (ENSAE) is proposed by Groenhorst College in The Netherlands to implement a network for extension in organic agriculture. The aims are to:
- disseminate and make widely available for use in formal and informal training, knowledge on sustainable agriculture, amongst others the information from ENOF and DOCEA;
- disseminate and make widely available active learning methods to support the development of professional skills and employment opportunities;
- enhance cooperation and communication between European agricultural education institutes directed at education differentiation and improvement; and
- develop an Internet database on sustainable agriculture and related education practices.
Differences between research priorities depend mainly on the clientele. Applied research is generally carried out by those who have producers as their clients, for example farmers’ associations, private research stations, state departments of agriculture and consultants. Basic research can be carried out in places such as universities, where there is relatively little direct contact with farmers and often better equipment and research facilities. Universities also were mentioned as tending to prefer research into Integrated Pest Management (IPM). Many scientists in conventional agriculture consider IPM as a ‘more realistic alternative’ than exclusively organic farming, while it is more socially acceptable amongst peers.
Barriers and problems for the advancement of research in organic agriculture were considered many and varied by the respondents of the questionnaire; lack of funding was mentioned most frequently. However, in any area of research lack of funding is likely to be mentioned as a barrier to greater success. Many researchers added the reasons for insufficient funding and it is these which can be seen as barriers.
Structure of research funding:
Those who allocate funds have generally worked in conventional agriculture and find it difficult to see the relevance of organic agriculture. Reasons for lack of enthusiasm for research in organic agriculture can be explained in several, not necessarily mutually exclusive, ways. For example:
- if organic agriculture is a change in paradigm as described by Kuhn (1970), funding for research in organic agriculture can be expected to be low on the priority list of funding bodies (for a brief explanation on paradigm shifts and why organic agriculture can be viewed as such, see Appendix D);
- Gabriel (1994) mentions sources of funding as an institutional barrier to research in sustainable agriculture and attributes this to greater ease of administration of research requirements in conventional farming. For example, disciplinary research in conventional agriculture is easier to assess than inter- or multi-disciplinary research which is more favoured in sustainable agriculture.
Nature of research in organic agriculture:
- Time requirements:
long-term trials are even more important in organic than in conventional farming, as organic agriculture puts, for example, more emphasis on the effect of crop rotation for soil nutrient and pest management.
- Space requirements:
as organic farming is based on interrelationships of a number of biological processes, relatively expensive whole-farm trials are more important in organic than in conventional farming where multiple small-plot trials are more common.
- Inputs for organic agriculture:
organic agriculture tends to use knowledge-based inputs more intensively than conventional farming, where inputs provided by private industry are more common (such as pesticides and fertilisers). As public research funding in many countries is becoming scarcer and funding by private industry relatively more important, research into organic farming is likely to be proportionately more disadvantaged.
Disunity within the organic sector on project priorities:
For example, farmers are usually more interested in applied research whereas researchers also appreciate the benefits from basic research.
Lack of networking of researchers in organic agriculture with fund providers.
Animal husbandry:
Trials on animals are considerably more expensive than on plants and crops. Where few funds are available, the more expensive areas may not be the first priority.
Other barriers to organic agricultural research were mentioned by respondents as:
Researchers:
Reticence of researchers to become involved in organic agriculture due to difficulties in recognition within the existing professional infra-structure. Especially respondents from Central and Eastern European countries mentioned a lack of researchers in organic agriculture as a problem.
Lack of supervision for aspiring researchers:
Lack of researchers in organic agriculture in the past means that good supervision of students by a researcher competent in this area is not always easy to obtain.
Lack of peer review:
Difficulties in the past of having articles on organic agriculture published by established journals have resulted in a high percentage of those articles being published in journals which are not always strict with quality control. Increased emphasis on peer review was therefore seen as a way to increase returns from research.
Professional jealousy:
This makes cooperation in complicated projects a problem.
Lack of legislation:
Central and Eastern European respondents mentioned the lack of legislation as a problem for progress in organic agriculture and consequently for research in organic farming.
Outside pressure:
Pressure by foreign private companies, about the need for fertilisers and pesticides in farm production, was mentioned as a possible problem in the development of organic agriculture in Central and Eastern Europe.
Gabriel (1994), reporting on a workshop on barriers to research in sustainable agriculture in the USA, also mentioned the structure of the research funding; the time requirement; the lack of unifying vision; the reward mechanism for researchers; and the lack of peer review. He added to this list, farm policies in the USA. An example was the commodity support programmes which discouraged crop rotations, thus increasing the need for pesticides. Another example was legal product quality requirements, which might make it difficult to sell if organic methods are less effective than conventional methods. Such policies influence the demand for particular research in the two examples given above, not for sustainable agriculture but for pesticide-intensive technologies.
The policy with the most direct effect on research in a particular area is funding. Lampkin and Weinschenck (1996) reported on funding for research into organic agriculture in the EU under Framework III and IV, though no mention is made of the amount. Individual countries also provide money. Denmark has set aside over US$15 million for research from 1996 to 1999, with likely additional amounts being allocated during that period (E. Hjort Petersen, Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Copenhagen, personal communications, April 1997). Norway spent approximately one third of its total allocation of almost US$15 million on research between 1989 and 1994 and Sweden spent almost US$18 million on research between 1986 and 1996 (Höök 1997). The Netherlands, although not specifying its research budget, has allocated over US$30 million to organic agriculture between 1997 and 2000 (K. Zimmerman, Dutch Agricultural Economics Institute, The Hague, personal communications, May 1997).
Other subsidies affect research less directly, such as those for conversion to or establishment of organic farmers (see Lampkin and Weinschenck (1996) for details). The same authors also mention changes in CAP policies in 1992, which changed the profitability of organic farming and the cost of conversion. In general, established organic crop farmers could well have benefited from the decoupling of subsidies and yield, although livestock farmers received low quotas as compared to what they could have received under a conventional system. These lower quotas could result in lower land values, which is especially important when selling the farm. The situation was somewhat different for farmers in conversion, for whom changing the relative importance of their enterprises (more or less crop or livestock) would be more costly than previously. For example, moving towards a system which requires less cropping and more livestock could mean a loss of eligibility of some arable area payment, while having to purchase a quota for livestock. Some countries, including Austria, Britain, Denmark, Germany and Sweden, made special provisions to ameliorate at least some of the costs to those farmers.
No respondents mentioned activities of interest groups, for those who stand to gain or lose if research in organic agriculture were to be increased, although they no doubt would have some effect.
To summarise, the most important barriers and problems for the advancement for research in organic agriculture were considered by respondents to the questionnaire (all Europeans) and by participants of a workshop in the USA not to be technical, but institutional. The main barriers mentioned were the present structure of research funding; the different requirements in organic agriculture leading to rather expensive research; lack of a united front by the organic sector; scarcity of networks by researchers in organic agriculture; relative lack of good researchers and absence of structure to foster them (by good supervision of potential researchers and peer review); and policies which encourage research in organic agriculture directly or indirectly. In Central and Eastern Europe, lack of legislation and outside pressure regarding the need for certain inputs were also considered problems.
Decisions made on priorities for funding of research will depend on who makes the decision and what pressures the different groups of beneficiaries can bring to bear on the decision-makers. No attempt is made in this section to reach a conclusion on the most efficient way to spend research money. Rather, we look at the participants and discuss what are the most likely areas of interest for research in organic agriculture in the short and medium term.
At first sight, farmers appear to be the beneficiaries of agricultural research, which aims at decreasing costs for the same output (or increasing output for the same costs). In an environment where output prices are not guaranteed, as is the case with organic produce in the EU, prices are related to total supply and demand. If the quantities of output increase and consumption stays the same, prices are bound to drop. A similar situation (where supply increased due to Eastern European countries entering the organic grain market in the EU, which resulted in decreasing prices) was described by Hamm and Michelsen (1996). Although the first farmer to use a new technology could gain substantially from research results (lower production costs per unit, without noticeable increases in total supply and therefore drop in price), long-run gains are likely to be far less. In other words, it is mainly the consumers who stand to gain from technology improvements in agriculture. Other gains can be made in the form of environmental benefits.
One way of measuring the improvements through research is to measure increases in yield over time. However, yield is also related to a number of other factors, such as management skills and inputs used. As mentioned in Section 2.4, Lampkin and Padel (1994, p.202) concluded that yields on organic farms have increased over time, although at a slower rate than those on conventional farms. These figures do not take into account changes in input cost. It is conceivable that yield increases on organic farms have taken place due to improvements in information-based technology, such as knowledge about the place of a particular crop in the rotation, or row distance. Such an improvement requires less direct expenditure than, for example, a more intense use of fertilisers and pesticides, which is more associated with increased yields on conventional farms. If there were such a difference in expenditure on inputs between the systems, the real difference in yield would be less than what appears to be the case at first sight.
Results of both technical (production oriented) and socio-economic research (such as how changes in output can affect prices and optimal combinations of rotations, etc.) can improve farm productivity. Direct benefits are derived mainly from applied research, hence the emphasis on short-term production-related research in the early years of the development of organic agriculture, when organic farmers were the main funders of research.
In the past, this research has often been directed to crop management, with an emphasis on soil, nutrients and weeds. In those countries where organic agriculture is not well established, such as some Central and Eastern European countries, this emphasis could continue for a while. In Western European countries, some redress of the imbalance in topics is noticeable with increased attention to livestock. This is likely to continue in the future. However, it is difficult to imagine that it would relegate research in crop production to second place, especially in countries where crop production is important. In some countries, such as in the UK, farming systems without livestock have had some attention in the past and are likely to continue to be of interest in the future, possibly making them of particular relevance to some areas in developing countries. Livestock issues not only include practical livestock production issues (such as diseases and parasites), but also philosophical ones like determining the place of livestock in the farming system (Lund 1995).
Basic research can be seen as a means to understand processes and through this understanding, increase the potential of progress. It is, perhaps, a more long-term proposition which can be seen as an investment, sometimes rather risky. However, in organic agriculture, some consider it not much more than a means to ‘...enhance the researchers’ reputations among their peers’ (Niggli and Lockeretz, 1996, p.18) and not to great advantage of farmers. Although, undoubtedly, research has been and will be carried out for other reasons than for the advance of farmers or the community, neglecting basic research cannot be but to the detriment of progress in organic agriculture. This view is being voiced more clearly recently (see for, example, Niggli and Lockeretz (1996)), and more emphasis on this kind of research is therefore likely in the future, such as in resistance physiology, weed biology and soil biology (Raupp, 1994).
In the early years, financial comparisons between organic and conventional farming were high on the list of research priorities, especially in terms of financial performance.
This was the case even though established organic farmers did not need to know that the financial comparison between themselves and conventional farmers was at an acceptable level, as found through their own experience. One can surmise that social factors played a role, for example, the need of organic producers to prove that their farming methods were functional and productive. In addition, for researchers to be convinced that this was an area worth exploring in the future, some comparative studies were unavoidable. However, at this point in time financial comparisons do not hold a great attraction for this group of farmers.
Comparisons of physical/biological variables could be viewed differently. As they can give an insight to the weak and strong points of the organic system, they can therefore indicate the areas of most urgent need of attention for research, or possibly in which direction solutions are most likely to be found. For example, comparisons made it clear that plant and animal health on organic farms is often better than on conventional farms. Research into the mechanisms could lead to making full use of this characteristic in both organic and conventional agricultural systems.
The situation for potential organic farmers is different. Although past financial comparisons will be of interest, changes in input prices, output prices, knowledge about management, environmental regulations, etc. change the relative profitability between systems. For this group of farmers, comparisons under present conditions of farming are of interest. However, the question is whether resources allocated to organic farming need to be used for this purpose. In the UK, for example, the priority list for projects to be funded in organic agriculture contains three topics which are mentioned for funding by non-organic funds. Two of them are economic analyses, which presumably will show how the particular enterprises in question, stockless farms and poultry, compare with conditions on ‘normal’ farms. The decision to recommend these topics for funding by non-organic agriculture resources could well have stemmed from considerations of the beneficiaries of the study.
Returns to farming are not only dependent on the production process but also on the existing infra-structure (such as research funding institutions; marketing arrangements (licensing; legal recognition of the word 'organic'; marketing boards); education and extension services; input pricing arrangements). Hence, research convincing policy makers that organic farming does not ruin the farming community or the country, would indirectly benefit organic agriculture. Originally, comparisons were needed to obtain initial interest. Furthermore, comparisons are useful to collect knowledge on the magnitude of, for example, the effect of a change of policy on the different systems. It is policy changes, such as a redirection of research funding and appropriate pricing of environment-polluting inputs which can ultimately benefit those in organic farming. Alternatively, some comparisons can assist in estimating the effects of, for example, changes in output prices and trade policies on the different farming systems.
Whether these kind of benefits warrant eighty per cent of the funding of research in organic farming, as reported by Lindenthal and Plakolm (1993) in Austria in 1991, is of course questionable (Niggli and Lockeretz, 1996). That Austria has now explicitly decided that system comparisons are no longer a priority in research is not surprising in a country which has accepted organic agriculture as the form of sustainable agriculture (Lindenthal, Vogl and Hess, 1996). It is to be expected that the importance of financial comparisons between the two systems in other countries will decrease with increasing official acceptance of organic agriculture. Austria has stipulated though, that in case the ‘...evaluation of new methods cannot otherwise achieve sufficient impact’ (Lindenthal, Vogl and Hess, 1996, p.6), it will still use comparisons as a tool of analysis. In other words, although funding of these types of projects is to be minimised, it is still likely to occur to some degree. Similar developments can be expected in other countries. However, researchers in countries which are relatively recently entering the era of organic agriculture, such as in Central and Eastern Europe, showed most interest in comparisons, not only in the different management systems within their own country, but also in what was available on this topic in other countries.
It has generally been recognised that the conversion time can be difficult for farmers for a number of reasons, including the need to develop the necessary management skills; biological systems on the farm needing time to adjust; investment requirements; and (lack of) marketing possibilities. In order to facilitate the transition from conventional to organic agriculture, considerable research has been carried out in the past. At least in some countries, this research looks as if it will continue for some time to come (see, for example, Elm Farm (1996, p.15-16) for the situation in the UK).
It is only if consumers are willing to buy the produce, that farmers can recoup their production costs. The willingness of consumers to pay a higher price for organic than for conventionally grown produce is not only dependent on what they perceive as the quality of the end-product, but also on their interest in the effect of the production process on the environment. Therefore, information on the food quality and environmental effects of the two farming systems is of interest to consumers. Work has been done in the past, where ‘life-cycle assessment’ has combined quality for health aspects and environmental effects (Meier-Ploeger and Vogtman, 1996; Mattson, 1996). Continued interest in these variables is likely in the future.
Apart from information on the product itself, more emphasis is being put on marketing aspects of organic products. At present there is a dearth of information of all kinds of variables in this area, ranging from expected demand and supply to effects of those changes on prices and thereby on returns to organic farming. Hamm and Michelsen (1996), in their analyses of developments in the German and Danish market in the early 1990s, are rather convincing in their argument that neglecting this area in favour of production issues could have been detrimental to organic farmers. Indeed, for most food products, only a small proportion of consumer expenditure finds its way back to the producer. It is therefore difficult to sustain an argument that higher production costs on organic farms are the key issue. Research on improvement of the marketing system, resulting in lower marketing costs and lower prices, thereby facilitating an increase in consumption of organic produce, are also called for. The effect of promotion on consumer demand is another area of interest.
Organic agriculture is recognised as a way of farming which can alleviate problems inherent to conventional farming. For this reason it is of importance to study how different policies encourage or discourage conventional farmers to make the change to organic management and which policies would bring the desired effect closer. Alternatively, studying the effects of changes in (proposed) policies on organic farmers would enable policy-makers to take such effects into account when making decisions. In the past such studies might have been carried out to enable the environmental interest groups to provide policy-makers with evidence. However, there are now signs that policy-makers seek out this information. For example, a study to research the effect of policies on organic farming and the contribution of organic agriculture to current agricultural and environmental policy objectives, has recently been commissioned by the EU as reported in Section 3.3.1. This study runs from 1997 to mid-2000.
Benefits of organic agricultural management to the environment is an important reason for the interest in organic agriculture in Europe. Research on the effect of this farming system on issues such as biodiversity, water quality, erosion, etc. is therefore likely to continue in the future.
Data on organic agriculture in the public domain is almost non-existent. Many countries have Bureaux of Statistics, Agriculture, and Agricultural Economics which collect data on a number of variables, ready for use when needed. Although some government departments do collect data specifically related to organic agriculture (such as the Institute of Agricultural Economics in The Netherlands), the amount of data on this sector is limited. Most of the data available in this area are probably held by individual researchers.
Standardisation of methods and experiments has not occurred to any large degree in organic agriculture to date. Yet, as standardised trials allow comparisons, standardisation is of great importance as it can reduce the need for research, for example.
In the context of food security, the UN Commission of Economic Development’s (UNCED) follow-up and other global agriculture programmes, FAO has the large responsibility to provide access to and information on ALL agricultural methods which can fulfil in part or in whole its mandate and the special programmes. Therefore, organic agriculture, being a proven production method with many benefits which cannot or are difficult to provide with conventional agricultural methods, should be given serious and much wider attention. FAO needs to give support to organic agriculture in general and the improvement of and education in organic agriculture in particular. Some specific recommendations for such support in the European Region are given below.
One of the characteristics of organic agricultural research is that it is rather site-specific. Differences in physical and biological conditions (such as soil types, climate, etc.) between locations, play a considerably larger role in organic than conventional agriculture. Despite this, all but one of the researchers mentioned the benefits of increased contacts through such mechanisms as networks with others in their field.
As organic agriculture encompasses the whole spectrum of activities and enterprises in agriculture, a network for the whole of organic agriculture would be too vast to be useful. The need for a focused network, that is, a specific topic for the network, was stressed by many of the respondents to the questionnaire. A number of areas which could be logical topics for research include:
- soil management;
- modern breeding methods without genetic engineering;
- fruit management, selecting a particular aspect such as disease management or a special species;
- animal husbandry and alternative animal treatment;
- marketing institutions and effects;
- food quality;
- food processing methods;
- environmental effects of organic agriculture, such as biodiversity conservation, landscape management;
- renewable resource management; and
- policy options.
All of these topics and many more, are worthy of FAO’s attention. When choosing a topic, the criteria for the choice should therefore be considered. If the network is to have extensive contact with an important FAO programme, soil management could be a good choice as soil is a major topic in organic agriculture as well as in FAO. However, if the criterion is to give support to an area which has been relatively neglected but is no less deserving, livestock management or horticulture (especially fruit) could be the more logical choice. Some topics such as marketing and effects of policies on the development of organic agriculture, though neglected in the past, have recently started to gain attention (see Section 5.7). These recent initiatives in Europe, render a new FAO network in the latter subjects, perhaps less justifiable.
Sponsorship by FAO of networks in any of the above areas, within ESCORENA or otherwise, will facilitate organization and other financial assistance of these working groups. This catalytic effect is of significant importance and permits increased participation of Central and Eastern European and Mediterranean scientists. The network support could be extended not only to research groups but to groups for which exchange of ideas in organic agriculture is rather important, such as for:
- extension services: exchange on conversion methods; and
- inspection services: exchange on inspection and certification problems.
- The establishment of comparable databases, not only bibliographic (DOCEA), would be of great benefit to the research community as well as to extension services and producers. Standardising data collection and conversion could be a start for some working groups. The necessary financing for the final databases could be a collaborative project, elaborated as a result of these first efforts. Almost all contacted researchers expressed an interest in and need for the availability of such data.
- FAO could greatly enhance visibility and improve attention to organic agriculture by including it in its annual production and trade statistics, that is, by requesting that information from governments.
- An expert list with specific focus on FAO collaboration in developing countries may be of great benefit.
- Occasional technical consultancies on selected topics may well serve to focus research further and promote it in regions outside of Europe. These may be of more importance to progress in non-European Regions or Central and Eastern Europe. Expertise on a variety of tropical and subtropical conditions is available in Europe.
- According to the Codex Alimentarius draft guidelines, there is a need for the defining of organic production, which would assist countries in their understanding of an applied organic production system. The aim is to achieve international harmonisation of these systems in order to facilitate international trade and to support food security initiatives. Technical consultancies in the areas of, for example, processing, animal standards and new input evaluation could be useful.
- Jointly organized meetings or FAO sponsorship with regional, national or international research institutions or NGOs in part or as a whole focusing on organic farming practices, would be enriching for all partners.
- The support of special studies and publications of proceedings of workshops, etc., is a very important tool and should be used within the framework of networks, databases and meetings. FAO's reputation and global exposure will be of considerable benefit for the distribution of information of any organic agriculture related activities. Electronic publication and FAO's World Agriculture Information Centre (WAICENT) should be made fully available to publicise activities in organic agriculture.
- Closer ties between FAO and IFOAM could facilitate the availability of relevant information on organic agriculture and should therefore be encouraged.
- Results from the EU project described in Section 5.7, would be excellent and opportune for FAO to publicise.
- A special topic electronic discussion list may be of further use either in the framework of a new network or under one of the existing networks.
- FAO could give broader support to the sustainable and environmental benefits of organic agriculture through special studies and through dedicating time and space to it in all policy, research and implementation related activities, reviews and evaluations.
- It is strongly recommended that not only elements of organic agriculture are included in current and future activities (Contado, 1996), but that organic farming as a complete system is given due consideration in such programmes as the Integrated Plant Nutrition System, animal and plant health programmes, the Agroecology interactive guide, the conceived Sustainable Agricultural Technology Transfer and Information Centre (SATTIC) and other activities.
Figure 1: Land area under certified organic farming and under conversion in western Europe
Source: N. Lampkin, Welsh Institute of Rural Studies, Univ. of Wales, Aberystwyth, UK
Figure 2: Number of certified organic and in-conversion farms in western Europe
Source: N. Lampkin, Welsh Institute of Rural Studies, Univ. of Wales, Aberystwyth, UK
Figure 3: Organically cultivated area in 1993 and 1996 as % of utilisable agricultural area in 1993
Source: N. Lampkin, Welsh Institute of Rural Studies, Univ. of Wales, Aberystwyth, UK
The objective of the Report, entitled: "Research on Biological Farming Methods in Europe, Status, Requirements and Perspectives", is to provide a working document with sufficient information and recommendations to permit FAO and research experts to evaluate the need and possible focus of an ESCORENA research network on Biological Farming Methods or other support which can be provided by FAO and be of benefit to FAO.
The Report should cover at least the following topics:
- Review of past and present research activities, priorities and trends;
- Review of relevance of biological farming methods for agriculture, environment, economy and society in Europe and its global significance;
- Importance, relevance and special issues for research in support of improvement of biological farming practices (priorities and interests according to government research institutions, universities, private organizations, international institutions and farmers);
- Present barriers and problems for the advancement of research in biological farming;
- Analysis of present and future needs of researchers in Western and Eastern Europe related to research in biological farming (priorities, collaboration, joint projects, cross-country comparisons, data needs, policy, etc.); and
- Recommendations including suggestions on activities which could lead to future action by FAO: technical consultations, networks, NGO collaboration, publications, databases, information exchange and others.
A detailed content list and content development should be established in close cooperation with REU technical officers. A draft should be provided to REU for comments at least two weeks prior to the final deadline.
FAO retains the copyright to the Report and reserves the right to publish the Report in part or whole in either print or electronic media, giving reference to the Report and its author.
|
What has been achieved until 1996? |
References |
|
Arable Crops |
|
|
· High capacity implements for mechanical and thermal weed control. |
Dierauer and Stöppler, 1994 |
|
· Optimised tillage, mulching and soil conservation technique |
Hampl. 1995 |
|
· Better crop rotations and tillage to preserve nutrients (esp. nitrogen) and to compete with weeds. |
Woodward and Burge 1982; Heß, 1990; Köpke, 1992; Philipps and Stopes, 1995 |
|
· Optimised techniques for storage, preparation and distribution of farm yard manure and slurry. |
Dewes, 1987; Ott., 1990; |
|
· New implements and preparations to improve composting; introduction of household waste compost. |
Fricke et al., 1990; Amlinger, 1993;Berner et al., 1995b |
|
· Enhancement of disease suppressivity of soils and resistance induction by micro-organisms. |
Schüler et al., 1989; Weltzien, 1989 |
|
· Introduction of variety mixtures in wheat (better milstem resistance). |
Wolfe, 1985 |
|
· New biological seed dressing methods and seed quality. |
Piorr, 1990; Winter et al., 1994 |
|
· Progress in wheat breeding for disease resistance and protein quality under low-input conditions. |
Stöppler et al., 1993;Kunz and Karutz, 1991 |
|
· Greatly improved knowledge about the enhancement of beneficial organisms in crops with field margins, hedgerows and weed strips. |
Nadwo, 1982; Altieri and Letourneau, 1994; Nentwig, 1988, 1989; Thomas et al., 1992 |
|
Horticultural Crops (vegetables, fruits, vine) |
|
|
· A much greater range of disease and pest resistant varieties, esp. apples and various vegetables. |
Weibel, 1995 |
|
· Several dozen new organisms for pest control in glasshouses and in the field. |
Ramakers, 1989; |
|
· First microbial antagonists for disease
control in practice. |
Schmutter and Asher, 1987; Häseli, 1995 |
|
· New specialised implements for weed control and mulching in all crops. |
Dierauer and Stöppler, 1993; |
|
· Better soil conservation and mulching techniques to compete with weeds and to control water and nitrogen supply. |
Weibel, 1995 |
|
· Greatly improved knowledge about the enhancement of beneficial organisms and antagonists ("system design instead of pest and disease control"). |
Altieri et al., 1985; Bugg et al., 1994; Wyss, 1995 |
|
Animal Husbandry |
|
|
· Solutions for species-appropriate housing and outdoor fattening/breeding. |
Van Putten, 1978; Stolba, 1981; Etter-Kielsaas, 1986; Rist et al., 1987; Fölsch and Vestergaard, 1984; Schmid, 1991 |
|
· Basic data for appropriate breeding programs and breeding for longevity. |
Bakels, 1960; Haiger, 1988; |
|
· Application of homeopathy, plant therapies and biological control of livestock pests in veterinary medicine. |
Scofield, 1984; Stopes and Woodward, 1990; Patterson (ed.), 1990 |
|
· Holistic strategies of health prevention (herd management, etc.) |
Howard et al. 1989; Rüsch, 1994 |
|
Farm Management |
|
|
· Large data banks in all countries about the economic efficiency of organic farms. |
Lampkin and Padel (eds.), 1994; |
|
· Advisory services provided with better data for farm planning and conversion (gross margin catalogues, PC planning programs). |
Freyer et al. (eds.), 1995 |
|
Quality and Human Nutrition |
|
|
· A large database of comparative studies of the quality of organic foodstuffs. |
Woese et al., 1995 |
|
· New methods of quality testing (picture
developing methods, biophotons, etc.). |
Balzer, 1994; Mäder et al., 1993 Basker, 1992 |
|
Ecological Balance, Regional Conversion |
|
|
· Many studies concerning the ecological advantages of organic farming. |
Reganold et al., 1987; Wollf-Straub, 1989; Beck, 1991; Bauchhenss, 1991; Mäder et al., 1993; Pfiffner and Niggli, 1996 |
|
· Studies on regional development, nature conservation and organic farming. |
Braun, 1995; Freyer and Reisner,1996; Bechmann et al.,1996. |
|
· Studies on energy consumption in organic farming. |
Lockeretz, 1977; Klepper et al., 1977; Alföldi et al., 1995 |
|
· Studies on climate and global environmental change and organic farming. |
Meier-Ploeger and Kjer, 1995;Haas and Köpke, 1995 |
Source: Niggli and Lockeretz (1996)
C.1 Questionnaire
You may have seen in the IFOAM Newsletter of October 1996 the message about the FAO and FAL Joint Conference (Federal Agricultural Research Centre) in Braunschweig, Germany from 22 to 28 June 1997. Part of that Conference will be on organic agriculture and is sponsored by FAO. FAO is interested to see whether setting up a network is of interest to researchers in organic agriculture and if so, in which way FAO can contribute. In order to initiate the debate. I have been asked to write a report on organic research in Europe, including about where research could\should go in the future.
I feel it is only appropriate to ask those who are involved with organic agriculture how they see research in this area in the future and in which way they think FAO can be of help to them. For this reason I am interested in your opinions on the following issues:
1. Research in support of improvement of biological farming practices:
What are the interests and priorities at present?
Is there a difference between research institutions, universities, other private organizations and farmers?
2. Present barriers and problems for the advancement of research in biological farming.
3. Present and future needs of researchers related to research in biological farming:
What are your priorities?
Do you want collaboration with others, and if so, how?
(For example, joint projects, cross-country comparisons, data collection, policy development).
4. How do you think FAO could work with researchers in biological farming: technical consultations, networks, NGO collaboration, publications, databases, information exchange, other?
5. What does a network need to be or what do you require from a network to be interested in joining?
6. How could\would you or your organization contribute to and make use of a network for researchers in organic agriculture?
C.2 Addressees
The questionnaire was sent to three groups of people:
1. An email mailing list on ecological agriculture (many people with an email address in the IFOAM Conference (Copenhagen, August 1996) List of Participants were personally addressed by email). A selection was made as follows:
- in countries with few email addresses, all people were addressed;
- in countries where many people had email, a selection was made of people expected to be particularly relevant in the area of research, such as one person from each research station, department or other organization.
2. In those countries from which too few email contacts were received, people were addressed by fax or letter.
3. Directors of the Avalon Foundation who live in Central or Eastern Europe.
Kuhn (1970, p.10) explains a paradigm as:
'normal science' which is '...research firmly based upon one or more past scientific achievements, achievements that some particular scientific community acknowledges for a time as supplying the foundations for its further practice'. Scientists conduct research within the existing paradigm. This is the 'world view' in which they define and test hypothesis and interpret data. A paradigm and its rules, as revealed in textbooks, lectures and laboratory exercises, limit the nature of acceptable solutions and the steps by which they are to be obtained.
In theory, discussions between the proponents of the different paradigms are never quite satisfactory for a number of reasons. Kuhn calls those collectively ‘incommensurability’, of which the most essential part is that '...proponents of competing paradigms practice their trades in different worlds' (Kuhn 1970, p.150). A quote can make the issue clearer:
'...Both are looking at the world and what they look at has not changed. But in some areas they see different things and they see them in different relation one to the other. That is why a law that cannot even be demonstrated to one group of scientists may occasionally seem intuitively obvious to another. Equally, it is why, before they can hope to communicate fully, one group or the other must experience the conversion that we have been calling a paradigm shift. Just because it is a transition between incommensurable, the transition between competing paradigms cannot be made a step at a time, forced by logic and neutral experience. Like the gestalt switch, it must occur all at once (though not necessarily in an instant) or not at all'.
A typical process of a paradigm shift goes as follows: 'normal science' is starting to be troubled by crises. Such crises are due to phenomena which cannot be explained by the theory on which the science of the day is based. 'Normal science' is constructed in such a way that a new paradigm (that is, a new 'science' with its own theories, rules and assumptions) is resisted by most scientists. That is, anomalies are considered as another piece of the 'puzzle' which has not yet been solved but will in time, within the existing paradigm. Anomalies are never seen as disproving the universal application of existing theories. In order to cope with them, 'ad hoc' modifications are made to 'normal science'.
In the meanwhile, a different theory is developed which, in the beginning, can only explain some of the questions posed. Some scientists take the step towards the new theory, which means an adjustment to the principles which are the basis of their research. Different questions are asked, solutions are sought in different ways from previously. Specialised journals and societies appear. Claims are made for a special place in the curriculum of education institutions. A discussion between the two competing paradigms is never quite satisfactory, as theories are incommensurable (having no common standard of comparison) and proponents of each camp base their arguments on different assumptions and priorities. Over time textbooks are written, the new ideas are popularised, more scientists take the step and slowly the new paradigm becomes 'normal science', displacing the old paradigm.
(From: Wynen, 1996, pp.4-5 and 29).
Wynen (1996) found that the process of development of organic agriculture was rather similar to Kuhn’s outline of a paradigm shift in science. As proponents of one paradigm are not likely to consider another paradigm useful for progress, this will reflect in fund allocations.
Balfour, E. (1975), The Living Soil/The Haughley Experiment, Faber and Faber, London.
Besson, J. (ed.). (1990), Biological Farming in Europe, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.
Boehncke, E. and Krutzinna, C. (1996), ‘Animal health’. In T. Oestergaard (ed), Fundamentals of Organic Agriculture, International Organisation for Organic Agricultural Movements, Tholey Theley, pp. 113-124.
Contado, T. (1996), ‘Organic agriculture in the policy of FAO’. Speech presented on behalf of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations at the 11th IFOAM International Scientific Conference, Copenhagen, August.
Danish Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (1995), Plan of Action for the Advancement of Organic Food Production in Denmark, Division of Structure for Agriculture and Fisheries, Copenhagen.
Dlouhy, J. and Nilsson, G. (ed.) (1983), Comparisons Between Farming Systems, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala.
EC (1991), Council Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91.
Ecology and Farming (1994), 'Sweden: 10 % organic by 2000', Ecology and Farming, (7), p.7.
Ecology and Farming (May 1995), '10% by 2002 in Finland', Ecology and Farming, (9), p.8.
Ecology and Farming (1996), ‘Regional Focus’, International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements, Ecology and Farming (13).
Eitjes, H. and Haan, E. den (1987), Indirecte kosten van bestrijdingsmiddelen gebruik, Rapport 8705-223, Wetenschapswinkel, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
Egmont-Florian, D. van (1997), ‘Unsafe drinking water leads to government organic conversion, France’, Ecology and Farming (14), p.25.
Elm Farm Research Centre (1996), Survey of Organic Farming Research and Development in the UK 1993-1996, Elm Farm Research Centre, Hamstead Marshall, UK.
FAO (1996a), European System of Cooperative Research Networks in Agriculture (ESCORENA), Regional Office for Europe, Progress Report, May.
FAO (1996b), Environment, sustainability and trade linkages for basic foodstuffs, Rome.
Gabriel, C. (1994), ‘Research in support of sustainable agriculture’, http://www.reston.com/a...ence/vol45/sust.ag.html, 3 May 1997.
Hamm, U. and Michelsen, J. (1996), ‘Organic agriculture in a market economy. Perspectives from Germany and Denmark’. In T. Oestergaard (ed), Fundamentals of Organic Agriculture International Organisation for Organic Agricultural Movements, Tholey Theley, pp. 208-222.
Heid, P. (1997), ‘Organic farming protects drinking water around Munich, Germany’. Ecology and Farming, (14), p.24.
Hodges, D. and Arden-Clarke, C. (1986), Soil Erosion in Britain - Levels of Soil Damage and Their Relationship to Farming Practices, Soil Association.
Höök (1997), Ekologisk jordbruks och traedgaardsproduktion - Forskning I sju europeiska laender. Report prepared for the Forestry and Agricultural Research Board, Stockholm.
Will be published in English under the title:
‘Ecological agriculture and horticulture production - Research in seven European countries’.
Kristensen, N. H. and Hoegh-Jensen, H. (1996), New Research in Organic Agriculture, Proceedings of the 11 International Scientific Conference of the International Organisation for Organic Agricultural Movements, ‘Down to Earth and Further Afield’, Copenhagen, August.
Kuhn, S. (1970), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Lampkin, N. and Padel, S. (1994), The Economics of Organic Farming - An International Perspective, CAB International, Wallingford, UK.
Lampkin, N. and Weinschenck, G. (1996), ‘Organic farming and agricultural policy in western Europe’. In T. Oestergaard (ed), Fundamentals of Organic Agriculture, International Organisation for Organic Agricultural Movements, Tholey Theley, (pp. 223-239).
Langley, J., Heady, E. and Olson, K. (1983), 'The macro-implications of a complete transformation of US agricultural production to organic farming practices', Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 10, pp.323-333.
Lindenthal, T., Vogl, C. and Hess, J. (1996). Forschung im Oekologischen Landbau, Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Austria.
Lund, V. (1995), Husdyrhold i økologisk landbruk, Norsk Senter for Økologisk Jordbruk, Tingvoll, Norway. (A shorter, English version was presented at the 10th Conference of the International Federation of Organic Agricultural Movements.. (1994), ‘The principles of ecological animal husbandry’).
Mansvelt, J.D. van and Koelster, P. (1990), ‘Education and training in organic agriculture: Present situation and polar aspects of educational content’. In J.M. Besson (ed.), Biological Farming in Europe: Challenges and Opportunities, FAO, Rome.
Mattson, B. (1996), ‘Life cycle assessment (LCA) of agricultural and industrial food production’. In N. H. Kristensen & H. Hoegh-Jensen (eds.), New Research in Organic Agriculture, International Organisation for Organic Agricultural Movements, Tholey Theley, pp. 180-184.
Meier-Ploeger, A. and Vogtmann, H. (1996), ‘Product and Environment: Quality and public health’. In T. Oestergaard (ed), Fundamentals of Organic Agriculture, International Organisation for Organic Agricultural Movements, Tholey Theley, pp. 176-189.
Miettinen, M., Koikkalainen, K., Vehkasalo, V. Sumelius, J. (1997), ‘Organic Finland? The economic effects on the environmental impacts of agricultural production alternatives’, Agricultural Economics Research Institute, No. 83, Finland.
Niggli, U. and Lockeretz, W. (1996), ‘Development of research in organic agriculture’. In T. Oestergaard (ed), Fundamentals of Organic Agriculture, International Organisation for Organic Agricultural Movements, Tholey Theley, pp. 9-23.
Oestergaard, T. (ed). (1996). Fundamentals of Organic Agriculture. Proceedings of the 11th International Scientific Conference of the International Organisation for Organic Agricultural Movements, ‘Down to Earth and Further Afield’, Copenhagen, August.
Olson, K., Langley, J. and Heady, E. (1982), ‘Widespread adoption of organic farming practices: estimated effect on U.S. agriculture’, Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 37(1), pp.41-45.
Pimentel, D., Acquay, H., Biltonen, M., Rice, P., Silva, M., Nelson, J., Lipner, V., Giordano, S., Horowitz, A. and D'Amore, M. (1993), ‘Assessment of environmental and economic impacts of pesticide use’. In D. Pimentel and H. Lehman (eds.), The Pesticide
Question: Environment, Economics and Ethics, Chapman and Hall, New York, (pp. 47-84).
Raupp, J. (1994), ‘Some ideas and guidelines for research on ecological agriculture’, American Journal of Alternative Agriculture, 9 (1-2), pp.84-87.
Redman, M. (1996), Industrial agriculture: counting the costs, Soil Association UK.
Reganold, J. (1995), ‘Soil quality and profitability of bio-dynamic and conventional farming systems: A review’. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture, 10 (1), pp.36-45.
US National Research Council (1989), Alternative Agriculture, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
Vogtmann, H., Stopes, C., Olez, H. and Besson, J.-M. (1990), ‘Biological farming in Europe: challenges and opportunities - Conclusions and recommendations of the FAO expert consultation’. In J.-M. Besson (eds.), Biological Farming in Europe: Challenges and Opportunities, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Rome, pp.11-12.
Vogtmann, H., Zehr, M. and Simon, K.-H. (1996), ‘Agriculture and climate: the influence of agricultural production on the atmosphere comparing conventional and organic agriculture’. In N. H. Kristensen and H. Hoegh-Jensen (eds.), New Research in Organic Agriculture, International Organisation for Organic Agricultural Movements, Tholey Theley, pp. 200-207).
Woodward, L., Flemming, D. and Vogtmann, H. (1996). ‘Reflections on the past, outlook for the future’. In T. Oestergaard (ed), Fundamentals of Organic Agriculture, International Organisation for Organic Agricultural Movements, Tholey Theley, pp. 259-270.
Wynen, E. (1996), 'Research Implications of a Paradigm Shift in Agriculture: The Case of Organic Farming', Resource and Environmental Studies, No. 12, Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies, Australian National University, Canberra, May.
Wynen (1997), 'Impact on Australian Broadacre Agriculture of Widespread Adoption of Organic Farming'. Report commissioned by the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Canberra, Centre of Resource and Environmental Studies, Australian National University, June.
|
[1] Rainer Krell conceived the
project and provided comments during the different stages. Many people working
in organic agriculture spent time in describing their knowledge of and
experiences in organic agriculture. Vonne Lund gave feed-back on an earlier
draft of the Report. The author thanks these and others for their time and
energy. [2] The European System of Cooperative Research Networks in Agriculture (ESCORENA) was established in 1974 and consists of 13 different networks. It promotes
Whenever a need arises and financial resources are available,
other cooperative activities are undertaken such as training courses, study
tours and exchange of materials and experts.’ (FAO 1996a). |
